From: v999qx29@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.hongkong
Subject: Re: Traditional vs Simplified Characters
Date: 11 Oct 92 16:08:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <9228521.24121@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>, dht@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Joyous Dave baby) writes...
>A friend of mine, who is an Australian, is learning Chinese.
>Unfortunately, at University level, he's being taught the
>Simplified Characters.
> 
>Since he started learning Chinese, we've had endless debates
>on whether Traditional Characters are better than the Simplified
>version.
> 
>I personally think Traditional Characters are better, not
>just because I've been using it all my life; but the Simplified
>version loses a lot of the meanings of the words.  For example:
> 
>the word "Love".  In the Traditional version, there is a "heart"
>in the middle of the word; unfortunately, the people from
>Mainland took the "heart" out of the word "love".  Which really
>destroys the meaning of the word.
> 
>the word "district".  In the Tradtional version, it is a three
>sided square, surrounding Three "mouths".  now, the 3 mouths
>symbolizes "populated".  However, the simplied version took
>the 3 "mouths" out, and replace it with a "X".  Again, that
>kills the meaning of the word.
> 
>            --------
>           |    -
>           |   |_|
>           |
>           |  -   -
>           | |_| |_|
>           |_________
> 
>The word "produce".  "Chan3" in "Sheng1 Chan3".  Orginally,
>the word "Sheng1" which means growth/produce appears at the
>bottom of the word "Chan3", however, it's been taken out.
> 
>                `
>             -------
>               ` '
>           ------------
>           |
>           |
>           |
>           /
>          /
> 
>To me, this change is extremely stupid.  I mean, if they want
>to simplify, fair enough, I'm for it.... but by taking the
>heart out of the word "love" is pure stupidity.
> 
>Can someone tell me who is responsible for all these changes?
> 
>Note that, I am NOT against simplification, but I think how
>it's done.  I think a lot of the changes that Mainland has
>done is silly... it simply kills the word's meaning in the
>symbol, like taking the "heart" out of "love".
> 
>-- 
>1)-----------------------Rev 6:8 "... They were given authority over a quarter
>of the Earth, to kill by the sword, by famine, by plague, and wild beasts."

It is toltally unnecessary to create simplified characters. If you want to
make Chinese easy to write , you can create some kind of alphabet like what
Dr. Hu shi did . That will also make Chinese keying easier in computer.
The standard characters has been used for 2000 years. Although it is a little
bit harder for beginners to write than simplified character, it is beautiful
and it makes sense for all Chinese dialects. Mainlanders were forced to use
it and have been used to it while Taiwanese are still using standard characters
 Who is the separatist ? Who are destroying the integrity of China in the
cultural aspects?  If military forces decide everything, those mainlanders who
think it is important to keep China as genuine China(including territory) should
be very happy about the F-16 sale to Taiwan so that a piese of genuine China
will be preserved .
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china