Ruben von Zwack Posted December 15, 2013 at 12:41 PM Report Share Posted December 15, 2013 at 12:41 PM I am just reading 常用汉字图解 / The Composition of Common Chinese Characters, an Illustrated Account, (北京大学出版 1997). For quite some characters, like 臣 or 限 apparently you can trace the pictograph or ideograph from Bronze or Oracle-Bone inscriptions until this day. But there are as equally many entries that read, just to give a few random examples: - "(...) In the Later Seal Character, however, the character 疾 becomes a phonetic component (...)" or: - " (...) hence, 讯 originally meant "to interrogate a prisoner of war (...) In the Later Seal Character, it becomes a phonetic compound and the original meaning is lost." or: - "The character 块 was originally an ideograph (...) and lumps of sooil is its primary meaning. But it has changed into a phonetic compound later. For example, the variant in the Later Seal Character has 土 (soil) as its radical and 鬼 as its phonetic. (...)" So either you don't count Later Seal as proper Characters, or ... or I don't understand what this whole argument is about. When I was a newb (like, half a year ago), I used to make some loud and sweeping generalisations about Simplified versus Traditional too. But some balanced words by Renzhe made me pause and listen. When you get into an argument situation, it's up to you whether you prefer to thump your fist on the table, raise your voice and insist you're right, or listen and actually expand your knowledge. PS - apologies if this post shows up multiple times, my internet connection is acting up. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renzhe Posted December 15, 2013 at 02:32 PM Report Share Posted December 15, 2013 at 02:32 PM But some balanced words by Renzhe That will be a first haha! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hwong_DsiKiem Posted January 10, 2014 at 08:33 AM Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 at 08:33 AM "Writing conveys meaning, not phonemes The main criticism of many purely phonemic reform proposals is that written language is not a purely phonemic analog of the spoken word." - Criticisms of English spelling reform. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
陳德聰 Posted January 10, 2014 at 08:21 PM Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 at 08:21 PM Can you relate that to the discussion... I fail to see your point of comparison. Also, what kind of a quote doesn't have an attribution to an actual person? What is this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renzhe Posted January 10, 2014 at 10:47 PM Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 at 10:47 PM It's a random quote from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_spelling_reform Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and select your username and password later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.