简化思想

很多人对中国有强烈的意见’简体汉字。您通常会听到“traditional faction”谴责简陋的角色丑陋和变形,对一个亚洲国家的残酷美学攻击’最受欢迎的艺术形式。同时,“simplified faction”在实用主义方面同样残酷;我为什么要写 当我可以写的时候 , 要么 当我可以写的时候 , 要么 当我可以写的时候 ?他们’所有常用字符。

I’我不会将其发布以重新回到辩论中,因为坦率地说’这是一个很愚蠢的,忽略了一些要点。从语言学的角度来看,简化的方式在很多方面都经过了深思熟虑(尽管在其他方面可能较少)。它’因此,阅读语言学家会让人耳目一新’s对问题的观点得到承认,并在论点两边都有效,并引起了人们对某些关键点的注意。在优秀的语言博客上 语言记录, 查看: 简体字注意事项做自然而然的事情 (包括Victor Mair的评论)。

一个有趣的报价:

> 的re 是 many 字符s that have 雨 “rain” as radical. 的se 在 clude: 雪 “snow”, 霏 “to fall (of snow)” 雹 “hail”, 露 “dew”, 電 “lightning, electricity”. This last, however, has been simplified to 电; it has lost its radical. Many people dislike simplifications of 这个 type because 他们 think that delinking 字符s from their radicals disrupts the system. I’ve chosen 这个 example 在 part because 这个 is a case 在 which one might argue that the principal current meaning is “electricity” 和 that 这个 has so little relationship to “rain”, “snow”, 和 so forth that it is 不 a disadvantage 和 在 deed is perhaps a virtue to dissociate it from the 字符s with the rain radical. In most cases, however, the semantic relationship persists 和 the semantic 在 formation provided 通过 the radical is arguably useful to the reader.

> Another factor is that many Simplifications violate structural principles governing the well-formedness of 中国文字. Here is the traditional form of “to study” 學. Its Simplified counterpart is 学. 的 simplified form has been standard 在 Japan since the reform of the writing system after the Second World War. I’ve never met anybody who objected to the Simplified form. It 看起来 just fine. In fact, the traditional form is difficult to write without making it look topheavy, though 我认为 it 看起来 rather dignified 在 such contexts as the bronze plaques at the entrances to universities.

通过 约翰 B (最新的博客迭代)。

分享

约翰 Pasden

约翰是上海的语言学家和企业家, 全集学习.

评论

  1. More 和 更多, 我认为 about it 喜欢 the differences between American 和 British spelling. Yes, it’s a 更多 profound difference, but as long as everyone (or, at least, a 多数 of educated people) can write one 和 read both, who cares?

    我的问题’m sure someone 这里 can answer: how well can the average Taiwanese read simplified? A lot of the 字符s 是 basically the same, 和 a good chunk of the 更多 extreme changes can probably be deduced from context, but 是 那里 many problems going that 道路?

  2. Is 那里 anywhere that documents the simplification proccess that the government had 在 mind, 和 just how far where 他们 willing to go?

  3. 约翰 B,

    In my experience, the Taiwanese can usually read the simplified 字符s which 是 formalizations of written forms, but 他们 have trouble with a lot of the ones devised 通过 the commies. 的y can often guess from context, though.

  4. 灰,

    I’获得此类文档的意义一直很深。它’确实很有趣,因为现在使用的简化字符实际上是第二种简化的结果。第三次简化实际上太过复杂而失败了(被取消了)。

    我认为 our friend w 对此了解很多;希望他’ll weigh 在 soon.

  5. I always enjoy 阅读 Bill Poser’s posts on Chinese. His use 这里 of the 木 radical reminded me of 这篇社论 它以简化的字符为起点,讨论在学习过程中如何提问。

    从美学上讲,我’我一直觉得韦没有’使其最终定型–对我来说似乎还没有完成并且很尴尬。有人分享我的不适吗?

  6. 维基百科 文章 on the failed Second Simplification Scheme is considerably better now than when I posted 这个 几年前(相应的新网址)。有扫描 这里 该计划的颁布。

    为什么第二和第三之间混淆?第一个方案实际上分为两个部分实施,一个在50年代,另一个在60年代,所以它’s easy to get the impression that the First Scheme simplified 在 dividual 字符s 和 the Second commonly-used radicals, when 他们 were 在 fact 二 halves of the same plan.

  7. 我没有’t realize 那里 were 3 simplification processes!

    哪里 他们 viewed as class struggles against the upper class as 他们 were obviously schooled 在 traditional hanzi but the peasents were probably mostly illiterate.

    有趣– 我想知道政府是否以制作自己的中文版本的想法来研究朝鲜文字。

  8. w,

    感谢您的链接。

    Hmmm, I distinctly remember 阅读 back 在 my college days that 那里 were three “phases” to the 字符 simplifications. Might have been that my sources were flawed, though. I was 阅读 only secondary sources (in English) back then.

  9. 我的问题’m sure someone 这里 can answer: how well can the average Taiwanese read simplified?

    Not well at all. I bought my cell phone when I was visiting 您 guys 在 Shanghai 这个 summer, 和 it can only write simplified 字符s. As a result, my Taiwanese girlfriend has problems understanding about 3/4 of the text messages I send her. It’现在她变得好多了’看到他们已有一段时间了,但是她’让,传,认识,个以及其他各种形式的简化完全抛弃了我们。我认为它’对于台湾人来说,这很容易 学习 to adapt to simplified 字符s, but very few I’ve met have.

  10. “我想知道政府是否以制作自己的中文版本的想法来研究朝鲜文字。” From what I read, Mao had a plan to do away with 字符s altogether 和 adopt the western alphabete type system(which maybe tranformed 在 to PinYin), but many 在 the goverment prefared the simplification of the 字符s 在 stead of losing an important part of their history. Something similar happend when korea started to abandon their chinese 字符s, but 他们 仍然 use 男 和 女 on the toilet doors. As we also know most of the simple 字符s already existed 在 the traditional set, I know i have seen, for example ‘无’有400年的历史。

  11. 我来自传统营地。

    From my experience, it was a bit tough to read Simplified from the start. 的n after picking some commonly used 字符s, the stream started to flow. I could 学习 a lot of 话 通过 simply guessing from the contexts.

    My friends from the Simplified camp told me that 他们 have 不 much of a problem 阅读 Traditional. I am quite surprised 和 have a little bit of doubt about their claim.

  12. heilong: where did 您 that Mao wanted to do away with 字符s altogether? Mao was probably the best calligrapher 在 草书 that lived 在 the last 100 years. 草书 has almost always been exclusively performed 在 traditional 字符s. It’认为像毛泽东这样的伟大书法家会建议删除这些字符,这完全是违反直觉的。

    埃德温, most of the 20-30 year old mainland Chinese would have used dictionaries that listed both simplified 和 traditional 字符s when 他们 were 在 primary school, so 他们 would have grown up accustomed to both 字符 sets as part of their vocabulary education. You can get an idea of 这个 通过 having a look at the 1979 version of the 辞海. Additionally, during the 80s 和 early 90s, 那里 were 仍然 a lot of books available 在 traditional 字符s, especially if if the book is 文言白话 fiction, take the the four classics for example.

  13. Mark 在 Dunan 说: 2007年1月13日,上午4:29

    长期的读者,第一次的海报!

    I’m a 语言 buff who is fascinated 通过 China’s attempts at simplification.

    I live 在 Japan 和 have become familiar with the traditional 字符s, since 他们 were 在 use 这里 until the 1950s 和 是 仍然 seen often. Now I’m学习中文(天堂’尚未),而仅适用于中国的简化版则难得多—特别是因为我的中文老师没有’t force me to use them; 他们 自由ly admit traditional 字符s when I write 在 Chinese. It’那些确实消除了我困扰的自由基和语音元素。

    Here’s a great blog entry I once read about the proposed additional simplification; full of examples:

    http://litserial.blogchina.com/blog/609696.html

    其中一些看起来非常过分!

  14. 我想知道政府是否以制作自己的中文版本的想法来研究朝鲜文字。

    Korean has 更多 音素s than Chinese or Japanese, so homophones 是 less of a problem.

    中国文字could be a lingua franca of sorts among the three Asian neighbors if 他们 all agreed on a common form, which is about as 喜欢ly as English-speaking nations getting together 和 revising spelling.

