Teachers who teach Traditional Characters?!! Why?

[Eulloba]

"That is the whole truth pure and simple"

- Concludes a character after contriving a "simplified" and false explanation of how matters stand. To what his friend replies:

"The truth is rarely pure and never simple"

(Oscar Wilde, The Importance of being Ernest).

When facing a problem or a chalenge. It takes very little time and effort to produce a a simplified and false solution of the matter.

Until recently the extinction of any species without an obvious commercial value was a matter of no concern for any one. It was a "simple" matter for anyone to understand the "simplification" of the environment, the fewer useless species, the better for the survival or rather the supremacy of humanity. It was not easy, even to scientist, to get to the understanding that in the environmental balance of nature all species, no matter how humble they would seem, played a fundamental role, not only as a matter of enviriomental conservation but as a matter of human survival. Even today, in this matter, as in so many matters, it takes a specialized view to really understand it.

It would be easy to defend that typing with just one finger, rather than than using all your fingers, it's so much better: you don't have to "waste time" learning how to type and you can start typingy at once: "Pure and simple"... and convincing?, yes, if you don't allow sufficient time to explain to tell apart right from wrong.

A tiger with less stripes is hardly recognizable, if at all. A tiger with all its stripes is instantly recognized as a tiger. It is easy to simplify the tiger with fewer and fewer stripes until we make unrecognizable: as in so many cases simplification means complication

Simplification was devised and implemented for the wrong reasons: 1) as a first step and EXPLICITY DECLARED substitution of the Chinese script for the so "much better" alphabetic system (at the time it was explicitly stated, now it continues to operate tacitly in a thousand ways, pinyin gaining ground and many chinese really feel uneasy about their scpript). 2) The aim was not to simplify, that is to say, to study how to make the system better of more logical, or "simpler". It was thought, as it were, it woud be very easy to improve Shakespeare's works simply, cutting and rewriting here and there, so simple and so well intentioned, no doubt. The logical and most obvious result is the complication of the Chinese script, not the simplification: now, seriously, it is much more fun, you have to learn to set of characters, traditional and simplified. Without mentioning that the simplification was done on the basis of traditional characters!

Traditional versus simplified is not a question of "I like the one" or "I dislike the other". It's a matter for scientist and scholars to study and decide. Let's reming us simplification was decided from "up above", without any real debate. It was a pure imposition. That is why a real debate should start solely considering Traditional characters, without any consideration for simplified characters, which came out from the blue, to study what can we do to maintain them, or suppress them altogether if they are so obsolete (provided everyone can speak putonhua)

In my view there is no real controversy over traditional characters versus simplified ones. It is simply a false controversy. Behind the traditional charactes stands all the scientific evidence (no need to lean on tradition) . Behind simplification there is just a political issue. It all started as a dictatorial imposition. If this was or was not well intended is inmaterial (I believe it was well intended). The worst disasters in history are brought about by well intended people and theories that pretend to know how solve problems, bringing about and maintaining chaos through ignorance, imposition, lack of knowlege and debate. It is easy to win over the will of people by imposition and then, when you see your error and do not want to admit, by deceit, and of course, all backed up by POWER.

Simplified characters (and alphabetic writing) are sold as terribly simple and logical. But as it so often happens with reality, the real explanation is not so simple and logical.

"Now produce your explanation, and pray make it improbable". continued the argument in the above quoted Oscar Wilde.

If the chinese people were given the oportunity to see and ponder how simplification is wrong in every respect (we do not even need to consider tradition) they would be horrified. There are consequences: more and more chinese people are using pinyin for many purposes (sending messages over mobile phones, using computers, etc), and they are in general losing command of characters (simplified and traditional), coming to the gradual conviction they are something obsolete. When you ask them, "why don't you use Cang Jie, or a similar ideographic way of writing with a keyboard?", they admit it is better and quicker way to write, but they don't want to spend the time learning it...

Reading this some would say why I do not give actual examples of what I mean about how good traditional characters are. Well, it's easy to pose a question such as "explain the thery of relativity in 5 minutes", but to answer, it is not difficult, if you know it, but it takes more space and time.

But there is a partial and practical answer to that. It is not by pure lack tha the most respected authority on the web (apart from more specilized resources such as Wieger, etc.) about Chinese etymology is Zhongwen.com. This dictionary whose main aim is to give etymological explanations within a two thousand year old chinese system, absolutely and uniquely relies on traditional characters. Althogh this site is far from giving a full explanation, it is the best resource and easy reference for the understanding of how chinese traditional characters (not simplified ones!) are related to one another in such a wonderful way. One can only think that Chinese characters were invented out of the blue by a person or persons, but rather is, as it where, they are as "a mirror up to nature", that is to say: as with nature, in the first place, over 5 thousand years ago, characters were developped, "appeared", and were used, and in the second place, over and over again, the last time about 2 thousand years ago by the Shuo Wen, the great dictionary compilers tried to understand the system behind the characters. In the same way when you contemplate a forest, you fail to understand the system, but then, little by little, it dawns on you that everything is in its place, sustaining and being sustained, a system no artificially or humanly devised, but naturally developped.

