Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica
Titolo: A chi interessasse

Carissimi,
recentemente Maurizio (Pistone) ha giustamente lamentato l'eccessivo spazio
che si dedica in questa sede agli ideogrammi. Pertanto, per chi volesse
seguire il discorso, mi limiterò a segnalare un filone su sci.lang, quello
chiamato "The Writing System...".
    Incidentalmente, per ragioni che sfuggono alla mia comprensione, si è
insidiato un micro filone in un altro thread, quello chiamato "Could Italian
be considered...", in cui, in un inglese demenzialmente maccheronico e
tempestato di erroracci, si tentava
di screditarmi riguardo al vecchio discorso: "La scrittura giapponese è
ideografica?". Ovviamente, è emerso chiaramente che le cose stavano come ho
detto io: sia un madrelingua giapponese che, soprattutto, Peter T. Daniels
(autorità a livello mondiale sui sistemi di scrittura, caldeggio a tutti il
suo eccezionale "The World Writing Systems") hanno smentito tutte le
stupidaggini che qualcuno ha reiterato fino alla nausea. E cioè, che la
scrittura giapponese sia "ideografica" (o "logografica", che dir si voglia).
Ma vorrei evitare di riaprire vecchie polemiche, come vi ho detto...
    Se vi va, andate a ricercare quei due filoni: dopo un inizio piuttosto
deludente, si stanno facendo interessanti.
    Ciao,
            Nicola
--
Multa non quia difficilia sunt non audemus, sed quia non audemus sunt
difficilia (Seneca).

 WRONG
This "wrong" explanation was the one given from Nicola Nobili.
I'm not so interested in such "labeling" issue.
As I said, I will not continue discussing this subject. Sorry.
Reading many people in this group expressing the very same concepts I expressed
months ago in Italian replying to Nicola is enough for me.
-- 
____________________________________
Giancarlo Pillan  -  Ivrea  -  Italy
____________________________________

 detto io:
Cazzate. Ovvie e chiare.


 si voglia).
Ehm... veramente il Daniels ha detto che la scrittura giapponese non
era ideografica per poi aggiungere che invece era logografica.
Il che non c'entra un tubo con la discussione su ICL che
era "ideografica vs non ideografica".
--
Gianni
nassuu a Milan (IT-MI)
crescut a Tolosa (FR-31)
habitant le Vexin (FR-95)
_______________________________________________________________________
Lu francés per amics, mas non per vesins, se pòdes.
     (provèrbi niçard)
<Echelon>
CSE, SUW, Embassy, finks, Fax encryption, white noise, Fernspah
</Echelon>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

 era ideografica per poi aggiungere che invece era logografica.
Vero, successivamente si e' capito che il malinteso era un altro.
Comunque, ha prontamente provveduto un giapponese a negare con veemenza
che la sua scrittura si possa chiamare "logografica", con dettagli che
non ripeto qui per non annoiare nessuno. Il che, senza dubbio, conferma
pienamente le mie tesi.
Per inciso, mi sono stancato ben presto di quei promettenti due
filoncini. Mi spiace quasi averli raccomandati. Purtroppo, vedo che
sci.lang quasi sempre diventa presto dispersivo e indisponente.
Ciao,
     Nicola
--
Multa non quia difficilia sunt non audemus, sed quia non audemus sunt
difficilia (Seneca).


 been any government research on the subject for decades.
It's good. Quite good. Japanese are seen reading a lot, everywhere.
-- 
____________________________________
Giancarlo Pillan  -  Ivrea  -  Italy
____________________________________(