  15. I’我们注意到不同的国家采用不同的英语拼写。有了互联网,我就不会’t be suprised if 20 years from now 那里 was a standard 在 ternational English 被采纳 通过 scientists, universities, 和 journalists, with locals retaining unique spellings. 的re’s no ministry of culture to block English speakers from voluntarily doing whatever 他们 want to the 语言.

  16. 有趣discussion! Thanks w for the links!

    埃德温说…

    My friends from the Simplified camp told me that 他们 have 不 much of a problem 阅读 Traditional. I am quite surprised 和 have a little bit of doubt about their claim.

    Well, obviously if 您’re used to 阅读 simplified, 阅读 traditional takes getting used to. But 我认为 anyone who has reached a certain level really shouldn’大多数传统字符都不会有麻烦。那 ’s because tons of less commonly used 字符s were 不 simplified or only partially simplified. So if 您 know some less commonly used forms, 您 have to 学习 the trad forms anyway.

    以鬟为例。在老小说里总有一些丫鬟。当然,底部(huan2)在大多数简化字符中都简化为不,例如环或还。

    的 same with, say, 字符s with the 袁 phonetic–which crops up 在 dependently as a surname.

    字面上还有无数其他示例–for example 镶嵌 or 嚷. 的re, 您’我在让中学习了语音。或磷和鳞–there, 您’ve 学习ed the phonetic 在 邻居. Or 学习 阑, 谰 or 澜, 和 您’ve几乎已经学会了兰花或腐烂的语音。

    I’m 不 saying 阅读 trad isn’首先要挑战。一世’m just saying that even when 您 学习 simplified, 您 eventually 学习 to recognize a lot of trad forms. 我认为 that’s one of the major reasonsmost Mainland Chinese claim to have no trouble 阅读 trad.

    Interestingly, from the above examples 您 can see that a 学习er of simplified actually has to 学习 更多 比传统的学习者更容易学习,因为她最终会学习几乎所有语音的简化版和传统版。因此,可以说,简化学习比起初学习交易要容易,但后来却很难。

    Frankly 我认为 most serious 学习ers of Chinese should consider 学习ing both systems from the beginning.

    我在里克·哈博(Rick Harbaugh)的帮助下学习了角色’s 中文字谱, which is based on trad forms (online at zhongwen.com). Definitely a great 学习ing aid because 您 get a feeling for the phonetic systematicity. Actually the system is about 70% phonetic.

  17. 中国文字could be a lingua franca of sorts among the three Asian neighbors if 他们 all agreed on a common form, which is about as 喜欢ly as English-speaking nations getting together 和 revising spelling.

    如果我纠正我’m wrong but I believe 那里 exist 在 ternational organizations among German 和 Spanish-speaking countries (probably French-speaking ones also) which decide on spellings 和 other linguistic aspects of their respective 语言.

    Despite 这个, I’m very skeptical if China 和 Japan would ever come to agree on such a sensitive issue.

  18. Sonagi说:

    我想知道政府是否以制作自己的中文版本的想法来研究朝鲜文字。

    Korean has 更多 音素s than Chinese or Japanese, so homophones 是 less of a problem.
    Are 您 在 cluding tones 在 这个 calculation?

  19. 可能be 电 could be used for“electricity” & the “rain”radical added when it is“lightning”?

    大多数人用来写消息的是什么:字符或拼音?回顾那个关于孩子的笑话’s name, I would think that simplification would 不 only make it easier to read but also easier to write. Do 他们 have “fine print” 在 China 喜欢 他们 do 在 the US? Our 印刷精美 is hard to read — &有时候我认为’s the reason that it’s used since it’通常在法律文件/合同上。

    简化会影响识字率吗?孩子学习阅读会更容易吗&写字符是否被简化?

    当然,这只是非语言学家’s 在 quiry.

  20. 我记得我在澳大利亚小学的一位同学’s from china…即使我没有,我也很喜欢她的故事书’不了解所有这些。您可以从上下文中了解很多。

    我不’确实没有看到大陆或台湾回归传统的趋势。我认为这些重大变化确实需要某种专政命令。韩国’世宗大王介绍了汉字脚本。中国’s simplification was mandated 通过 Mao. For better or for worse, without that kind of concentration of power, the 在 ertia of doing things the 道路 他们’在语言方面,总是做得太强了。

    例如我’确保英语可以减少一些时态和不规则现象。它’ll make it easier both for 语言 学习ers 和 for native speakers, who do 不 always express themselves 在 a grammatically correct manner. But is that going to happen? 我认为 不.

  21. Are 您 在 cluding tones 在 这个 calculation?

    不。首尔韩语有21个辅音和10个元音音素,而北京普通话只有22个辅音和6个元音。一些语言学家仅通过将音素总数增加三倍来考虑音调。我认为合并音调差异的更准确方法是使元音翻四倍,使北京普通话为46个音素,而汉城韩语为31个。但是,这种音素的简单比较并没有考虑到只有一个中文辅音可以作为初始声音或最终声音出现,而六个韩语辅音(与大多数英语辅音一样)可以出现在任何位置。即使带有音调,由于汉语元音和末辅音的数量较多,北京中文的音节组合也可能少于汉城的韩文,但是我无法用谷歌清除数字来验证这是否正确。

    如果使用音调标记,可以对韩语字母进行修改,但与已牢固建立并基于世界的拼音相比,它没有真正的优势’最广泛使用的字母系统。

  22. 简化会影响识字率吗?孩子学习阅读会更容易吗&写字符是否被简化?

    As a teacher, I would say that simplified 字符s would have little impact on 阅读 but a much greater impact on writing. Recognition is far easier than production. Chinese users struggle to 召回 怎么写 字符s just as English users try to remember if it’s “i before e”或相反。

  23. // @ PS:你’以几种方式犯错;首先,毛泽东根本不是一位伟大的书法家。而且最肯定不是“100年来最大”。我知道这个概念存在于一些中国资源中。原因是,中国统治者也总是被认为是伟大的书法家(显然,他们中大多数人都不是。’t,但谁敢说别的?)。因此,想尊重毛泽东思想的传统思维中国人也必然要尊重他的书法技巧,’t have anything to do with the 事实, of course.
    第二,草书不是“专门用繁体字写成”,实际上,曹操中的人物具有自己的形状,与我们所谓的传统形状截然不同。实际上,许多简化字符都是从其草书形状衍生而来的(例如,以和为例)。
    Third, whether 直觉ive or 不, Mao advocated a gradual switch to Pinyin after the Communist victory. Only 在 due course did he realize the immense difficulty of such an attempt. But 在 the early phase of the Communist rule, 您 can find many 在 dications that a switch to Pinyin was 在 tended: often, document titles, books, signs etc. were given 在 hanzi 和 pinyin both. 的 contemporary habit of “translating ” book titles etc. 在 to Pinyin (which is helpful neither to the Chinese nor to the non-Chinese 阅读 foreigner) stems from those days. Look at the RMB bills, or step 在 to any train 在 China to see “Pinyin-signs”。那是毛泽东计划改用拼音的年代的遗物。
    I have a copy of the letter 在 which he advocated a switch, but I’m too lazy to scan it.

  24. schtickyrice 说: 2007年1月14日上午9:07

    普通话音素的相对匮乏不应阻止拼音或其他字母书写系统代替汉字。关键是要利用普通话的多音节性质,并通过使用凝集和复合来以书面形式重新实现‘words’。这大大减少了同音异义词的数量,并已有效地应用于苏维埃中亚的穆斯林华人使用的基于西里尔字母的Dungan脚本,用于甘肃普通话。

    普通话的多音节性质是入侵的拓跋土耳其人,希钦斯人(辽),朱琴斯人(金)-满族和蒙古人的阿尔泰语系语言的重大影响。与单音节汉字相比,用语音系统可以更好地影响多音节特征,从而更好地代表韩语。我倾向于认为,汉字在中国,韩国和日本的继续使用与文化传统有关,而不是纯粹的功利主义避免同音异义的必要。

  25. Ben: Are 您 a calligrapher? On what basis do 您 draw the conclusion that Mao is 不 a great calligrapher at all? Both my parents 是 calligraphy enthusiasts, my dad is a decent calligrapher himself as well. Both of them think Mao’草书是最近100年来最好的书之一。

    作为一种艺术形式,中国书法的所有变体都应以繁体字进行。—因为书法作为一种艺术形式已经存在了2000年,而简化字符仅存在了大约50至100年。当然,您可以用简体字进行书法,但通常不会’看起来不错。硬笔书法之间也有一些区别—使用钢笔/铅笔执行,使用软笔书法使用不同类型的传统画笔执行。硬笔书法还不到100年的历史,其重点是日常笔迹。因此,您可能会发现一些硬笔草书字帖,但我怀疑您’d找到任何软笔草书字帖。现在,软笔书法几乎完全是一种艺术形式。大部分毛’的书法工作是在软笔书法中进行的。草书比中国书法的其他变体(单词)更自由“草” means “free”, “careless”, “scribble”。这意味着草书的不同书法家在如何简化每个字符的某些部分方面倾向于有不同的偏好。那里没有太多的统一性,因此简体字与草书之间的任何相似之处可能完全是偶然的。学和为从其草书形状,其草书字帖的来源得到的证据在哪里?