Finally, let me say THE CHINESE SCRIPT ISSUE, is not just another issue. It is The Issue. Can you conceive the Chinese History, and Culture without the Chinese script?. Let's only mention that it is generally admitted that the Chinese script is the main, if not the unique, factor which explain the survival of the Chinese nation as a united whole over thousands of years.

[xichg]

"If the chinese people were given the oportunity to see and ponder how simplification is wrong in every respect (we do not even need to consider tradition) they would be horrified."

Poor 1billion+ Chinese! They live in the dark. They are unenlightened! They don't know anything. We have to go there and open their eyes. We need to help them by bringing light to them. We need to show them how to live a rightous life. We need to make them accept *** as our savior and so their souls will be saved; We need to bring democracy (Iraqi style?) to them and people will enjoy the democracy fruits they have never enjoyed before...

To say the least, As a Chinese I don't care that much for your conscending tone. And I also believe that the people who are at the best position to judge are the Chinese language users who mostly reside in China and have to learn, write and read Chinese Hanzi on the daily basis. I wouldn't mind Traditional Chinese characters being difficult if I were learning it as a hobby or my primary goal is to appreciate the calligraphy beauty. But when you have to use the Hanzi on the daily basis easiness and convenience are the most important factors. Simplified Hanzi has been offically in use for several decades and people are just doing fine. If they are happy with it, how about we just leave them alone and give the simplified/traditional issue and ourselves a break?

[imron]

Pfff, traditional characters are nothing but an abomination imposed on the Chinese 2000 years ago by mandarins hell-bent on manipulating and controlling the population, all of this backed up by POWER. What we need is a return to seal script... umm no wait, I mean oracle bone script. The true original (and therefore most traditional) form of characters. The amount of meaning lost when they converted to traditional characters some 2000 years ago is staggering. Traditional characters barely look anything like the original pictographs upon which they are based. Such simplification to make them easier to read/write is an abomination to all rational human beings. I long for the day when Chinese everywhere realise their mistake, and return to using seal...errm I mean oracle bone script..

Down with Traditional Characters! Down with progress!

[md1101]

when i ask my chinese friends what they think of simplified vs. traditional they usually say simplified is good because it's easier but nonetheless it's a shame they changed from traditional because traditional characters carry a lot of chinese history behind it. i think most educated people in china would prefer to have kept traditional merely for the historical meanings behind it. the argument here should be against the CCP.

xichg,

We need to bring democracy (Iraqi style?)

... haha thats brilliant! i think any non democratic country in the world should be able to use that against the US for decades to come.

but i dont think people are trying to tell the chinese what to do as though they are some lower form of beings in need of enlightenment as you interpreted a quote in one of your posts.. from living in china it is well known that people in china are never given the full side of any story if it has any political overtones. the reason people think they are helping the chinese is because they think they would think and act differently if they knew the full side of the story (whatever it may be). well at least thats as far as my belief goes. if the chinese still want to act a certain way after having access to all information then so be it. for example i dont think it is political taboo to talk about traditional vs. simplified in china so i respect any opinion an educated person might have on the issue.

i personally wish traditional characters would vanish off the face of the planet so i dont ever have to bother with them after all the years ive spent on simplified.

[imron]

i think most educated people in china would prefer to have kept traditional merely for the historical meanings behind it.

Many educated Chinese (including several famous authors - most notably Lu Xun) are/were in favour of simplification - even to the point of doing away with characters all together. The point is, there are many educated people, both Chinese and non-Chinese who prefer/are in favour of simplified characters, although really, I would say the vast majority don't really care one way or the other. People just make use of the system they have grown up with, and/or are surrounded by, because thats what's practical for their daily lives.

To suggest (as certain posters have) that simplified characters are bad because 1) traditional characters were here first and 2) they were implemented by the CCP, and everything the CCP does is bad/evil therefore simplified characters are bad/evil too, really doesn't stand as an argument. If you argue 1) then why stop at traditional characters, and why not go back to seal-script or oracle bone script, both of which predate traditional chars by centuries.

If you argue 2), you're ignoring the fact that the debate for simplification was going on for decades before the CCP came to power, and also ignoring the fact that many of the simplifications were simply the standardisation of simplifications that had been in common use in everyday handwriting for centuries. You're also ignoring the fact that there are other countries (e.g. Singapore) that use simplified characters, and started using them without the bullying of the CCP.

The fact is, change happens, writing systems change and are updated, and the world keeps turning. You don't have to like simplified characters but you can't ignore that simplified characters exist, have existed for ages, and aren't going to go away anytime soon.

