From: ma@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.hongkong
Subject: Re: Traditional vs Simplified Characters
Date: 12 Oct 92 10:32:14 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

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.
> 

This argument doesn't make any sense. Everyone now knows that "love" and
any emotion is the result of BRAIN function. Relating "heart" to "love"
is a misconception by our old folks. By taking "heart" out of the "love"
only destroys the WRONG meaning of the word. What 's wrong with that?
Find some better examples, please.

> 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.
> 
>             --------
>            |    -
>            |   |_|
>            |
>            |  -   -
>            | |_| |_|
>            |_________
> 

Why don't we use the 4-sided square? Please explain why the other side should
be open?

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

As I looked an old (published by PRC) dictionary, that version of Chan3 already
there.

> 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.

The function of the heart is to pump the blood. The stomach may be more closely
related to "love". I did see a person whose stomach hurts whenevr he misses his
wife.
 
> 
> 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".

A lot of changes might be silly (who cares), but not this one. It only fixed
the misconception which you still believe very much. We all be stupid
sometimes.

> 
> -- 
> 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."
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china