    您的第三点甚至不那么直观。简化字符的全部目的是提高读写能力。因此,如果中国完全抛弃了罗姆人alphabat的角色,它不仅会迷惑那些即将受教育的人,还会迷惑那些已经受过教育的人,其结果将完全适得其反。拼音的目的是规范汉字的名词,’从未打算替换字符。鉴于中文同音字的数量众多,用拼音代替字符会令人难以置信。你一直在说“在早期共产党统治期间”但是,您没有意识到早期的共产党人对西方的一切都怀有极端的敌意—拼音方案本质上是西方的’在中国从来没有做过拼音’s history. It’这只是完全违反直觉的暗示,早期的共产主义者本来想用来自“evil west”.

    哪里’共产党胜利后毛泽东主张改用拼音的证据吗?这是什么时候的事儿?如果我没记错的话,在胜利之后,毛泽东关心的是消灭整个中国的军阀残余,控制西藏,养活他的人民以及与朝鲜战争和其他边境战争作斗争。我很难想象他’d花费了大量时间进行汉字改革。根据维基百科,”拼音于1958年获得批准, 被采纳 在1979年。我相信它的主要目的是标准化普通话的发音。我不知道这是什么“将“书名”等翻译成拼音的当代习惯” 您 是 talking about. Are 您 talking about foreign books or Chinese books? Have 您 actually seen a book 在 China whose front cover contains only pin yin 和 no 中国文字? Annotating the titles of Chinese books with pin yin is 不 在 tended to help the Chinese, 他们 是 在 tended to help foreigners who cannot read or pronouce 中国文字. With pin yin, 他们 might 仍然 have no clue about the contents of the book, but at least 他们 have some idea about the pronouciation of the title. 的 pin yin on the RMB bills probably serve the same purpose.

    If 您 could show me that copy of Mao’s letter advocating for the switch to pin yin, I’d believe 您.

  26. 从中文字符转换为英文字母的方法有很多,但我大多数’在20世纪早期,在共产党之前就已经提出过。例如,俄罗斯的华人社区中有一些报纸在Gwoyeu Luomatzyh中发表(我希望我拼写的是正确的,’是一个奇数系统)。但是在我的阅读中,我从未遇到过中共认真努力改写字母的过程,尽管’当然有可能我想念他们。实际上,它还有第二种简化形式,试图用可以’T型(罐子的左上部分,如果我没记错的话,用ren代替jia的猪元素)。但是,与Ben谈过的大部分材料’我们的阅读表明,到1949年,拼音和其他罗马化版本已被取代以代替字符。拼音旨在帮助尚未学会阅读汉字的中国人,不仅是一种比fanqie系统更好的学习汉字的系统(并避免了WG中的变音符号和Gwoyeu罗马化或音调拼写的怪异拼写)。即使打算进行转换(我只是注意到您帖子末尾的最后一句话),也有其他理由。

    伙计,这是一个有趣的讨论。我没有’t think I’在我完成文学学士学位论文之后,有很多机会来讨论这个问题。

  27. PS,

    I’我也读过关于毛’s plans to do away with 中国文字altogether 在 favor of pinyin. A quick search turns up multiple results supporting 这个, 和 on 政府场所,不少于:

    早在一九四○年,毛主席就指示我们:“文字必须在一定条件下加以改革”(“毛泽东选集”第二卷七○一页)。近年来,毛主席更进一步指出了中国文字改革要走世界文字共同的拼音方向。这就是说必须把汉字逐渐改变成为拼音文字。

    Check 您的 事实, man. I’m afraid 您 can’t “intuit” all of Mao’的计划。另外,虽然毛泽东可能一直反对盲目追随西方,但他也反对“the olds,” 和 saw 中国文字as a harmful part of old Chinese culture that was holding the nation back from greatness.

  28. 马克说:

    Not well at all. I bought my cell phone when I was visiting 您 guys 在 Shanghai 这个 summer, 和 it can only write simplified 字符s. As a result, my Taiwanese girlfriend has problems understanding about 3/4 of the text messages I send her.

    Dude, 您’re starting to sound 道路 太像这里的外国人’整个台湾的犯罪是根据他们的台湾gf告诉他们的。

    在这种情况下’s true that 不 all Taiwanese can read simplified, but many can. 我认为 您’有点过分了,这就是全部。

  29. 约翰,

    毛的直接报价是“字符必须在特定条件下进行改革” —改革并不意味着完全消除字符。部分“这就是说必须把汉字逐渐改变成为拼音文字” seems to be 吴玉章’自己对毛的解释’其他评论。但是,鉴于吴玉章是中国最好的大学之一的首任负责人,我想他所说的是完全可信的。

    鉴于毛’的背景,我不得不说这真的让我感到惊讶。一世’d从未想过他’d与角色走得太远了。我能理解文化大革命中破四旧的东西,但是消除角色简直是荒谬的。

    After 阅读 through that entire report, I gotta say 吴玉章’的观点过于激进,没有经过深思熟虑。

  30. 你好

    This is off-topic, I know, but I just had to react to what 您 wrote, “ps”:

    “..You keep saying “在早期共产党统治期间”, but 您 fail to realise that the early communists were extremly hostile towards anything western..”

    Were 他们 really? 什么 do 您 mean 通过 “early”? 的 Cultural Revolution? That wasn’t early.

    不幸的是,我认为现在有太多人在犯同样的错误:试图将现代中国历史纳入术语和范围,而西方人则可以通过过分简化来轻松理解。历史很少是简单的(特别是近代中国历史),使用简化的二元论来观察发展,例如善恶,传统/现代,甚至东西方,都无济于事,而且确实会产生误导。

    Look at the who made up the core group of the founders of the Chinese Communist Party 在 the 1920s. It was students who had been sent abroad to be educated, most of them 在 France. It was 在 the West that 他们 were first exposed to socialism. Communism was an 在 herently western phenomena, 和 was actually a concept quite foreign to traditional Chinese thinking. It was Comintern agents loyal to Stalin (a western ruler of a western power) that oversaw the founding to the CCP 在 Shanghai.

    至于角色,我正忙于学习繁体字(在台湾)。我很高兴现在开始学习正确的表格,尽管在某些时候我知道我也希望也能够阅读损坏的版本。我只是认为’比其他方法容易(如果听起来很遗憾,’s,因为我只认真地讲了一半!)。

  31. 约翰, it would be quite educational for 您 to go over some of the simplication methods. 您 wrote

    “the simplifications were rather well thought out 在 many 道路s (although perhaps less so 在 others).”

    I’我已经花了几个月的时间来理解简单性… while I believe some of them 是 qutie good 和 thought out, the 多数 of them 是 不. For the most part, simplified 字符s 是 frustrating because many of the simplications 是 在 consistent 和 many 是 不 well thought out. When I have time, open up the dictionary 和 start looking for linking traits 在 the 字符 trees 和 often find many faults 在 the schemes.

    some of the threads I’ve started on the Chinesepod forums that talks about both good 和 bad simplications.

    This is a thread about simplified 字符s which I believe to 更多 complicated than the traidtional ones

    http://www.chinesepod.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=855

    和 这个 is specifict simplication of 夠–〉够 which I believe to be pointless 和 在 error
    http://www.chinesepod.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=873

    但是,由于Cpod的技术问题,我有些字符目前还没有出现。

    As for the writing aspect 您 touched upon, while simplified 字符s 是 much easier to write, 他们 是 much harder to 学习, because of reduced 在 formation presented 在 the 字符s.

    和 我不’不太理解为什么某些笔画被正式简化了。它’与书写和打印相同。当每个人都知道这是什么意思时,从官方正式简化从言语到言语的根本。它’是草书还是印刷书的问题。

    总而言之,需要简化…但我坚决反对,这种简化是由政策和方式承担的。

    one 更多 thing.. I really hate how the X is used 在 consistently for simplication.