 writes:
    Nicola>     I understand your point, I also realise that you're
    Nicola> fond of the traditional characters you're used to
    Nicola> writing. However, I do not agree with you.  I being a
    Nicola> "Chinese student" (a very unusual one, though), and I
    Nicola> having seen many other Chinese L2 students, I think that
    Nicola> using the simplified characters has some advantages,
    Nicola> namely:
    Nicola> 1- they are by far the most widely used. 95% of all
    Nicola> Chinese books you can find in our bookshops and library
    Nicola> here use the simplified characters.
That's a biased  example.  In Hong Kong, 99% of  the Chinese books you
can  find  in bookstores  and  public  libraries  use the  traditional
characters.  I've been to a public library of a small town/district in
Toronto and was suprised to find  so many shelves of Chinese books and
magazines  in it.   Guess what  characters  are used  in these  books?
Traditional  ones.  When  I  visit Chinatowns  in  European and  North
America, I  find the newspapers  to be in traditional  characters, not
simplified ones.  So are the magazines.
    Nicola>   2- they are easier to draw.
But  much harder  and slower  to recognize,  because of  the increased
similarity between character that  used to be very different.  There's
a price  to pay here.  Maybe, one  of the factors that  you find Hanzi
difficulty is  caused by this  increased similarity in  the simplified
characters.
    Nicola>  I wouldn't like to start a new polemic thread about
    Nicola> the hanzi, but undoutedly one must admit that for
    Nicola> Westerners it is very hard and time-consuming to learn how
    Nicola> to write logographs. Having to draw fewer strokes, I've
    Nicola> noticed that students learn how to communicate sooner.
I don't think  that few strokes would be  anything significant.  Being
harder  to recognize, the  simplified characters  would, IMO,  be even
harder to learn.  Imagine that Italian were no longer written in Latin
letters, but  the dash-dot notation  for writing Morse code.   Yes, it
seems easier  because instead of  learning 21 letters, you  just learn
two symbols:  dash and  dot.  Isn't this  "simplified" way  of writing
Italian then much easier to learn, according to your logic?
    Nicola> 3- in some cases, fine (and almost unnoticeable, if you're a
    Nicola> beginner) distinctions between similar characters have
    Nicola> been eliminated by the semplification. This helps foreign
    Nicola> students a lot.
I don't think this helps.  It actually hurts!
Why on Earth  do you Italian write "ha"  and "a" differently?  Because
they mean veyr different things,  and hence you'd rather write them as
differently as possible.
If having fewer  distinctions would be helpful, there  only needs to 1
Hanzi!
    Nicola>   4- most Chinese teachers in Europe are
    Nicola> from mainland China, where they are used to writing
    Nicola> simplified characters.
And needless  to say,  they have been  brainwashed in the  mainland to
believe  that   simplified  characters  are  the  best   and  have  NO
DISADVANTAGES when compared to traditional characters.
Try  to ask  them to  give  3 disadvantages  of simplified  characters
compared to traditional ones, and see if they would respond _honestly_
(i.e. according  to what they BELIEVE,  not what is TRUE)  and if they
their response is neutral (unbiased) enough.
    Nicola> My teacher, for instance, is able
    Nicola> to read traditional characters, since she has a degree in
    Nicola> Chinese literature, but is not always able to write them,
    Nicola> since she never uses them. How can she teach them to us,
    Nicola> if she doesn't know it?
A  degree in  Chinese literature?   Still can't  write  in traditional
characters?  Hahahaha....
Now,  ask   her  whether  she   prefers  to  read   Classical  Chinese
(<wen2yan2>) in traditional  characters or simplified characters?  How
about  the   Four  Classics?    How  about  the   3-character  Classic
(<san1zi4jing1>), which is a  literature recommended by the UNESCO for
all the world's kids?  How about ancient poems?
    Nicola>     The only advantages of traditional characters are, as
    Nicola> far as I know: 1- an aesthetic one (sometimes they are
    Nicola> "prettier") 2- they show the etymology more clearly
3.  More distinctions between characters that are very different in
    meanings.  Compare ³] <she4> as in <she4ji1> "design" and ¨S 
    <mei2> as in <mei2you3> "have not".  They look too similar in
    simplified characters, especially in small print.  Indeed, I once
    misread <she4you3> "is equipped with" as <mei2you3> "lacks" in a
    booklet in simplified characters printed very small.  I had to go
    back and reread that sentence, and use the context as well as
    common sense to figure out the correct meaning.  This means wasted
    time, of course.  Were it printed in traditional characters, I
    would not have misread it.
    Nicola>     But for a learner (not a painter) the first point is
    Nicola> irrelevant, whereas the second one is seldom useful:
But the  third is very  helpful for learners.  Another  example: Queen
<hou4>  "¦Z" and  Back  <hou4>  "«á" are  homonyms  very different  in
meanings.  However,  they are  written in the  same way  in simplified
characters.
Given that their meanings are  so different, would you prefer to write
them in different  ways (traditional characters) or write  them in the
same way  (simplified characters)?   When you read  a text,  would you
prefer that these homonyms be written differently?
Why do you write "ha" and "a" differently?
    Nicola> our
    Nicola> background is such that we do not appreciate many details
    Nicola> contained in your logographs, and we are so distant from
    Nicola> your culture, history, philosophy. After all, we don't
    Nicola> care that much about point 2 either.
But I think point 3 definitely matters.
-- 
Lee Sau Dan                     §õ¦u´°(Big5)                    ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ) 
.----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| e-mail: 
sd...@eti.hku.hk
 
http://www.csis.hku.hk/~sdlee
 |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------------'