As for which system is better, it's quite simple. Traditional are better if you're going to be in a place that predominately uses traditional characters (Taiwan, Hong Kong), and simplified are better if you're going to be in a place that predominately uses simplified characters (mainland China, Singapore). Which is to say, one system isn't necessarily better or worse than the other, and it really depends on what everyone else around you is using.

[Mark Yong]

The idea that if "originality" is to be the driving force behind supporting Traditional Characters, we should go back to the Seal or Oracle Bone Scripts is an interesting one. Even Dr. L. Wieger points out in his book "Chinese Characters: Their Origin, Etymology, History, Classification and Simplification" that some of the so-called Traditional Characters we have today were simplifications, and in many cases, injudiciously done to the point of loss of etymology.

I agree that many of the so-called Simplified Characters today have been around for centuries, and were only officially recognised (i.e. not created) during the simplification process. Those I have not much problems with, if only that they destroy the beauty of the original characters. However, it is the non-etymological simplifications and character elimination - many of which were biased toward Mandarin pronunciation and vocabulary - that I have much objection to.

To cite some examples:

1. The merging of 裏 (inside) and 里 (mile) to a single character 里 results in the loss of distinction between the two totally-unrelated words. Some may argue that this ambiguity is resolved when the word occurs in the context of the sentence. However, this argument only holds true if the character does occur in a full and unambiguous sentence - which, as we know, may not necessarily be the case (especially in Literary Chinese 文言文).

2. The injudicious simplification of 廣 to 广 and 廠 to 厂, in my humble opinion, resulted in the loss of the phonetic elements of the characters. In addition, the two simplified characters, if read from a faraway signboard or on a poorly-handwritten text, can be easily mixed-up.

In my opinion, the character simplifications based on the Grass Characters (草書) and Running Hand (行書) are fine. However, because they are based on the more complex Traditional Characters, it is better to learn to write them in their complete Traditional Character forms, before eventually developing the short-hand. The concept is the same as teaching Western schoolchildren to write the full blocked forms of alphabets first, before they move on to cursive writing.

My other reason for supporting Traditional Characters is that they are the form of characters shared in common with Japanese Kanji, Korean Hanja and, to a certain extent, Vietnamese Chu-Nom. In my opinion, this is an important link binding the histories of the East Asian nations that once used the Chinese language as a medium of communication. I wrote at lengths about this in a separate forum entry:

http://www.chinese-forums.com/index.php?/topic/9426-literary-chinese-bridging-the-east-asian-nations

The concept of a written language evolving in the name of practicality is undisputed. If Mandarin is the standard for written Chinese of the future, and the character simplification process is congruent with it, then the change is inevitable. But there is a lot to be said for the legacy and beauty of the traditional written forms, and the important link to past literature.

Written languages and characters will evolve and be updated, I agree. However, they must be done for the right reasons, i.e. for linguistic reasons and not political ones. I agree that after many decades of using the Simplified Characters, mainland Chinese are obviously used to using them, and for all practical intents and purposes, they are the functional forms of characters for daily use. That's fine. The real question to ask is, if the mainland decides to re-adopt Traditional Characters in the future, would it necessarily be a bad thing? I doubt it, and I would even venture to say that it would be a good thing.

I agree with Eulloba, that what we like or dislike is often a matter of what we are used to, a matter of perception. But those who hold the linguistic pulse of the nations must judiciously choose what is best for the people to be conditioned to be used to and prefer using in daily life.

Besides, Hong Kong, Taiwan and many overseas Chinese communities survive well with Traditional Characters with no compromise on practicality. I personally would weep for the day when the mainland imposes Simplified Characters on Hong Kong / Taiwan.

[roddy]

if only that they destroy the beauty of the original characters

Minor point, but a pet niggle of mine - they don't destroy the beauty of the original characters. The original characters are still there to be appreciated, for anyone who wants to do so. They might be aesthetically inferior and you might not like them as much (I question though, how often people living in traditional-character using areas get a gas bill and think 'Wow, isn't 氣 gorgeous', rather than 'Must pay this') but nothing has been destroyed - it's just been moved, for reasons that may or may not be justifiable, from the realm of everyday use to that of enthusiasts, academia, history, etc. Perhaps in a similar way to what happened to Latin in Europe.

[xichg]

Actually its situation is better than that of Latin which is an extinct language. Tranditional Hanzis are still in use and as you said you can 'appreicate' them whenever you want to. So the so-called beauty has not be destoryed.

[Ian_Lee]

It seems that the traditional vs simplified debate does not only go on outside Mainland China but actually inside Mainland China.

Here is the fierce debate in the Mainland-based Dayoo.com's forum:

http://club.dayoo.com/read.dy?b=cantonese&t=792108&i=792108&p=1

Unlike many fellow posters who claim that the absolute majority of people in Mainland support simplified script, actually those who favor traditional script seem to be in a slight majority in that forum.