  32. 简化词根是愚蠢的,除了使作品看起来更丑外,实际上没有任何目的。

    BTW,PS,我所有’ve gotta say is “huh?” 的 wiping out 和 suppression of priceless, unique architecture, art, 和 art forms (not to 人tion unique Chinese traditions 和 mode of thought) 您 can understand, but wiping out the writing system is ridiculous? Frankly, 那里 is very little about the Cultural Revolution that 我不’t find ridiculous (, wasteful, 和 tragic) so 我不’t know why 您 find Mao’的狂妄自大,很难接受。

  33. 当然每个人’不会忘记注音又称bopomofo吗?它创建于1913年,当时共产主义与共和主义的愚蠢问题才进入写作辩论。

    我对简体字和传统字的想法:futhorc肯定是一个漂亮的书写系统,但是我’m 不 sure i’d喜欢在日常通信中使用它。

  34. 拥有超过20亿(?)大陆人和50年良好的官僚作风&实际应用背后的简化,我’m sure it’将会存在一段时间。另一方面,传统有2000年的悠久历史’只要周围有书本和刷子,就不能清除。

    Chinese is so wonderfully 3-dimensional. Let’s keep them both!

  35. 罗伊亲王说:

    Dude, 您’re starting to sound 道路 太像这里的外国人’整个台湾的犯罪是根据他们的台湾gf告诉他们的。

    在这种情况下’s true that 不 all Taiwanese can read simplified, but many can. 我认为 您’有点过分了,这就是全部。

    可能be 您 missed my last sentence:

    我认为 it’对于台湾人来说,这很容易 学习 to adapt to simplified 字符s, but very few I’ve met have.

    我在北京的一个同伴收到一封电子邮件,其中包含一些我无法简化的字符’t read. I showed it to three Taiwanese buddies, 和 不 only could 他们 不 read it, 没有 他们中的人能尽我所能阅读。令我惊讶的是,我向20多个不同的人展示了该书,但没人能读。至于我给女友的手机短信,我也向几个人展示。唯一能读懂它们的人是我当地的商业伙伴,恰好住在上海。

    为了不存在“overly broad”, 和 making sure I’m 不 “那些外国人之一”, maybe I can print one of the cellphone messages up, stand outside an MRT station 和 ask passersby to see if 他们 can read it. I’我敢打赌,不到四分之一就可以。如果我’m wrong I’ll take 那讨厌的镜头 三洋维士比 drink. But if I’m right, 您’ve gotta take the extra shot. Deal?

  36. 理查德说:

    简化词根是愚蠢的,除了使作品看起来更丑外,实际上没有任何目的。

    Do 您 喜欢 writing out the traditional version of turtle radical 在 every 字符 that calls for it? I sure don’t.

    龟vs.龟, 决定!

  37. Richard, who exactly 是 您? 什么 kind of background do 您 have 在 语言学, Chinese literature, history 和 arts? 什么 makes 您 think 您 是 better qualified than the native Chinese linguists to pass judgement on the simplification of 中国文字?

    的 simplification of 中国文字creates an almost 1-to-1 mapping from traditional 字符s to simplified 字符s. 什么 这个 means is that the simplification is almost lossless. 的 grammar, the pronociation 和 the collocational properties of Mandarin have remained unchanged after the simplification. In other 话 , the simplification of 字符s does 不 hurt the 语言. 的 main goal of the simplification is to make the 字符s easier to remember, thus 直觉ively improving literacy rate. Given the high literacy rate 在 taiwan, one can argue that the simplification was unnecessary, however, it could also be argued that the baseline of education 在 taiwan was much higher than that of the mainland 在 the beginning, 那里fore, the comparison is 不 fair.

    I’对不起,我在这次讨论中带来了文化革命。毫无疑问,这是自建国以来最糟糕的事情之一。我没有’看不到任何表明毛泽东亲自鼓励破坏古建筑,书籍和文物的东西— I believe these destructions were committed 通过 over-zealous red guards who thought 他们 were doing Mao’s bidding — feel 自由 to quote actual documents to prove me wrong. Mao should bear some of the blame for the destructions, but 我不’t think that’s what he 在 tended. I know 您 disagree me 这里, but 这个 is 不 the place to argue about it.

    马克,大多数台湾人一生中从未见过或研究过任何简体字—不像大多数大陆人在小学阶段接受词汇学习时都接触过两种字符集。它’s entirely possible that the message 您的 GF sent 您 consisted mostly of simplified 字符s, 和 that’s为什么大多数台湾人不能’t read it.

    Furthermore, have 您 heard of a software called njstar (http://www.njstar.com/)?它’s a windows program that allows 您 to 自由ly convert simplified chinese 字符s to traditional ones — 和 vice versa. If 您 really have trouble with simplified chinese 字符s, 您 should buy a copy of it 和 it’不管其原始形式如何,均以传统变体显示所有汉字。

  38. shtickyrice写道:

    我倾向于认为,汉字在中国,韩国和日本的继续使用与文化传统有关,而不是纯粹的功利主义避免同音异义的必要。

    That is absolutely true for Korea, where 中国文字are imbedded 在 Korean script 在 newspapers 和 textbooks. 我认为 the real obstacles to abolishing 字符s 在 China 和 Japan 是 pragmatic: teenagers 和 adults would essentially have to 学习 to read all over again. Being able to sound out pinyin or another alphabet 和 阅读 pinyin text fluently 是 二 very different things. When 您 read 在 English, 您的 eyes 在 stantly process whole 话 和phrases without sounding out their 音素s. English written phonetically would look 喜欢 a foreign 语言 to 您. It is the same for Chinese 阅读 pinyin.

    而且,随着新的书写系统的发展,使用汉字的所有书面文件将变得不易被一代人阅读,并且将图书馆藏书和历史文件转换为拼音将是一项不可能的任务。

    的se 二 pragmatic obstacles also stand 在 the 道路 of any major spelling reform 在 English.

  39. 标记:
    我应该修改:我’m OK with simplifying the complicated 字符s 和 radicals, but 他们 didn’t do that. As 人tioned above, most of the slightly-used, complicated 字符s weren’t simplified. Instead, 他们 decided to change the radicals 喜欢 yan (speak), che (chariot), 人 (gate) which was silly if 不 downright idiotic (no one’由于这些简化,因此学习汉语的时间会更轻松)。它’s as if 他们 decided that making the 语言 uglier 和 nonsensical was a goal 在 itself. Oh, 和 gan1 (dry) is now the same as gan4 (do). Yay for simplification.

    PS:在某些情况下,这种简化简化了助记符,使学习语言变得更加容易。 1949年的台湾没有’t的基线比沿海较富裕的省(例如浙江或江苏)高,因此’s 不 deal with conjectures; if simplification made the 语言 easier to 学习, mainland grade schoolers would be gaining greater literacy at the same grade level as grade schoolers 在 Taiwan. 的y do 不. Finally, as 您 人tioned 您的self, 在 troducing another system of writing means that mainlanders have to 学习 even 更多 字符s, which defeats the purpose of 在 troducing 这个 new system.

    的 problem is that native Chinese linguists that 您 think so highly of were operating under a totalitarian Communist system, which means that politics was 在 volved. Say that the linguists truly thought that the traditional system was easier to 学习 than any simplified system that was proposed. Would 他们 dare say that out loud if 他们 knew that the Communist leadership wanted a new writing system for political purposes? So 在 stead of scientifically testing out new writing systems to see what will allow gaining literacy to be easier, 他们 put out systems 通过 fiat.

  40. @PS:足以要求理查德’的资格(我敢肯定,如果有人要我自己的话,地狱不会给出答案! g), but 您 您的self haven’在洞察力和资格方面,也给人留下了最深刻的印象。这句话解释了很多:

    我没有读过任何书,表明毛泽东亲自鼓励破坏古建筑,书籍和文物

    • then 您 simply haven’t read enough, I’m afraid. Give some non-PRC sources on Mao a read. While 您’再看看约翰·德弗朗西斯(John DeFrancis)’ outstanding “Chinese 字符s – fact 和 fantasy”;我刚刚检查了汉字改革和共产党的整个历史’ role is recounted 那里. Also 您 can find Mao’提倡改用拉丁字母的字母。
  41. 阿奇,愚蠢的我,可以’不要使用评论标签… sorry

  42. 里查德(Richard),在大多数丢弃部首(助记符)的情况下,字符本身的出现频率很低,或者简化版本与传统对应版本一样明确。信息丢失绝对是最小的。

    您的arguments on the literacy makes no sense. 的 only sure 道路 to prove 您的 point or mine about the baseline of education, is to show the literacy rate of Taiwan 在 1950, 和 the literacy rate of PRC 在 1950, then take 在 to account the economical 和 social progress 在 both sides of the strait 在 the last 60 years. It also makes no sense to 人tion that Zhejing 和 Jiangsu were richer than Taiwan 在 1950 —即使是这种说法也是非常有争议的。 1950年的中国不仅限于浙江和江苏,而且中央政府无法’他们只是忽略了所有其他省份,而仅针对这两个省份制定了教育政策。

    As far as 学习ing a new set of 字符s as a result of the simplification is concerned, 您 是 exaggerating the problem as well. If the mass 多数 of the population were illiterate which was the case of PRC 在 1950, then teaching them the simplified 字符s would 不 have confused them.

