Subject: simplification; PinYin; GB

From: Yolin H u a n g <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1991 23:04:33 EST

Re:------------------------------------------------------------------
: "Minghui Yao, Dept of Physics, ASU"
: <[email-masked]> 25 Nov 1991
: ... The evolution of Chinese Characters is a nature simplifying process,
: from complex to simplicity. If a language is unchanged, it is dead.  ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

among these dead scripts?: 1) the modern generations of the European
North Sea and Baltic Sea countries can not understand the old Runic
oracle script (Hellenistic/Cyrillic remnants?) after it was replaced by
the Roman script.  2) the modern generations of the Middle East can not
understand the old Egyptian, Philistian, Phoenician, Aramaic, Syriac,
Akkadian, Babylonian, Chaldean, Sumerian, Old Persian, some Turkic, ...
etc scripts; after those scripts evolved and merged into the modern
Arabic, the new lingua franca.  3) new generations of Tannu Tuva (Dr
Feynman's hobby), the Buryat and the Rep Mongol have difficulties to
understand the traditional Mongolian texts, after the Cyrillic alphabet
was enforced.  4) new generations of VietNam can no longer understand the
bulk of historical archives in Han script, after the French style
spelling was enforced. Many people don't even know of their existence
(probably stored mostly in France as archaeological and anthropological
novelty or vanity?)  5) new generations of Korea have difficulties to
understand the bulk of historical archives in Han script (many highly
achieved scholarship), after the phonetic system set in by decree, so as
to refrain from the Han script implied Chinese chauvinism.

Today, after centuries of evolution, English and French spellings have
lost some of their original phonetic purpose, and have become more or
less ideographical ('ped xing'.)  Maybe one day, after Han Solo and Luke
Skywalker graduated into nirvana, the ASCII script would merge with other
ideographical into an yet unknown new script.:)  But right now, both
groups are cautious to take any measure so as not to deliver the Oxford
and Larousse dictionaries into reincarnation.

Contrary to the assertion, the same Han script has been in use, and
stabilized for almost two milleniums without much change.  Different
fancy writing styles have been artfully painted.  But, there was no
significant gradual simplification of this script in the past as
asserted, other than in the hand-writing routine for convenience.  The
Beijing simplification regulation in the 60's, fueled along the craze of
the Cultural Revolution, can probably better be called an 'experiment'
among other 'social experiments'.

Furthermore, the simplification regulation was not a Beijing innovation
either.  The similar regulation in Japan (same idea, not copyrighted)
predated the Beijing regulation by a couple of years, under the post-war
General McArthur Administration.  At that time, the simplification rule
did have some edge over the slower traditional style, in hand-writing
(saved some brain-hemorrhage cases on desk scribe work.)  But with the
advance of PC, this edge dimishes.  For the electronic text processing,
it poses probably more problem than advantage.

Three decades passed.  It is now probably high time to sit down, and
ponder about its worth, run a decent re-evaluation, and learn from the
experience.  I think, for the pupils learning the traditional style
first, and then (say after the elementary school build-up stage) allowed
to use simplified shorthand (as supplement) in taking notes, writing
reports or exams would be better off as a whole; than learning the
simplified style first, and later randomly picking up the traditional
style in the real life (in unscathed family memorabilia, libraries,
museums, parks, exhibitions, memorials, movies, karaoke clubs, etc.)
Doesn't have to go back to the old Confucian-style rigid perfectionism
(in hand-writing tedium), if you will.  In English dominions, Gregg's
shorthand system is widely used to speed up the hand-writing.  But it is
usually not a part of the regular education, as I understand.  And many
people, even secretaries, don't write with calligraphical excellence,
some just stay at the grade school level I guess.  When typed up, not
even the boss would notice.

	-------------------- <o> --------------------

The 'PinYin' system (Beijing, 1950's) is better than 'bopomofo'
(Nanking/Nanjing, 1910's) in that it is readily adaptable to the QWERTY
keyboard everywhere on Earth/Space.  (And also better than the Wade-Giles
system [Cambridge UK, 1850's/1910's], because of a better phonetic
representation, and the abstinence from the excessive apostrophe, ...
among other things.)  But it is not without its pitfalls.  Since 'PinYin'
was romanized from 'bopomofo', it retains some syllabic nature as that in
the bopomofo, and kana.  Despite of the alphabetical appearance, it
doesn't have all the phonetic resolution of an ideal alphabetical
system.  Such as in 'x', 's', and 'q', 'c', (each has a corresponding
symbol in bopomofo), which are usually quite a hurdle to the
uninitiated.  I suppose, it would make better sense for 'x', and 's' to
use the same openning consonant followed by different vowels (for
instance, one sharp (sii) one muted (si)).  Same for the 'q' and 'c' (for
instance, one sharp (cii) one muted (ci); suppose there is probably no
better choice than 'c' other than 'ts').  (And in combinations, some of
the 'sii' can be reduced to 'si' without causing confusions; same for
'tsii', and 'tsi'.  Isn't SiaoPing as clear as SiiaoPing, even though not
as short.)  (QuYuan isn't really that royal as Queen.  Isn't 'Tsisii'
easier for the uninitiated than 'Cixi'?  Not Tootsie; 'Tsaotsao' easier
than 'Caocao'?  No cacao today; 'Siishi' better than 'Xishi'?  Not
exactly Sushi bar. :-) ) In so doing, the 'c', 'q', and 'x' could be
replaced by the less offending 'ts', and 's'; and easier acceptable to
the commoners, ignorant mass, and innocents abroad.