[Ian_Lee]

Actually there are some points mentioned in those debates which are absent in this forum:

Official suppression of traditional script by the government.

Many posters claim here that people can freely use traditional script if they want in Mainland. But it is UNTRUE. Traditional script is officially declared as 不規範用字 by the government and prohibited to be used in public media or shop signs. In fact, the government has repeatedly given administrative orders that no shop signs can use traditional script or otherwise the owners will be punished.

If traditional script is Latin (as some posters conceive) which is basically a DEAD language, then does the government need to seriously restrict its usage as Beijing has done?

Does any western government need to restrict the use of Latin? Even my daughter don't care to take the Latin course in High School!

[Ian_Lee]

This is the recent reinforced mandated ban of usage of traditional characters by Beijing municipal government last month:

北京晨报4月14日报道 今后类似“与食（时）俱进”、“吉庆有鱼（余）”等不规范的“谐音成语”将禁止出现在户外广告中。北京市语委有关负责人在今年本市语言文字工作会议上透露，今年语委将与有关部门联手开展语言文字规范工作。

今后对违反语言文字规范标准，使用繁体字、异体字、错别字、二简字或编造的谐音成语等企业或广告名称，市工商局将一律不予登记或备案。据悉，去年市工商局受理企业名称登记时，预先“消灭”了约1.7万处不规范用字。

市文明办将语言文字规范要求写进文明城区和首都文明示范街的评比标准中，在评选中，街头一些牌匾上使用的不规范用字将得到纠正。例如，目前不少饭馆将“羊蝎子”误写成“羊羯子”，在评比过程中将进行纠正。

另外，市商务局将要求商场设置标志用字规范，店内的宣传品、明示牌、促销信息要统一印制，不得使用繁体字、异体字以及自造字。要求商场广播员使用普通话播音，并鼓励用中英文双语播音。市公园管理中心将对公园、景点、风景名胜区的导游牌、说明牌在使用规范中文的同时要设置英文标识，已设置英文的标牌要重新审核。市公交集团还将规范公交站牌的用字

You can't even register your business or make commercial in traditional character! Isn't that a ban? Moreover, the government again equates traditional characters as "uncivilized behavior". They should care more about those "uncivilized behaviors" like spitting than writing traditional characters! Moreover, last year the government has "destroyed" 17,000 不规范用字 in Beijing alone. If traditional character has lost its popularity and vitality, why do so many people try to resurrect it?

[Mark Yong]

I would be very sad for the day, if and when the Beijing government supplants the Cantonese dialect in Hong Kong with Mandarin, and imposes the ban on Traditional Characters. To me, it smacks of linguistic 'ethnic cleansing'.

Both Hong Kong and Taiwan enjoy a very high literacy rates using Traditional Characters, so in my humble opinion, the whole idea of increasing literacy via Simplified Characters is nonsense.

I am sorry if I sound a little harsh. I just happen to take the destruction of a 3,000 year old legacy very personally.

[imron]

I just happen to take the destruction of a 3,000 year old legacy very personally.

Well, perhaps you can take some consolation from the fact that traditional characters in their current form are only 2,000 years old, and so you should only feel 2/3rds as upset as you used to be.

Regarding the use of traditional characters on the mainland, people try to use them in signs and the like not because they are pining for a return to using these characters in daily life, but because they think it gives the sign an air of elegance or ancient charm (similar perhaps to seeing "ye olde shoppe" or something like that in English). What you end up with however is shops creating signs like 美容美發 instead of 美容美髮 (I wonder if you find that more of an abomination than simplified characters).

Also, the ban mentions 不规范用字 is not just traditional characters, but also 异体字、错别字、二简字或编造的谐音成语. Of those 17,000 不规范用字 that were ”destroyed“ how many were for using traditional characters, and how many were for the other kinds of 不规范用字? Of those using traditional characters, how many were correct usage of traditional characters compared to incorrect usages like 美發 etc?

Incidentally, that 17,000 was just talking about registration of business names, not for usage in signage. Most countries in the world place restrictions on the names you can use for a business. In China in addition to not being able to use 不规范用字 there are plenty of other restrictions, such as you cannot use numbers, you need to include the location where the business was registered, you cannot arbitrarily use words like 中国⋯⋯公司, or 国际⋯⋯公司, you need to specify whether the company is a 有限责任公司 or a 股份有限公司 etc etc.

Just to make my own personal opinion clear about this, I'm not in favour or opposed to one script over the other, and think that people should use whatever is practical for them. On the mainland this is going to be simplified characters, and elsewhere this is traditional characters.

If you're going to put forward arguments in support of traditional characters, then these arguments should be able to stand on their own, without needing to exaggerate the numbers involved.