    You 是 also exaggerating the 在 fluence of the totalitarian communist system 在 1950. 你说 您的self that 您 didn’t want to bring conjecture 在 to 这个 discussion, but what 您 claimed was 不hing but a conjecture. 的 idea of 字符 simplification was proposed 道路 before 1950. According to wikipedia, a scholar named 陆费逵 proposed the simplification of 中国文字to use 在 schools 在 1909. That shows that the communists weren’t唯一一个出于教学目的想要简化角色的人。

    Ben, 这里 is a wikipedia description of 这个“Chinese 字符s – fact 和 fantasy” 您 是 talking about:

    没有“Chinese 语言”。有一组相关的说话方式,有些可以称为方言,有些则称为方言(DeFrancis使用术语“regionalects”),还有其他人将其视为独立的语言。根据在北京流行的演讲,一种这样的变体已被提升为“preferred”在中国的地位,现在称为“Putonghua”或通用语言。

    的 Chinese script has a heavy phonological basis, shown 在 the phonetic elements common 在 更多 than half of 中国文字. Unfortunately 他们 是 missing from many common 字符s, causing many foreign scholars to miss the point that 他们 是 a necessary resource for Chinese readers. It is 不 a brilliant 表意的 script; it is a lousy phonetic script.

    不可能有这样的事情“ideographic” script, where symbols stand for ideas unrelated to 话 . Human brains don’那样工作。因此,中文不是’还是这样的脚本。

    中文剧本对中国社会没有好处。它是通往任何类似于大众扫盲的道路的障碍,如果中国要实现现代化的好处,就必须抛弃它。

    除了语音方面的某些部分,我不同意所有这些观点。他的最后一点也公然错误— the current literacy rate 在 PRC is 90 percent, 和 96% 在 taiwan (according to wikipedia). Common sense would tell 您 that the literacy rate is 更多 determined 通过 economical factors than the 字符s. This book was published 在 1986 — it’现在20岁了,唐’感到惊讶的是它的某些理论和数据不再适用于今天’的华语世界。我没有’没读那本书,所以我赢了’不多说。但是我要说的是:约翰·德弗朗西斯(John DeFrancis)不是说中文的人,他没有’具有与母语使用者相同的语言直觉, ’这就是为什么对于母语人士来说显而易见的某些事情在他看来似乎很奇怪。

  43. schtickyrice 说: 2007年1月16日下午1:23

    ona菜

    什么 您 say is correct; for people who already 学习ed how to read hanzi, replacing it completely with pinyin would be 喜欢 relearning a new 语言. However, 这个 hasn’t阻止了越南语在法语罗马化之后重新拥有自己的新生活。最初引入hangul时,对于已经有汉子文化的韩国人来说,要改用新的书写系统也同样困难。我猜想这两种语言的字母顺序是由于普通民众汉字的相对较低的识字率开始的。我的猜测是,如果共产党员在他们的扫盲运动开始之初就引入了拼音,而70%的人口是文盲,那可能奏效了。当然,这只是理论上的推测。除了继续使用汉字作为书面语言外,还有明显的美学和文化价值。

  44. @PS:它’相反。我可以阅读大量的简化文字。我的台湾朋友,包括我的gf,可以’t。公平地说,我不能’在我去年夏天去大陆之前,不要读任何简体字(碰巧与日本汉字相同的那些字)。

  45. PS, 您 may disagree, just as 您 may disagree that 1+1=2, but we’re 这里 to discuss 事实 和 empirical studies, 不 opinions. 的re is as much of a 中文 as 那里 is a Romance 语言. Character-based 语言s harder to pick up. It takes 更多 years of schooling for a kid 在 China or Taiwan, on average, to gain enough literacy to read the paper (regardless of socioeconomic status) than a kid 学习ing a phonetic written script. You also seem to want to confuse the issue 通过 bringing 在 baseline socioeconomic concerns, when 您 haven’t shown that 他们 是 relevant 在 any 道路. From the research I’我们已经读过,在同一年的教育中,简化字符比传统字符集更难记住(如果有的话)。一世’ve also seen no 在 dication that socioeconomic levels matter so long as 自由 education is provided. North Koreans 学习 the same 语言 as South Koreans. North Korea is absolutely dirt poor compared to South Korea. North Korea has a higher literacy rate than South Korea.

    关于 在 troducing the simplified 字符s: 的 mass 多数 of the population was 不 在 troduced to simplified 字符s 在 1950. By the time the big changes 在 second wave of simplied 字符s were 在 troduced (in the ’70’s), the 多数 of the population was already literate 在 the traditional/first wave 字符 set, so 通过 在 troducing another simplified script, 您 making it harder (besides which, even if 他们 were illiterate to begin with, it would 仍然 be harder, as 通过 您的 own admission, both 字符 sets 是 taught 在 schools on the mainland, so someone who doesn’不懂语言)。您应该承认,学习2个字符集比学习1个字符集需要更多的精力。

    Finally, about the radicals: We agree that 那里 is no loss of 在 formation. We also (hopefully) agree that most of the changes to the radicals do 不 make make the 语言 easier to 学习. So my point: Why Change 的m?

  46. I’我一直以为德弗朗西斯对自己的想法太过迷恋了‘abandon 字符s’schtick。他在这里想什么: [Chinese script] needs to be abandoned if China is to achieve the benefits of modernization.。那’s crazy talk.

    我不同意谁说台湾没有’享有比内地更高的基准。日本人对台湾有了实质性的改善’的教育系统,包括小学义务教育。到战争结束时,台湾的出勤率在亚洲排名第二,无疑大大超过了大陆。

    无论如何,试图用台湾与中国的比较来论证传统字符的优越性(或简化字符不能有效提高识字率)是不明智的。和我’我坚守传统阵营的人

  47. 理查德,就我’mconcerned, 您的 “facts” 是 不hing but 您的 own sometimes biased opinion. You talk about empirical studies, but 您 haven’t backed up any of 您的 assertions with objective statistics. 我不’我对浪漫语言不太了解,所以我赢了’t comment on it. However, if 您 could find an european country that has used the same written 语言 continuously 在 the same 道路 as the Chinese written 语言 has been used 在 China, then 您 might be able to make the case for a Romance 语言. Let me just remind 您, China is 不 Europe, China has different traditions, histories 和 cultures than those from Europe, 的 European standard does 不 always apply to China.

    As far as 您的 delusions about the difficulty of 学习ing the 字符 is concerned, 我不’t feel it’s worth arguing about. Let me just tell 您 这个, I 学习t to read from the age of 3, 和 I already finished 阅读 西游记 在 traditional 字符s without the help of any adults 通过 the age of 7, 和 I wasn’这是我小学里唯一这样做的人。一世’m sure 那里 是 western kids who read Shakespear or whatever at an even 您nger age — but that just shows 那里 is little correlation between 语言 和 literacy rate. You 和 other westerners may find it difficult to 学习 中国文字— that’s just because 您 是 不 used to it 和 您的 brains don’在字符识别方面,我们的工作方式与我们相同。

    我不’t understand how 您 can possibly discount social economical factors 在 literacy rate. 的re 是 many many poor kids 在 China 和 many of them don’甚至不去上学或很早就辍学以帮助家人谋生。目前,在中国的一些大城市中,关于农民工子女学校的行列很大’s. To brush these things aside 喜欢 您 did is borderlining absurdity.

    的 situationin NK is vastly different from that of China. If 您 haven’t 不iced, China is vastly bigger than NK, with far 更多 population 和 a much 自由r economy 和 political system. Given the highly dictatorail nature of the NK regime 和 the total stagnation of economical activities 在 NK, it is totally feasible for the NK government to lock down their entire population 和 force the kids to go to school.

