From: Linda
Message: 1350
Date: 2003-03-10
>Linda wrote:I did not say that every character had a simplified form, but the majority
> >
> > Here's a page that actually shows the difference between traditional and
> > simplified Chinese characters:
> >
> > http://www.chinese-outpost.com/language/characters/char0030.asp
> >
> > I personally prefer the traditional characters, but obviously the
> > simplified character are...simpler. :)
>
>No, they aren't. Only a few hundred characters have official simplified
>forms, and that means that characters incorporating the same components
>(historically) have lost their resemblance to each other, so characteres
>that were formerly similar in sound or meaning now aren't.
> > It's like the difference in English between "light" and "lite".This was a vague example for the lay person. I was illustrating the fact
>
>No, it isn't. Those are both spellings that point to the same
>pronunciation, but simplification was done without regard to whether the
>phonetic portions of the characters would still relate to characters
>with the relevant pronunciations.
> > Most characters are made up of 2 or more "radicals", which are basicallyDidn't I just say this? Yes, most characters are meaning-sound compounds
> > picture-thoughts which, when combined, make up a descriptive word or
> thought.
>
>No, they aren't.
>
>Most characters are made up of exactly two components, one, the
>"radical," giving a more or less good indication of the meaning (the
>semantic field); the other, the "phonetic," giving an indication of the
>pronunciation (2000 years ago, when they were standardized, the phonetic
>portion gave an exact or nearly exact representation of the
>pronunciation, but naturally the Chinese languages have changed while
>the script remained the same).
> > If you look at the first character listed for "hua" (speech) on the websiteThis was just an example on the way some meaning-meaning compounds are
> > I gave above, the left-hand part of the character means "word", and is a
> > pictograph of words flowing out of a mouth (3 lines and a dot coming out of
> > a square box). The right hand part of the character means "tongue", and is
> > a picture of a tongue sticking out of a mouth. Put the two together, and
> > voila! word + tongue = speech. :)
>
>Only a very tiny proportion of all the characters are constructed that
>way.
> > The traditional character listed for jian (see) is a huge eye with legs.No, the bottom half of the character is the radical for legs. Please note
>
>Actually it's 'eye' + 'man'; but it's likely that the "man" component is
>actually a phonetic, /jen/. (But 'eye' itself is now considered one of
>the 214 radicals and not usually decomposed.)
> > It's really interesting to look at the original Chinese characters someI was generalizing on the date. And I still think characters from 1 AD
> > 2000 years ago, they look more like the words they describe. If anyone is
> > interested, I can post some examples of early scripts.
>
>No, by 1 A.D. the characters pretty much had their modern shapes
>(depending on calligraphic style). For shapes that vaguely resemble
>their pictographic origins, you need to look at the earliest known
>examples, the oracle bones from the late Shang dynasty (ca. 1250 B.C.).
>Even then, if you didn't know what they were supposed to represent, you
>wouldn't be able to figure out the pictures.
> > If you are interested in writing Chinese and pictograph origins, IYes, I did not say they didn't, however I did say one is more widely used now.
> > recommend "Reading and Writing Chinese", by William McNaughton. It goes
> > into detail on many common pictographs, including strokes. Unfortunately,
> > it does not use the more widely used pinyin system for English
> > pronounciation, but I can understand because the pinyin pronounciations
> > rarely make sense to English speakers.
> > (i.e. "Xue" [study] is pronounced shooay, "Chi" [to eat] is pronounced
> > churr, and "Qi" [breath] is pronounced chee. You get the idea.)
>
>Anyone studying Chinese seriously will need to know both pinyin (to
>understand anything published in China) and Wade-Giles (the former
>standard; to understand anything published in Taiwan, and anything
>published between the 1890s and the 1960s).