Subject: Re: GB versus BIG-5 p.s.

From: Benjamin Ao <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1991 10:12:43 EDT

Ned wrote:
> p.s.
>
> As for simplified vs traditional: Is there any hard data indicating
> that simplified characters are any easier to learn than traditional
> characters?  or indicating that they are easier to read (i.e. fewer
> "misreadings")?  I suspect it makes no difference, that the only

	No! None whatsoever! There has never been any comparative
study done to prove those claims. The only observable and undeniable
fact is that characters with fewer strokes are easier for first and
second graders, who are just learning to control their pencils, to
write in a small square.

> significant effect of simplifcation is to increase writing speed and
> make printing easier.  It also is my impression that people who learn

	Writing simplified characters is faster only if you are
a beginner or if you are writing in printing style (kai3 shu1). There
is little or no difference if you write in running style (xing2 shu1).
Simplification has no effect whatsoever on printing or typing, except
that one has to change the entire set of types.

> simplified characters first have a very difficult time adjusting to
> traditional characters, whereas people who have learned traditionals
> first adjust to simplified rather quickly after the initial shock
> wheres off.  I suppose it's the old problem of non-commutivity of

	It's slightly more complicated. People who learn simplified
characters have a difficult time with writing traditional characters but
not with reading them. The reason is that even in the mainland, they may
often read materials in traditional characters, although they don't need
to write in traditional characters. On the other hand, people who learn
traditional characters have no trouble with writing some of the simplified
characters, because they use those characters in their everyday writing
anyway. However, these people usually don't have access to materials
printed in simplified characters, and therefore often have a hard time
getting used to them.

> simplification rules.  In any case, in most situations I suppose it
> doesn't really matter whether you use simplified or traditional forms.
> But in some situations it's essential that you reproduce as closely as
> possible the forms of the characters used in the original text--for
> example, in poetry, when you might be trying to spot visual puns, or
> clues for dating and placing a text. It's somewhat analogous to
> preserving old spellings for pre-modern English literature.  But I
> digress from CCNET-ish interests...forgive me.
>

	The simplification of Chinese characters was meant to lessen the
burden of students of the Chinese writing system. But, as an American
sinologist pointed out, "the gloomy fact is that as a student of the
Chinese language, I have to study both the traditional writing system
and the simplified system", which effectively made the burden of students
of the Chinese writing system even worse. Moreover, it causes an additional
headache to the already complicated issue of Chinese language computing.
This is one of the best examples of a nearsighted and failed language
planning policy which achieves exactly the opposite of what it was intended
for.