    If 您 have to argue that spelling based 语言s 是 easier to 学习 than 字符 based 语言s, then what about India (61%), Turkey (88.3%) or any of the other 100 or so countries that rank below China 在 literacy rate but use spelling based 语言s?

    你说 ” By the time the big changes 在 second wave of simplied 字符s were 在 troduced (in the ‘70’s), the 多数 of the population was already literate 在 the traditional/first wave 字符 set”。一世’d have to ask 您 to produce some proof for 这个. How much do 您 mean 通过 “majority”?中国目前的识字率约为90.9%(2005年数字)—这是自1980年以来经过25年的和平发展。让’别忘了10年(1966-1976)的文化革命,在此期间,几乎没有什么教育活动,因为大多数学生都背叛了老师。什么’无论如何,提出第二轮简化的目的是什么? 1986年撤回。

    不,我也从来没有说过这两种字符集都是作为词汇课程的一部分在学校教授的。我说的是,我们使用的词典经常用简体字和繁体字来注释条目。我在以前的一篇文章中举了一个这样的词典的例子。小学阶段的教科书中只讲了简体字,尽管出于消除歧义/历史目的可能会出现一些传统字。你不’t have to believe me, pick up a 1988 grade 3 Chinese textbook to see for 您的self.

    我不’同意自由基的简化确实’使角色更容易学习。毕竟,使角色更容易学习是简化的全部目的。告诉我,这两个中的哪一个更容易记住:叶还是叶?

  48. PS, 我认为 您 have raised many valid points 在 您的 posts 和 I agree with several. However, a 90.9% literacy rate is 不 one of them. 没有way China has that high of a literacy rate. It’可能在75%附近。

  49. 我不’t think spelling based 语言s 是 easier to 学习 than 字符 based 语言s. for example, if 您 know “牛” 和“肉”, 您 will know what “牛肉”means. but if 您 know “cow/ox” 和 “meat”, 您 仍然 don’t know what “beef” means. 您 have to memerize the meaning 和 spelling of “beef”.

    我处于20-30岁年龄段。我们只被教简体中文。繁体中文的阅读能力是内地人自然而然的,而台湾人则必须学会阅读那些简朴的人。

  50. Mark 在 Dunan 说: 2007年1月18日,上午2:02

    PS, with regards to taking the radicals off of 字符s, what about the fact that such 字符s have to then carry 二 completely different meanings? 我认为 that’这给读者带来了更大的负担,而且鉴于阅读的文字比撰写的文字要多得多,’d宁愿看赞成 承认 而不是使它们更容易书写。

  51. PS:

    1. I was talking about common, already simple radicals 喜欢 yan 和 人 (so stop 在 troducing strawmen). Are 您 serious when 您 say that changing those radicals aids memorization 在 any 道路? If so, then 您’ve been 洗脑 beyond hope.

    2. 然后不要’t compare rural farmers. Compare urban grade-schoolers from middle-class families. 我认为 that 您’仍然会发现简化脚本没有’t make 学习ing easier. If so, 您’ll have to show how the simplified script would somehow improve the ease of 学习ing 通过 rural farmers if 他们 can 不 improve the ease of 学习ing of urbanites.

    3. A 语言 is 不 the written script. If 拉丁 was written using 字符s, 您’d现在可能看到法国,意大利,西班牙,甚至德国和英国都在写信“Latin”,而同一句子的发音却大不相同,其中一些可能引入了平假名型脚本。

    最后,德弗朗西斯很傻。人们自然会选择最适合其语言的脚本。那’s why 您’ve seen a gradual move away from kanji to the phonetic scripts 在 Japan over the centuries, big moves from hanzi to scripts once 他们 were 在 troduced 在 Japan 和 Vietnam, the phonetication of Coptic (from hieroglyphics) . . . . 和 更多 traditional 字符s popping up again 在 mainland China (while Taiwan &香港尚未简化下来)。每个人都知道台湾的bo-po-mo-fo,但没有人认真考虑将其用作书写系统’t forbidden (and 在 the kids pages of newspapers, 您’我经常会用汉字看到它们)。

  52. 马克,我从维基百科得到了我的号码,’d be happy to believe 您 if 您 could show me a credible source of 您的 75% figure.

    Richard, every time I squash 您的 argument, 您 just change 您的 mind 和 say 您 didn’t mean what 您 said. You claim to have knowledge 在 Chinese, but 我不’t see 您 use 中国文字in 您的 post. You keep denying my data, but at the same time 您 provide no data or sources for 您的 claims. This is getting ridiculous. I’m 不 sure exactly sure what 您 mean 通过 “yan” or “men”,但我会尝试一下。的最可能匹配“yan”是左半边“语”, that’s为简化字符,部首有2个笔画,传统的计数是“語”, the same radical now has 7 strokes, 您 tell me which one is simpler to remember. For “men”, I assume 您 mean “门” — that’简化了3笔,但“門” 在 traditional, has 8 stokes, 您 tell me which one is simpler to remember.

    您的“brainwashed”人身攻击越来越老。一方面,我 ’m a native speaker of Chinese born 和 educated 在 China, 和 I spent the last 9 years living 和 studying 在 a western country, my major is computational 语言学. On the other hand, 您 是 a non-Chinese whose first 语言 is 不 Chinese, 和 so far 您’ve only demonstrated 您的 bias against all things PRC, 和 very little actual knowledge 在 the 中文. Yet 您 feel 您 是 qualified to call me “brainwashed” on issues regarding the 中文. How do 您 expect me to take 您 seriously?

    You were the one who objected against the use of conjectures, 和 now 您的 points 2 和 3 是 both pure conjectures. You keep saying “I think”, “If” — these 是 just 您的 personal opinions. Unless 您 can back them up with 事实 or actual studies reported 在 peer-reviewed journals or conference papers, I won’认真对待他们

    我不’t speak Japanese, 和 我不’t know how the Japanese use Kanji. 什么 I do know is that theoratically, 他们 don’t need Kanji anymore, but 他们 仍然 use Kanji beause Kanji 字符s tend to be less ambigious compared with other Japanese scripts. A friend of mine is doing a PhD on Japanese dictionary lookup correction using Kanji 和 another script —汉字的明确性是他最大的卖点之一。

    I’m too tired to try to puzzle out what the point 您 是 trying to put across 在 您的 last paragraph is. However, Chinese is a very different 语言 from Japanese, China is a very different country from Japan, so whatever applicable to Japanese may 不 automatically be applicable to Chinese.

  53. ps,

    唐’别忘了,简单并不意味着容易记住。原因之一是第二(又名“third”) round of simplications failed is that 他们 went too far 和 too many 字符s were becoming too similar.

    例:
    頭 和 大: Very different, easy to distinguish. In 頭, the 豆 is phonetic 和 the 頁 means“head.”
    头 和 大: Very similar. 头 no longer has either the phonetic or meaning components.

    现在它’容易辩称,在中国,没有人会遇到区分头和大的问题,我知道这是事实。但是语言习得在很大程度上是无意识的过程。简单地看一下笔画的数量就是将其视为一个完全有意识的过程,而忽略了潜在的认知问题。

    不过,最重要的是’很难证明一个系统在无意识的认知水平上比另一个系统更好。’m afraid no amount of debate 这里 is 在 the least convincing either 道路. I seem to 召回 那里 being studies on 这个 issue; when I get the time I will research it some 更多.

  54. Xiong Da Hai 说: 2007年1月18日下午5:04

    PS在他/她最近的帖子中写道:

    You 和 other westerners may find it difficult to 学习 中国文字— that’s just because 您 是 不 used to it 和 您的 brains don’在字符识别方面,我们的工作方式与我们相同。

    I’ll ask, what about Western-born children of Chinese descent? Is it the location of birth that makes Western brains work differently, or their skin color, or the food 他们 consumed as a child, or what? I hope that 您 是 simply referring to cultural upbringing, 和 that Chinese cultural upbringing somehow molds the mind to 更多 easily 学习 商标graphic writing systems. Let me address 这个 在 二 道路s.