I think the Beijing tongue of Han pronunciation (Portugese mistakingly
called Mandarim) probably have seven vowels ( (x)i, (s)i, e, a, o, u, and
umlaut u), not counting diphtongs.)  For the umlaut u sound, some write
'u" (Umlaut)', some people use 'uu'. ('uu' probably better.  Probably
'ui', 'u:', 'u^' can also be considered.  But it seems there is no easier
solution with the popular QWERTY keyboard.  The current use of 'ui' would
probably be more accurately represented by 'uei'.)

Furthermore, the 'an' in the following (mostly diphtongs)
(group 1:)
bian, dian, jian, juan, lian, mian, nian, pian, qian, quan, tian, xian,
xuan, yan, yuan
\
is pronounced differently from the 'an' in the following
(group 2:)
chuan, chuang, cuan, duan, guan, guang, huan, huang, jiang, kan, kang,
kuan, kuang, liang, luan, nan, nang, niang, nuan, pan, pang, qiang, ruan,
san, sang, shan, shang, tuan, yang, ShaanXi, XiAn
\
but closer to the 'en' in the following
(group 3:)
feng, gen, geng, hen, heng, ken, keng, leng, men, meng, nen, neng, pen,
peng, ren, reng, sen, seng

Does the emperor have a new dress on?  This pattern again betrays its
root in the syllabic bopomofo system, where 'an' has a (phonetic)
symbol.  Probably the 'an' in the group 1 could be modified, and further
evolve to 'en' as in group 3.  (The rest of PinYin is probably as good as
new?  What do you think?)  After that, the 'an' will be consistent
throught out, and easier to teach to kids.  And the PinYin system will be
closer to a full-fledged alphabetical system.  One flintstone two birds.

Responsible administrators (of all ideological pre-destinations) probably
should please look closer into this, and try out in some language labs,
experimental schools, or better educated townships, (HongKong, TaiWan?)
for a few years.  A short pain (in making improvements) would be better
than chronic pain (in accomodating the flaws for the next ?? years?)

There is another practice in mainland I couldn't understand: many
merchandise and signs use the 'PinYin' stand-alone, as-is; as if people
could understand them.  I suspect most tourists would first have to
struggle for a good pronunciation, let alone its meaning.  The native
speakers probably won't even bother to look at them, simply don't give a
damn.  I think 'PinYin' is better used only as a pronunciation aid:
small print next to the Han script, like with 'kana'.  But after all,
'PinYin' is probably lesser a problem than the simplication regulation.

	-------------------- <o> --------------------

[email-masked] (27 Nov 1991) (cxterm, great job) gave
an impressive report about the status quo of the GB scheme, with
revelatory discussions about problems with GL, GR planes in Big5.  The
problem described with the Big5 is probably related to the present 7-bit
environment, which was originally designed only to handle the ASCII
characters.  (The Europeans complain about the ASCII as well, even though
got more out of it.)  But, according to Jianxun Ding ([email-masked],
14 Feb 91) GB 0-3 also use the high bit; so the full-blown GB scheme
(like the one in LianXian Han Ka system used by [email-masked], 28
Nov 1991) might have the same problem?

Now, with the maturing in the technology (and in the humanity, such as
the New Age), and the necessity to handle texts other than Latin
derivatives, the hardware and software developers are expanding their
horizon.  I guess that the OS is moving toward 8-bit and beyond.  So, the
mission impossible today with the old 7-bit ISO 2022, will probably become
possible with the new ISO standards.  It was said that in a Confucian
style top-down bureaucracy, obedience|revolution is usually the norm;
whereas in democracy the rules will respond to the need of the
constituents, ... in theory anyway.  The expanded bandwidth can also
treat other problems in communication, not just Han scripts.

In the current GB 0-5 arrangement, simplified and traditional characters
seem to have different code numbers.  So, the programmers have to build a
conversion procedure into the software, and exercise contextual analysis
to sort out the 1:n mapping pain with a sufficient phrase database
(Dorothy Day [email-masked], 24 Nov 1991; [email-masked], 28 Nov
1991.)  The overhead is expensive.  I think it is probably not a good
arrangement.  Why should a proper name, printed differently in mainland,
ChoSun, HanKuk, HongKong, JaPan, TaiWan, and elsewhere, have different
pointers?  Don't they in fact mean the same, whether it is in Time-Roman,
Helvetica, or Gothic|Fraktur?  Too complicated.  It is here, I suppose,
that some decent simplification will be helpful.  (Improved efficiency
can improve the economy, i.e. money.)  Therefore, the current GB is
probably not much better than Big5, and is probably a flaky foundation to
build upon for long-term textual database effort.  (Notwithstanding,
cxterm, byx, cwp, njstar, cedit ...  are respectful endeavors.)

