From: bihkyan@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Yang Yuanxin)
Subject: Re: Traditional vs Simplified Characters
Organization: Educational Computing Network
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 19:30:31 GMT

In article <mvdvalk.719166172@bosporus> mvdvalk@cs.utwente.nl (Martijn van der Valk) writes:
>Dear netters,
>
>I seem to have stirred up some emotion on the net. I'd like to react on some
>of the accusations I have received.
>
>BTW, I am not a Chinese, neither are any of my known ancestors. When I
>started to learn Chinese at the university, I have learned the traditional
>characters.
>
>First, people have said on the net, that simplified characters are easier
>to learn than the traditional ones. I tend to agree that they're easier to
>write. They are certainly no easier to read, as the differences between
>individual characters are smaller.
>
  No Chinese has this kind of problem. You should work harder .

>Second, people have said that it's a good thing to simplify one's language: the
>simpler, the better. I think this is silly. It is my belief that in teaching
>people a language, whether it is written or spoken, these people can develop
>certain other skills, besides just learning to use it. What I mean is, that in
>learning Latin, one develops a clear understanding of how thoughts can be
>logically structured and expressed. In learning Chinese, one can develop a
>skill in classifying like characters, according to similarities in their
>respective buildup. This nice property is ruthlessly destroyed by adopting
>these simplified characters.
>
>When the underlying (albeit historical) structure of a script is destroyed, as
>was the case in the PRC, much of this classification-skills of the people using
>it, are also lost. I think this is a very bad thing.
>
>To further exemplify my point, some Westerners try to learn Chinese by only
>learning the pinyin of each character. Without knowledge of the underlying
>characters, they have great difficulty in really understanding Chinese language
>concepts.
   
    Keep in your mind that simplified chars are not invented after 1949
by some communists, it was those best educated Chinese invented in the 
past 2000 or more years, you will know this if you could write "Chao3
Shu" handwriting, anf many people had been using them all the time. what
Chinese government in 50s' is just made it official.

>
>Third, the reason for the simplification process in the PRC was to lower the
>illiteracy rate. Well, the fact is that in Hong Kong and Taiwan, everybody
>seems to be able to learn the traditional characters and another fact is that
>the illiteracy rate in China is still higher that in the 'other Chinas'. So, is
>this simplification process really needed? I still don't think so.

  Think about histry, economic, and geographic reasons. Also compare
which illiteracy rate drops faster, much faster, and why. 

  Some guy out there said learning Chinese makes one cleverer, seems
not.
>
>Fourth, nobody in his/her right mind, would deny saying that the simplified
>characters actually look like a piece of sh*t. 

   This is your sh*t, or your mind is not right at all.
>
>To conclude, give me one, just one, valid reason for simplifying the world's
>oldest script in daily use. I think it is a bloody shame. I mean, even in Japan
>they show more respect for Chinese characters than in the PRC.

  Use your right mind.
>
>But, then again, who am I?! Just another foreign devil with an attitude,
>probably.

  You should know that your "traditional Char" is actually not that
"traditional", maybe you will interested in using "Zhuan4" or even
"Jia3 Gu3 " chars in every day life .

  Everything is developing and progressing. hope also your mind.

YY.

>
>Cheers!
>
>--
>Martijn van der Valk                |          e-mail: mvdvalk@cs.utwente.nl
>Faculty of Computer Science / SPA   |                      phone: +53-893795
>University of Twente, P.O. Box 217  | BROADCAST BRA
>7500 AE Enschede, The Nederlands    | Pegasus; Esprit BRA 6865