    首先,主观上。一个个人的问题是,这与中国人学习字母书写系统的难易程度有什么关系?如果中国人确实可以轻松地学习字母书写系统,那么阅读字符和阅读字母是不相干的过程(至少在学习阶段是这样),或者在两种文化之间,阅读的神经结构实际上并没有显着差异。第一种情况看来不太可能是真的,我稍后对此进行支持。因此,我认为您的归纳确实需要澄清,“与以前接触过商标的人相比,从未学习过商标的人起初会更加难以学习。”但这是相当空洞的,因为几乎所有经历过的认知过程在所有领域中都能改善获取,保留和表现,这是事实。还有一个个人观察:并非每个西方人都有麻烦。一世’我出生于美国,在我小的时候就接触过罗马化的书写系统,但是我似乎对符号有一定的了解,并且发现汉字(我一年前才从事的一项工作)相对容易,因为做我的一些朋友。 (我也会向所有提出要求的人证实,简化字符易于记忆,因为它们保留了重要的语音信息,通常在较小的语音包中,因为许多部首已被简化,并且通常没有多余的笔画。)不同的人的招。

    Let me now try to back up my disagreement with 您的 statement that 字符 承认 和 alphabetic 承认 is 在 herently different, 和 leads to the conditioning of different neural structures. “学习超越逻辑记录阶段的中文”在《阅读研究季刊》上,32,3:276–C. Suk-Han Ho和P.Bryant的289是最近(1997年)的一篇论文,似乎证明,即使是文字书写系统也几乎完全依赖于语音信息,就像字母系统一样,并且以母语为母语的人的学习也从最初开始逻辑记录阶段(对 字符)进入语音阶段( 音素thecharacter stands for). Of course, 那里 seems to be 更多 at work, see “母语和语音访问对汉字识别的影响”Y. Mori在《现代语言杂志》,82,i:69中–82年出版于1998年,进行了一项有趣的研究,该研究表明,尽管具有字母和逻辑记录写作经验的人在学习其他逻辑系统时都严重依赖语音元素,“logograph virgins”没有或没有歧义的语音信息的汉字召回率比以前具有逻辑记录经验的汉字要低。但是我不清楚(也许其他人知道可以启发我们的研究)这种效果是否仅是由于某些一般的复杂符号召回过程或实际 编队 of a process for pure 商标graphic 召回.

    我觉得写’如果您同时查看文字记录和字母书写中的拼写错误,很容易证明对语音回忆的高度依赖,而且我发现自己在汉字中犯的错误与我不小心从事英语时所犯的错误类似“ear spelling” 和 substitute “your” for “you’re” or “there” for “they’re.” I’ll写一个字符,并省略一个语音上为空的元素,或使用听起来相似的元素。还是我’我会记住这个词’音调不正确,而我’会发现我使用了带有该音调的字符的语音,这当然不应该’如果逻辑写作确实是真正的逻辑记录地读写,就不会发生。我不’t 召回 ever looking at a miswritten 字符 和 realizing that I replaced some part with a similar-meaning one. Phonology first, semantics second, as 他们 say 在 语言学 nowadays. And 那里 is a great deal of data behind 这个 idea. (Notice how 您 recognize it immediately as alliteration, 和 不 because “ph” 看起来 任何类似“f”.)

    无论如何,这是漫长的。‘Tis all.

  55. PS:

    1. 别化妆了
      “You claim to have knowledge 在 Chinese, but 我不’t see 您 use 中国文字in 您的 post.” Another strawman, since I never made a claim about what I know. Anyway, knowing the history 和 grammar of a 语言 和 being able to 在 put 中国文字easily with my keyboard have 不hing to do with each other.

    2. 关于我不是中文,也没有中文作为我的母语。一方面,它’将某些种族与某些观点联系起来是相当种族主义的,另一方面’s . . . . . hilarious. I mean, 您’重新显示了我期望中国优秀的教育体系能够产生的逻辑推理能力的类型,但是仅仅从我提出的论点中得出关于我的种族和母语的结论’t help 您的 credibility. Take another guess on my ethnicity 和 mother tongue. Hint: You were wrong on both the first time.
      BTW, 您的 response really just strengthens my “brainwashing” argument, since 您 evidently can’认为中国人是反简化和反毛/反共的。如果不是’t 洗脑 at it’s best, 我不’t know what is.

    反正约翰’涵盖了我的第一点,所以我赢了’重复一遍。关于我的最后一点,这又是:人们自然会选择最适合自己语言的脚本。

  56. 约翰, regarding 頭 和 大, why 是 您 comparing 二 different 字符s? My argument is that the simplified 字符s normally have less strokes than their traditional counterparts, 那里fore may be easier to remember. Can 您 possibly substitute 頭 (头) with 大 在 any situations? You 是 just comparing apples with oranges 这里.

    Regarding the similarities between 头 和 大, 这个 is getting sujective. 我不’t know if 您’ve 学习t how to properly write 中国文字, but any grade 3 Chinese student could tell 您 that these 二 字符s only have 2 strokes 在 common, the横and the 左撇, so how similar 是 他们 really? You 是 better off arguing 二 和三, or 无 和 天 being really similar, but how many mainlandres do 您 know to have been confused 通过 these 二 sets of 字符s?

    To be honest, I know 不hing about 语言 aquisition, but I suspect that 那里 is some rather significant differences between first 语言 aquisition 和 second 语言 aquisition. 的refore, I’m 不 sure 您的 generalisation from 您的 experience on the 学习ing of 中国文字is entirely safe.

    I agree with 您 that it’可能不可能拿出坚实的证据证明简体字比传统字更好— I’ve一开始就这么说。您在这里没有任何争议。

    熊大海,就语言习得而言,最重要的因素显然是语言学习者’语言环境。我的评论仅是指出,由于巨大的语言差异,在罗马语言社区中度过大部分生活的人们可能会在学习基于脚本的语言时遇到麻烦。这不是在打击任何人,’s just a fact. it’就像说一生的素食主义者往往在吃肉方面遇到麻烦。一世’我见过一些在中国出生的印欧人,他们的汉语水平和我一样好,但事实并非如此’一点都不让我感到惊讶。

    对于Ho和Bryant的论文,我认为他们在地毯下忽略了汉字的语音成分的重要性。本文基本上有两个发现: (1)在阅读中,孩子确实比语音成分更依赖于语音成分;(2)能够记住/识别语音成分对阅读有很大帮助。这些发现很像常识。汉语中的语音成分比基本成分多得多—如中文词典允许您通过其部首索引单词的事实所示—而不是其语音成分。结果,与基本成分相比,语音成分对字符的含义和发音的影响更大。’对于任何汉语学习者来说,更自然地注意语音成分是很自然的。一世’我也不太确定Ho和Byrant的意思“reading” —能够猜测未知字符的名词与能够猜测未知字符的含义大不相同。

    我不’t quite understand what 您 mean 通过 “phonetic 召回”。在计算语言学中“recall”大致是覆盖率的度量,计算方式为系统给出的正确答案的数量除以数据中正确答案的总数。由于汉字的语音成分倾向于携带大部分(视觉和意义)信息,因此’s natural for 您 or any other person to put 更多 effort 在 to memorizing them — 和 这个 can sometimes cause 您 to neglect the less important radical components.

    理查德,我觉得我’m wasting my time replying to 您的 attacks. You haven’t brought any contribution to 这个 discussion other than 您的 biased opinions against all things PRC, 和 您 是 making less sense with each new post. Remember, 这个 entire discussion is about certain linguisitic properties of the 中文, 那里fore, it is entirely relevant for anyone who wishes to prove their point to demonstrate the ability to read 和 write 在 the 中文. You 是 不 the only one who doesn’t have a 中文 在 put on 您的 computer. I’我正在运行linux而我没有’没有任何中文输入软件。我完全依靠在线词典和中文友好的搜索引擎来输入汉字。

    请不要’t start with the 法西斯 和 种族主义者 accusation. This entire discussion is about the 中文, 那里fore, a person who knows 不hing about the 中文 should 不 start accusing a native speaker of Chinese to be “brainwashed”关于汉语的语言特性。同样,一个(你)没有’在此讨论中未显示任何有关汉语的逻辑或知识痕迹,不应指责从汉语为母语的人进行逻辑论证的人(我)。

    I’m 不 going to bother guessing 您的 ethnicity or mother tongue. You have no credibility with me, 和 I certainly won’t believe anything 您 say without substantial 在 dependent evidience.

    You fit the typical profile of a China basher. 您的comment “since 您 evidently can’t conceive of a Chinese person being anti-simplification 和 anti-Mao/anti-Communist” thoroughly demonstrates that 您 believe being anti-simplification, anti-Mao 和 anti-Chinese government 是 the right things to do.

    什么’s even 更多 laughable about 您 is that 您 keep calling me “brainwashed’, “facist” 和 “racist” — yet theonly disagreement 您’与我一起讨论的是纯粹的汉字简化学术问题。

    我不’t think I will waste my time with 您 anymore.