...
:Dylan Sung
:
:    Now we're swiching topic...
:
:> It is a shame that students of modern Chinese begin with simplified text
:> first.
:
:[...]
:
:> Personally, I think that they should approach writing hanzi through the
:> traditional form first
:
:    I understand your point, I also realise that you're fond of the
:traditional characters you're used to writing. However, I do not agree with
:you.
Its not that I am fond of traditional characters, but they are the basis
upon which the written language of Chinese has remained unchanged for so
long. The simplifications which became standardised in 1956 also have their
current forms based upon the cursive writing of traditional characters.
:    I being a "Chinese student" (a very unusual one, though), and I having
:seen many other Chinese L2 students, I think that using the simplified
:characters has some advantages, namely:
:
:1- they are by far the most widely used. 95% of all Chinese books you can
:find in our bookshops and library here use the simplified characters.
It depends where you are. I don't know how you arrived at your figure, but
lets say its quite high. Outside China, it depends what is available via the
book supply routes. The small collection of books found in my local library
here in England is mostly novellas, cookbooks, and various other subjects,
none but a handful of which are devoted to language acquisition. We have a
small collection of around three hundred Chinese books on the shelves, and
the majority of them are in traditional hanzi.
Since the access to books here is also largely dictated by expense of buying
them in or by donations from the Chinese community, we have a higher
proportion of non-simplified forms than found in your library. The Chinese
community in Britain are largely from HongKong, not China, therefore the
books found in our libraries are so influenced by the readership.
In HongKong and Taiwan, the books sold there in Chinese are mostly in
traditional characters, also reflecting the readership. There are of course
imports from mainland, but these tend to be in specialised areas.
Dictionaries are one area, but the proportion of simplified books sold is
small in both these locales.
The books in hanzi available to you are probably also dictated by
readership, which is influenced by the writing format that students acquire
Chinese, namely, simplified. I doubt very much that the range of Chinese
books on sale in Italy, (if England is anything to go by), is large. Outside
the Chinese stores who have a sideline in books catering to the Chinese
population, the mainstream booksellers are not going to have available, or
probably able to get, books that are outside a certain area like Chinese
language acquisition.
:2- they are easier to draw. I wouldn't like to start a new polemic thread
Traditional character users also use simplifcations in everyday writing.
Simplified script is a reduction of the cursive form for a great many
characters. There are also regular conversions between traditional and
simplified forms for a great majority of the simplified characters.
:about the hanzi, but undoutedly one must admit that for Westerners it is
:very hard and time-consuming to learn how to write logographs. Having to
:draw fewer strokes, I've noticed that students learn how to communicate
:sooner.
That is a big extrapolation to make. So you've tested this on both users who
have only learnt simplified, and another group only traditional?
:3- in some cases, fine (and almost unnoticeable, if you're a beginner)
:distinctions between similar characters have been eliminated by the
:semplification. This helps foreign students a lot.
I don't quite understand what you mean by this. What is 'fine' and
'unnoticeable'?
:4- most Chinese teachers in Europe are from mainland China, where they are
:used to writing simplified characters. My teacher, for instance, is able to
:read traditional characters, since she has a degree in Chinese literature,
:but is not always able to write them, since she never uses them. How can
:she teach them to us, if she doesn't know it?
But she does, you've already stated she can read traditional Chinese
characters. Since she is capable of reading traditional characters, a
traditional text as her guide isn't beyond anyone else's imagination.
:    The only advantages of traditional characters are, as far as I know:
:1- an aesthetic one (sometimes they are "prettier")
Pretty aestheics rarely comes into it for the commonplace user. You're
thinking of the calligrapher artist.
:2- they show the etymology more clearly
This can be helpful, but not necessary. Since simplified forms are derived
from traditional forms via a cursive form.
:    But for a learner (not a painter) the first point is irrelevant, whereas
:the second one is seldom useful: our background is such that we do not
:appreciate many details contained in your logographs, and we are so distant
:from your culture, history, philosophy. After all, we don't care that much
:about point 2 either.
I appreciate that you don't care due to the small numbers of hanzi you are
likely to encounter in a learner's course. Serious students go on to learn a
great deal more than is presented in the ordinary undergraduate university
course (undergraduate courses offer around 1500 and not greater than 2000
hanzi). Those that achieve near native proficieny, or surpass that, will
find that your second point 2 can be invaluable in distinguishing meaning.
You will also note that whereas there are many schemes for categorising
hanzi, the Kangxi Dictionary scheme is widely used. The various dictionary
schemes used for simplified hanzi is at best a square peg in a round hole,
and at worst chaotic. For instance there have been some that have as many as
187 radicals and some that go up to 227 radicals and at least one of these
schemes have a category known as "Other" which does not fit into the other
categories. The Kangxi scheme is well established, and used even for
classifying Unicode CJK characters. In the simplified forms, many more
characters which have common radicals in Kangxi are distributed amongst
several simplified radicals. For the learner, a well established and less
confusing approach to learing hanzi includes the ability to quickly look up
characters. The cases for characters whose radical is not obvious in Kangxi
is small. For those in the modern simplified schemes, you are up against the
whims of the dictionary designers, and thus vary between one and another
modern reference.
Modern dictionaries aimed at pupils in HK use the traditional 214 radical
scheme, and simplified characters are given besides traditional ones. If one
knows the simplified form, it is trivial to find it under the related
traditional form for the majority of simplified characters. In some
dictionaries one can find an appendix of simplified characters together with
the traditional form.
I still maintain that traditional first is better because there is less
confusion with an established and well known hanzi indexing system like
KangXi 214, especially for Western learners finding characters they do not
know the pronunciation of in character and phrase dictionaries.
Dyl.

 Well, it doesn't!
...........................................................................
ed omettere tutto il resto del discorso!
-- 
