Splitting some merged Simplified characters

[Insula Formosa]

According to this source

檢討「一對多」267字後，建議在大陸規範(GB)中增加的繁體字只有39 個。其餘228個皆是簡化字的異體字，不至於影響繁簡對譯後的文義。又在擬增補的39字中，易生歧義的 发/發髮、后/后後、台/台颱、干/干杠幹、面/面麵 5 字，最需優先解決。

So I checked the list of merged Simplified characters which can be found here, and it pretty much seemed to be around 39 sets of characters that cannot be interchangeablly used in Traditional Chinese and have distinct semantic values. Other 200-or so characters are just alternative forms which can be used interchangeabally even in Traditional Chinese.

What do you think about adding these 39 traditional characters into the current Simplified Chinese? Or the ones that cause the most confusion, like the five proposed above? (Personally I would add there 复/復複, 谷/谷穀, and 表/表錶 as well)

It could be costly but in the end it would actually be cost-effective, because it will allow a near-perfect mechanic transition between TC and SC except for proper names, and the simplified script would have less ambiguities.

One could add the merged TC or come up with new SC. For example instead of 錶 one would write 钅表. As for 发, one could keep 发 for hair and use 発 for emit.

I think this would be feasible because it has been done before for several letters. For example, before 1987, 象 and 像 were the same letter; but they were split because they caused too much confusion.

One could say: Why should SC change and not TC, when SC is the great majority? For several reasons: SC is good because it is changed, and TC is good because it has not been changed. In accordance with the virtues of each system, it is only logic that this reform is made in SC which is by nature a reformed script. Another reason is that the overall increase of preciseness of characters is a good thing and strengthens the function of Chinese characters. It is better to make an improvement in one script rather than making a degression in another.

I would like to know if the Chinese people feel if this should happen or could it happen in the future.

[Iriya]

Most of the merges make sense in my opinion. The only really stupid one is 发.

I reckon there will be another character reform in a decade or two (once the rebellious spirit of revolution dies down some more) that will bring some traditional characters back (like 東、車、書、鳥、馬、門 and other characters that got 草書 simplifications) and also simplify some needlessly complicated characters (e.g. 餐, there's already an unofficial simplification for it - 歺). Also 疆. Oh, and I'd really love it if 爱 got its 心 back.

Of course it's extremely improbable that China will go back to full traditional.

BTW, the Taiwanese standard isn't completely "traditional" (as in orthodox) either, they're using plenty of vulgar variants, like 裡、為、青, etc. See here.

[Iriya]

By the by, what's the story with 妳? I see many Taiwanese using it online. Is it a new feminist invention or what? I can't think of *any* language that has a feminine second person pronoun.

[renzhe]

I believe it's a 20th century character. Predates the civil war, but is not traditional.

It's similar to the 他 / 她 distinction, which came earlier, but was still relatively uncommon in the early 20th vernacular. Or 那 / 哪 distinction, which came even earlier. I'm guessing that 妳 never really became popular on the mainland, even before simplification.

[Insula Formosa]

BTW, the Taiwanese standard isn't completely "traditional" (as in orthodox) either, they're using plenty of vulgar variants, like 裡、為、青, etc. See here.

I think the traditional characters doesn't mean that you have to use the only orthodox version. It's about encompassing even vulgar variants.

For example you can technically write 无 for 無 if you want to. It's not considered standard, and should be avoided in formal contexts, but it's not "merged" into a single standard character. If an ancient book used 无 instead of 無, a modern copy won't correct it as 無.

I hope what I wrote is understandable, but this is how I've always felt. Some TC users might not agree with me, sure.

[Areckx]

For several reasons: SC is good because it is changed, and TC is good because it has not been changed.

This is the single, most effective explanation that I have ever heard. Thank you for putting into words what I already knew from the beginning, but couldn't explain.

[Michaelyus]

I personally prefer 盡 and 儘 separate, but keeping the 尽, so I personally do use a {⿰ 亻尽}.

I agree with 复 re-differentiation being useful. I don't think reverting 草书 simplifications like 车 would be well-appreciated.

As far as I know, Hebrew and Arabic (and probably most other Semitic languages) have feminine second-person pronouns.