From: zzuo@iastate.edu (Zhiqi Zuo)
Subject: Re: Traditional vs Simplified Characters
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 16:06:31 GMT

Joyous Baby,

  A similar line was started about half a year ago, which ended
as a long line. It is a very interesting topic, but I hope we
should give up our traditionl thinking style a little(just a 
little, so please don't feel hurt.)

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.

I think this is good for him, from practical purpose. The tendency,
in Mianland China of 1.2 billion people, can hardly be reversed.

>
>Since he started learning Chinese, we've had endless debates
>on whether Traditional Characters are better than the Simplified
>version.

If his memory is not very impressive, you had better suggest him
to study the SIMPLE one. I believe that we all have some personal
preference here, so respect your friend's choice. His judgement
mighe be more impartial than you and I.

>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.
>
>                `
>             -------
>               ` '
>           ------------
>           |
>           |
>           |
>           /
>          /

What you said here makes a lot of sense. But I really don't 
want to waste my time on writting those beautiful, meaningful
and delicate words as you do. You see, we like different things
here just for the reason that you and I were grown up in 
different environments.

>
>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?

Three efforts were made to simplify the tedious traditional
characters. In 1950s, a group of intellectuals were instructed
by the government to do the "great" job. Because the trouble
that you had mentioned, and because of some other problems,
the third attempt (around 1974) ended with a total failure. 

>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".

This may be the saddest one for you(Just kidding.) But don't
worry, the life is still the same basically. 


Xref: sparky soc.culture.china:27855 soc.culture.taiwan:14383 soc.culture.hongkong:12543