Simplifications that are acceptable in Traditional Text

[Takeshi]

So, when people who write traditional Chinese (like in HK/TW) handwrite informal Chinese, what sorts of "simplifications" are allowed or considered normal? It is very difficult to ask this question to anyone, because everyone will get defensive about it and say that they write "all traditional characters" and start bashing simplified, but the fact we all know is that not all simplified characters were modern inventions; clearly this must mean that some simplifications had been in use before traditional; either all of those have died out completely in traditional-using-areas, or some of them would still commonly be used in them.

Before everyone replying this bashes me for asking the question, I will provide some examples:

臺 -> 台

爲 -> 為

關 -> 関

溫 -> 温

I can't think of any more off the top of my head, but can some people help me?

[Kobo-Daishi]

I wouldn't consider any of those simplifications, not even the first one.

Here are some shorthand simplifications that everybody in the "traditional" character world should know. Hong Kong/Macau. Taiwan. Japanese, if they were well versed in Chinese characters and not just the official set list. Ditto for Koreans.

对， 国， 点， 电， 学， 个， 来， 说， 会， 体， 几， 机

Lot more, but, I'd have to go through a list. Yes, even 说 since you're saying hand-written.

Kobo.

[liuzhou]

clearly this must mean that some simplifications had been in use before traditional

That is logically impossible.

If you 'simplify' something, it must pre-exist in a non-simplified (traditional) form.

[Takeshi]

@liuzhou: Sorry, what I meant was, there were simplifications in use (not prc simplified characters) before the "Traditional Standard" that we currently know of today. I suppose it could be better phrased as "there were simplifications in use before the prc simplified standard".

I am sort of inclined to believe that the prc simplified standard had pushed people in traditional-using areas to use less simplifications than they would have without the influence of the prc simplified standard just being there. That, and possibly the fact that people possibly handwrite less often now than they may have before.

But there still have to be some sort of simplifications that are still common in traditional-using areas no?

[liuzhou]

I suppose it could be better phrased as "there were simplifications in use before the prc simplified standard"

Most of the official simplifications were being used before being "officially" adopted, yes.

I'm finding it very difficult to know what your point or question is.

[liuzhou]

traditional speaking

?????

[Takeshi]

I meant traditional-using.

My point is that probably there are some simplifications of characters that are commonly used in the handwriting of people who live in traditional-using areas. My question is as to what these are.

[Kobo-Daishi]

I was just watching the Cantonese dubbed edition of Ariel Lin's award-winning Taiwan romantic comedy In Time With You, I usually download a Cantonese dub after I've watched a drama in its original Taiwanese Mandarin, and happened to have noticed this bit.

They've got the simplified version of 區 in this store display. 区.

Also, at the thread titled "Extreme simplification of characters" there's an image where they've got 烩 instead of 燴. So, I guess 会 could be substituted for any character that contains 會 as a phonetic.

http://www.chinese-forums.com/index.php?/topic/38590-extreme-simplification-of-characters/#comment-290497

Kobo.

[OneEye]

I'm not sure, but it seems like you might be assuming that people write in nice, neat block characters like you see in print. In reality, people write in a sort of semi-cursive. This entails some abbreviations, simplifications, etc., as this is what happens when you write quickly. Common ones I've seen in Taiwan that I can think of off the top of my head are 体 for 體, 号 for 號, 门 for 門 (usually like a 冂 with a short vertical through the middle, not a 丶 in the top left corner). Then some simplified (PRC) characters are just cursive forms that have been straightened out (为, 书, 佥, and 钅 are such examples), and people of course still use the cursive forms in handwriting here. And then in the logo for 台灣大哥大, they use 湾, but that's printed, not handwritten.

Also in the realm of print, I frequently see 却 in 繁體 publications, but I believe those have all been from Hong Kong. Sometimes you'll see variants like 污 and 汙 in the same article or book. On doors, you frequently see 押 on the button that you press to open the door (I believe this is a Japanese usage of the character). I personally get the feeling (and I may be flat wrong about this) that on signs and in advertisements, simplified characters used in Japan such as 区 and 会 mentioned above, are much more commonly seen than PRC-specific characters, which I see very few of. I don't know if that's due to Japanese culture being "cool" here, or if it's because the Japanese simplifications tended to be more conservative and so are more acceptable to Taiwanese people, or what. Just something I've noticed.

[Hofmann]

What is acceptable depends on whom you ask. Just for example, I'll look through the first 100 most frequent characters and write down what I most frequently use if it's significantly different from Traditional Chinese.

And of course you probably wouldn't call 就 a simplification, but whatever.

[Takeshi]

Thanks everyone for the replies.

Hmm, that's interesting. The 門 you are describing sounds exactly like how Japanese people handwrite it too.

So I guess it really is the case that Japanese simplifications are more accepted? What about the very Japanese ones like 広 or 図?

[OneEye]

I think you've misunderstood. They don't write it that way because it's "Japanese," they (and the Japanese too) write it that way because that's a very common shorthand way to write the character.

When I said Japanese simplifications tend to be more acceptable here, I was referring to certain printed characters, not handwritten ones.

[svota]

I don't use traditional as all of my learning has been on or about the mainland, but when writing, I've seen a large amount of people just substitute a squiggly line for words like 考. I imagine that the handwriting style isn't too different.

[Hofmann]

Got bored and did the next 100.

[imron]

Only 9733 to go!

[Takeshi]

Hoffman's writing to me looks... how should I put it... interesting. XD

[OneEye]

I have no idea what you're trying to say. Could you be more specific?

Hofmann's writing is very nice, but I have to say it took me a minute to figure out 所, 經, 最, and 甚. It looks like he's trying to stick closely to how 歐陽詢 wrote (correct me if I'm wrong). I'm sure he has his reasons for writing this way, but I wonder if any of it would trip up native speakers at all.

[Hofmann]

You're right. It's the consequence of having studied him.

Just did the next 200. It gives me something mindless to do when I break from studying. Sorry about the mess.

[Takeshi]

What I meant: To me, his writing looks very strange and I haven't seen anyone write like that, but knowing Hofmann, I figure he was copying some ancient calligrapher. I am quite reluctant to copy his writing writing because of how... different it is. As OneEye said, there were a few characters that were hard to recognize. I'm not sure if writing those characters those way would be the most common/acceptable thing to do in modern everyday writing purposes.

But yea, two other characters I noticed in the last post were 聴 and 却. These again differ from the "Traditional Standards" of 聽 or 卻, but I figure these are generally safe to write in handwritten informal Traditional text? I am looking for more examples like this. (Coincidentially, these seem to coincide with the Japanese standard too; maybe I should just write in the Japanese standard unless the character is obviously really weird and then wait for people to tell me I'm wrong before changing it? XD)

[Hofmann]

What's your goal? If it's just to write faster, then just write 行書. Even if it's structurally the same as what I've written above, it's dramatically more acceptable. And of course, a lot of the Japanese simplifications are from long-accepted Chinese simplifications, but can you tell which ones?