Can understanders of simple Chinese characters not understand Traditional ones? Is it easy for Traditional understanders to read simple characters? Do Traditional character users look on Simple Character users as inferiors or, even, uneducated?
Simple vs Traditional Characters of Chinese
They're "Simplified", not "Simple". ;)
To answer the question, there is some extent to which traditional characters are hard to read if you only know simplified characters. There are no doubt some traditional characters that many people who normally use simplified characters know. For instance, I would bet that the character 龍 (dragon) would be recognized by users of Chinese characters everywhere, even though the official Simplified form of the character is 龙 and the Japanese form is 竜. Heck, even I know the Traditional form even though I'm only studying Japanese.
There are also patterns in the Chinese simplifications that make things easier. For instance, some radicals always get simplified to the same shapes. Compare the left parts of these: 語 and 语. The 言 part always gets simplified to that shape when it occurs on the left. Once you're aware of the pattern, it's not a great leap to assume that these are the same character, especially if the context allows it.
But there are many non-obvious simplifications, and the two characters may be mutually unintelligible. Sometimes two hanzi are simplified into the same hanzi. When you see the original hanzi, then, you may be unable to distinguish them if you can recognize them at all. You can see that they're different, obviously, but you're not sure which has what meaning.
I'm in the camp that it's easier for a Traditional reader to read Simplified than vice versa, because the Simplified characters essentially lose information, and I think it's easier for the Traditional reader to deal with the loss of information than for the Simplified reader to deal with the additional information. The Simplified reader has to worry that maybe the additional information makes it a different character than the one he thinks it is, whereas the Traditional reader doesn't have to deal with things like that more often. But then, many characters are simplified in ways that are unintuitive even for the Chinese, so it's still not a walk in the park.
- Kef
To answer the question, there is some extent to which traditional characters are hard to read if you only know simplified characters. There are no doubt some traditional characters that many people who normally use simplified characters know. For instance, I would bet that the character 龍 (dragon) would be recognized by users of Chinese characters everywhere, even though the official Simplified form of the character is 龙 and the Japanese form is 竜. Heck, even I know the Traditional form even though I'm only studying Japanese.
There are also patterns in the Chinese simplifications that make things easier. For instance, some radicals always get simplified to the same shapes. Compare the left parts of these: 語 and 语. The 言 part always gets simplified to that shape when it occurs on the left. Once you're aware of the pattern, it's not a great leap to assume that these are the same character, especially if the context allows it.
But there are many non-obvious simplifications, and the two characters may be mutually unintelligible. Sometimes two hanzi are simplified into the same hanzi. When you see the original hanzi, then, you may be unable to distinguish them if you can recognize them at all. You can see that they're different, obviously, but you're not sure which has what meaning.
I'm in the camp that it's easier for a Traditional reader to read Simplified than vice versa, because the Simplified characters essentially lose information, and I think it's easier for the Traditional reader to deal with the loss of information than for the Simplified reader to deal with the additional information. The Simplified reader has to worry that maybe the additional information makes it a different character than the one he thinks it is, whereas the Traditional reader doesn't have to deal with things like that more often. But then, many characters are simplified in ways that are unintuitive even for the Chinese, so it's still not a walk in the park.
- Kef
One thing I wonder is why 龍 was simplified to 竜 in Japanese, but the character is still used as a component of 襲.
furrykef
Here's my personal contact: litalofilo@gmail.com (Gtalk)
May I have a chance to talk with you on Gtalk? Or you choose another way.
I'm a native Chinese (Mandarin), and I would like to communicate with you.
Here's my personal contact: litalofilo@gmail.com (Gtalk)
May I have a chance to talk with you on Gtalk? Or you choose another way.
I'm a native Chinese (Mandarin), and I would like to communicate with you.
Well, I was talking about Japanese, not Chinese, and I know what the meanings are. 竜 means dragon and 襲 means attack. I was wondering why the Japanese didn't replace the 龍 part of 襲 with 竜.
<< One thing I wonder is why 龍 was simplified to 竜 in Japanese, but the character is still used as a component of 襲. >>
I don't know either. At first I was thinking that maybe 襲 isn't a Joyo kanji, since characters outside the Joyo set are often not simplified, even when they contain outdated characters as a component. But it *is* a Joyo kanji. So I have no idea what's going on there.
- Kef
I don't know either. At first I was thinking that maybe 襲 isn't a Joyo kanji, since characters outside the Joyo set are often not simplified, even when they contain outdated characters as a component. But it *is* a Joyo kanji. So I have no idea what's going on there.
- Kef
竜 is not standard character in Chinese! It's only a variant nonstandard style.
We were talking about Japanese. Chinese doesn't even have a Joyo kanji list. ;)
Stay on the topic:
Do Traditional character users look on Simplified Character users as inferiors or, even, uneducated?
Do Traditional character users look on Simplified Character users as inferiors or, even, uneducated?
I always write or type Traditional characters, and I think, Simplified characters are illogical, jumbled, deformed style, which is only designed for the illiteracies and semiliterates. Yes, it seems inferiors and uneducated.
<< 常用（じょうよう）=Joyo? or=Jouyou? >>
I often write it "jouyou", but many other people write it "Joyo", often with macrons if they're available. Even if no macros are available and the long vowels aren't indicated, people who speak Japanese will know what I mean, and people who don't speak it won't care whether or not the vowels are long. I decided to write it as "Joyo" rather than "jouyou" because it's the more common spelling in English, and somebody who isn't aware of Japanese spelling conventions is likely to mispronounce "jouyou" with entirely wrong vowels instead of only the wrong vowel length.
- Kef
I often write it "jouyou", but many other people write it "Joyo", often with macrons if they're available. Even if no macros are available and the long vowels aren't indicated, people who speak Japanese will know what I mean, and people who don't speak it won't care whether or not the vowels are long. I decided to write it as "Joyo" rather than "jouyou" because it's the more common spelling in English, and somebody who isn't aware of Japanese spelling conventions is likely to mispronounce "jouyou" with entirely wrong vowels instead of only the wrong vowel length.
- Kef