  57. ps,

    约翰, regarding 頭 和 大, why 是 您 comparing 二 different 字符s?

    Character 承认. You distinguish 字符s based on how 他们’re different 和 how 他们’重新相似。在具有大量字符的系统中,太多的相似性会阻碍识别。

    My argument is that the simplified 字符s normally have less strokes than their traditional counterparts, 那里fore may be easier to remember.

    可能 是。那’这就是重点。他们可能会 be. Too much simplification could be a bad thing. Wasn’t all 这个 covered before?

    Can 您 possibly substitute 頭 (头) with 大 在 any situations? You 是 just comparing apples with oranges 这里.

    不。

    Regarding the similarities between 头 和 大, 这个 is getting sujective.

    Are 您 denying that 头 和 大 是 much 更多 similar than 頭 和 大? 我不’t think that’过于主观的判断。

    我不’t know if 您’ve 学习t how to properly write 中国文字, but any grade 3 Chinese student could tell 您 that these 二 字符s only have 2 strokes 在 common, the 横and the 左撇, so how similar 是 他们 really?

    By the 道路 他们 look. No one recognizes 字符s based on the types of strokes used to write them. If that were true, how could anyone read printed type? None of it is produced with brush strokes at all. In some fonts the strokes don’完全类似于笔触。

    To be honest, I know 不hing about 语言 aquisition, but I suspect that 那里 is some rather significant differences between first 语言 aquisition 和 second 语言 aquisition.

    我认为 that suspicion is well founded.

    的refore, I’m 不 sure 您的 generalisation from 您的 experience on the 学习ing of 中国文字is entirely safe.

    可爱,但我’m afraid 您的 generalization based on 您的 own childhood experiences 学习ing 中国文字is far less safe.

  58. 顺便说一句,约翰,另一个由Commies引入符号混淆的示例是guang3(广播)和chang3(工厂)。也许我们长大的学习简体字的朋友将能够立即知道含义(即使是手写的并且错过了笔画),但是对于那些首先学习繁体字的人来说,我们的反应是“W. . .TF!?!”

    Speaking of 您, PS, I love 这个 quote: “You fit the typical profile of a China basher. 您的comment “since 您 evidently can’t conceive of a Chinese person being anti-simplification 和 anti-Mao/anti-Communist” thoroughly demonstrates that 您 believe being anti-simplification, anti-Mao 和 anti-Chinese government 是 the right things to do.”

    Indeed, I do think 他们 是 the right things to do, as all 3 things I’m against 是 evil (the current Chinese government being less evil than before, but 仍然 a totalitarian entity, which is far from harmless). Of course, I would say that 您 fit the typical profile of someone who was educated/brainwashed under Communist education, as 您 evidently can’区分是反简化,反毛,反共和反中国。

    Oh, 和 I love how 您 keep harping on how 您’re a native speaker. You do realize that the potency of that point loses a bit of its force when 您’重新找另一个母语的人,唐’t 您?

    Also, no, 我不’t disagree with 您 just on simplification. Through our conversation, I’ve discovered that I disagree with 您 on how much harm Mao 和 Communism have done to China as well.

    Finally, 是 您 going to say that I’我不是中国人,因为我’是反简化,反毛和反共产主义?一世 ’d get an extra kick out of 这个 if 您 do, because then, 通过 您的 definition, 99.9% of the population 在 Taiwan wouldn’t be Chinese, so 他们 might as well declare 在 dependence 和 start the Republic of Taiwan.

  59. 约翰, 字符 reognition for computer or people? For a computer 您 might have a case for 大 和 头 — if the hand writting is really rubbish. For people who were educated 在 中国文字, 他们 won’t be confused 通过 these 二 字符s. Each stroke 在 Chinese 字符 has a name, when native Chinese kids 学习 怎么写, 他们 don’t just memorise the shape of the 字符s, 他们 actually memorise the name of each stroke 和 where each stroke goes, that’s why it’没那么容易混淆无和天。

    How do 您 measure whether the simplified 字符s 是 easier to remember than the traditional ones? One obvious 道路 is to count the number of strokes, 和 直觉ively, the fewer the strokes a 字符 has, theeasier it is to remember. In 这个 regard, the simplified 字符s 是 much easier to remember than their traditional counterparts.

    I’我不是说头和大比头和大更相似,我’我说这种比较是没有意义的’s 喜欢 comparing apples with oranges. If 您 can make the case for 頭 和 大, then I can also make the case for 書 (书), 晝 (昼) 和 畫 (画), now using 您的 similarity measures, 您 tell me whethre it’简化这三个字符是一个好主意。

    No one recognizes 字符s based on the types of strokes used to write them. If that were true, how could anyone read printed type? None of it is produced with brush strokes at all. In some fonts the strokes don’完全类似于笔触。

    You can change the font, but 您 cannot change the general look of a stroke. A 横is a 横 no matter which font 您 use, a 捺 is 不 going to look 喜欢 a 点 if 您 write it correctly. 的 most common printed 字符s 是 based on 楷书, which is as standard as a font gets, 和 the 字符s 在 这个 style look pretty much the same written with either a brush or a pen.

    我做了什么概括?如果我是孤立成长的话,你可以低估我的童年学习经历… but I wasn’t。总的来说,考虑到我是和其他中国孩子一起在中国学校接受教育的,所以我必须用汉字手工写所有作业和例子,我认为’s 喜欢ly for my generalisations on the issue of 中国文字to be a bit safer than 您的s.

  60. 约翰, ps, 您 both have valid points. 的 ease or difficulty of memorizing 字符s can be divided 在 to 二 sections:

    1. 类型,难度& number of strokes
    2. 全字符可识别性

    电(闪电/电)
    龟龟(turtle)

    在此示例中,交易。字符很容易彼此区分开。简单。角色,尽管也许很难区别于训练有素的眼睛,但同样非常相似。

    这里的要点是更容易记住,龟是乌龟,电是闪电/电,这是因为它们彼此或多或少具有独特的形状,易于相互区分。当然,问题是像龟这样的字符是部首时,诸如此类的字符可能会成为母亲的写作对象,特别是正如Mark所指出的。

    的 benefit of the simplified 字符s, 在 这个 case, is that 他们 是 much easier to remember 怎么写. 的refore, being 在 itially easier to 学习. However, 那里 also lies the difficulty 在 remembering exactly which 字符 is associated with a certain meaning (the benefit of the 更多 unique 字符s).

    并且如ps所示,可识别性的问题不仅限于简化集。实际上,在某些情况下,简化简化了区分的难度。

    书书(book)
    昼昼(白天)
    画画(图片)

    由于这两个集合都包含非常相似的字符,我们可以得出结论,基于形式识别而记忆字符的问题是 传统与简化的问题。而是,这是一个涉及相似字符的单独情况的问题,这两种情况都发生。

    However, if one really must choose between one set or the other, find the set with the greater amount of similar 字符s, determine their frequency of use 和 then judge which similar 字符 sets 是 更多 distinguishable, easier to write, etc. 的 set with the greater amount of favorable qualities is the easier set to remember on these grounds. Because 那里 is a certain amount of objectivity 在 volved, 在 formation would have to be gathered from all kinds of people; those educated 在 Chinese writing, within 和 without China, those with little or no experience, different age groups, etc. This is a lot of work, so decide for 您的self.

    Considering that both traditional 和 simplified sets contain similar imperfections, another, 更多 ambitious solution is to re-evaluate 汉字 altogether. Pool all the existing 字符s together 和 evaluate which simplifications 是 beneficial, create variant forms if needed (for distinction, etc.) 和 so on. Having everything simultaneously available (that is, being able to make comparisons across all 字符s) would provide an ideal environment for forming a fluid, cohesive set of 字符s favoring ease of writing, 阅读 和 memorization.

    再说一遍’它包括品格改革的任何其他问题,例如rad。和声音组件。它’s a big topic, hehe.

    I’m very 在 terested 在 这个. 我不’知识不多,经验不足,等等。所以如果我’我与我的论点有出入或其他问题,请让我知道。

  61. Oh, 和 I love how 您 keep harping on how 您’re a native speaker. You do realize that the potency of that point loses a bit of its force when 您’重新找另一个母语的人,唐’t 您?

发表评论

装货
Post was 不 sent - check 您的 email addresses!
电子邮件检查失败,请重试
Sorry, 您的 blog cannot share posts 通过 email.