IMHO, it would make much better sense to start off with a larger, more
complete generic character set ('logic OR' of all styles; no matter how
written), with considerations to regional sets (JaPan, HongKong etc.),
and then lay out the simplified character set over it (with hundred some
holes), statistically sorted into subsets, and make sure to use the same
code number for the same character for all styles, (in PinYin first,
radical second, stroke count third sequence.)  And then use a background
selector to select fonts (like in DOS Word Perfect, or other Window
softwares.)  In Mcintosh I remember there is even a 'blackmail ASCII
font' for the reckless types.

Then, the user can write many different styles of Han script in the same
text.  For instance, the reporters can write a text, and use the mouse to
mark those personal and locality names into Kanji style in five seconds.
The users (cadre, non bourgeois?) have the freedom to choose the
simplified style (as for 1:n simplified characters, there will be fewer
listed for PinYin choice.)  For some (learned dons, nouveau riche?)
aspiring to stay ahead of the vulgarity, they should have the freedom,
without coercion or harassment, to use other styles.  (The 'blackmail
font' is not suggested.:)

And it can readily be expanded to cover classical script styles, such as
the JiaGuWen (Shell|Bone Oracle script?), ZongDingWen (Bronze Vessel
script?), XiaoZuan, DaZuan, LiShu, etc., and hundreds other brush writing
styles, with minimal effort.  (probably with a lot of holes in the
arrays/subsets as well.)  And it can be readily expanded to handle
different bitmap fonts and Postscript fonts in the future.  Other
languages as well.

With the present demographical distribution, the (Imperium) Han culture
probably better be considered a common heritage to CJK countries plus
Japanese produce growers, Korean grocers, and Chinese carry-outs here and
there, plus Sino philos, enthusiasts.  Anyhow, it's a minority culture on
Earth, with a size less than the Latin derivatives.  As long as the
stability and the self-esteem are not compromised, less chauvinism/
feudalism is probably more constructive.  (Actually, 'Chinese' is more
geographical than ethnic.)

Furthermore, for a mutli-cultural society, supposedly the GB space should
be used, IMHO, to cover other 50+ scripts under the mainland
administration, such as Korean, Manzu, Mongol, Uigur, Tibetan, Yi,
Zhuang, Dai, ... etc.  (some extra-territorial negotiations needed) So
one day, major cultural archives can all be digitized, cross referenced,
and index searched, not only over the time (historical correlations), but
over the space (inter-communal correlations) as well; and start to
demonstrate the usefulness, in solving mystries (what is Li Bai's
original Turkic name?), clearing myths (Shangrila where?), finding
origins of words or expressions (many of foggy regional, peripheral, or
external origin), studying the evolution and migration of dialect groups,
...  etc.  (I wonder how Bernhard Karlgren did this without PC; kicked
off by Sven Hedin?)

The electronic Han text processing is still immature and evolving.  But,
the June Fourth has passed only two years.  I am not sure whether the
present climate is ready for this quibble yet.  However, long hesitation
is probably not good either.  Some people are not as patient.  I like to
see discussions (from linguistic perspective), so that it can evolve
further for the better.

Probably I blow a different tune in this open forum.  But, no blasphemy
or counter-revolution was intended.  Only like to see that the mainland
language policy, as a whole, would move in a better direction, and be more
efficient for every endusers (kind of the copylefted GNU spirit); for
everybody has to survive the ISO.  So then, there is a better foundation
toward the next century.  A good foundation is very important, as I was
told.  It is not an easy job; but probably not much harder than moving
the American measure toward decimal, I guess.  After five hundred years,
Cristoforo Colombo has barely reached Cathay.  I appreciate the progress
the ASCII has brought to the Han text processing.

Happy Holidays.  Now, your turn, please.
(step down the soap box, go get some drink)

============================================================================
Mao: (straight, right arm half raised, stern) Rebel with Cause!
James Dean:             ..... (casual, smile) ..... hn? ..........
Lin Yutang: ... Chinese ... is R4D1H3S3.
Chewbacca: (hoarse) ... R2D2 !! ... hhhrrrrr ... hhhrrr .....
(by the distant Valhalla commune,
a Maitreya/MiLeFo type:) ..... HoHoHo! ..... HoHoHo! .....

Appendix:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [email-masked] (Peter V Henstock)
Newsgroups: sci.lang.japan
Subject: JIS <-> Guo Bao Cross referencing
Date: 8 Dec 91 19:48:32 GMT

I have been following the threads of Japanese kanji and Chinese hanzi
comparisons.  Does anyone know of a list which cross references the
kanji and hanzi?  There are several standards of codes for both the
kanji and hanzi and many of the characters are used in both languages
though some simplifications have occurred in both languages.  I realize
that there may not be a 1:1 correspondence for all characters, but has
such a correspondence been made?

Thanks in advance,

--Peter
.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------