# Simplified or Traditional?



## maghanish2

Hello everyone!  I have just started to learn Chinese and, as of now, have decided to study the traditional characters.  This is mainly because they are the true characters of the language, which I find fascinating.

However, I have come across many articles and warnings that say learnign the simplified would be much much better in our modern world today.  My main question is, which set of characters (simplified or traditional) do you all think is most helpful?

Also, if I do learn the traditional characters, is it easy to recognize what the simplified ones are trying to represent, or is it difficult?

Thank you so much for all of your help!


----------



## Spectre scolaire

Most of those who prefer traditional characters you’ll find among Chinese living outside mainland China and among scholars in Europe and America. Scholars of Chinese language would _have to master_ the traditional script (especially in connection with texts written in Classical Chinese until the watershed of May 1919), and Chinese living in the diaspora are not even used to simplified characters – if they can read Chinese at all. 

Since there are 1,3 billion people in the People’s Republic of China, and the publishing activity is enormous, most students of Chinese will have to cope, at least initially, with simplified characters. Personally I can’t see the point in _starting_ with traditional characters at all. If you decide to live in Hong Kong, it might be useful, but mainland China is the principal magnet for most foreigners.

Any romanticism about the Chinese script - like



maghanish2 said:


> I think it'd be interesting to know one of the most complicated charactres. I know it may sound trivial, but it does interest me.


 – would certainly dissipate as soon as you get into the harsh reality of learning this script, which is not as difficult as many foreigners believe, but why choose the more complicated version of it when you haven’t even started for real?

I guess I am looking at Chinese from a very pragmatic point of view. My immediate concern was to start reading Chinese as soon as possible. Only to get used to this way of writing a language and the technique of character recognition requires a year of intensive following up.

If you later want to proceed to the script _which is not being used in the People’s Republic_, I think you can do so after you somehow feel that you master the language. The argument saying that the step from traditional to simplified script is easy, kind of implies that traditional script is _not_ easy, or at least more complicated (which it definitely is). So, why not start with the “easy” part and only go to the more “complicated” one if time shows that you are going to devote a more central part of your life to this culture. That, you can’t possibly know as a beginner - even if addiction may come sooner than you would imagine... 
 ​


----------



## iamjiayi

maghanish2 said:


> However, I have come across many articles and warnings that say learnign the simplified would be much much better in our modern world today. My main question is, which set of characters (simplified or traditional) do you all think is most helpful?


 
Hey,
well...to your first question, I think the simplified version is more commonly used here in Mainland China but the traditional characters are used outside Mainland China(like, Taiwan, Hongkong, Singapore, and Chinatowns?). So I think you will more often come across traditional characters rather than simplified ones in the USA.

But the point is that, I think you will find it much easier to start with the simplified ones (OK...why do you say they are "simplifed" anyway? They are simple!hummm...perhaps _simpler_, I would say...Chinese characters are never simple...). It's hard to say which set of characters is _more helpful_  in the _modern world_, since, like I have mentioned above, both sets are widely used in this _modern world... _In my opinion, the simplified characters would be much easier for a beginner. Start with the easier one.



maghanish2 said:


> Also, if I do learn the traditional characters, is it easy to recognize what the simplified ones are trying to represent, or is it difficult?


 
I would say, that if you learn the_ simplified_ characters, it's easier to recognize what the _traditional_ ones are trying to represent. Mainly becuase when you learn the simplified ones, you will undoubtedly come across some traditional characters (e.g. when writing the total sum of money on a check, even if here in Mainland China where we use the simplifed characters, you must use traditional characters on a check). At least I find little difficulty trying to figure out what the traditional characters represent (although there are times when I'm not a hundred precent sure). But if you do learn the _traditional _ones...I cannot be sure what will be the case since I've never used the traditional ones while writing, and even if I'm a native speaker, I cannot write most traditional characters exactly the way they should be written... 

Let's see what the others would say~~


----------



## maghanish2

Hmmm....these are very interesting comments.  I definitely do see the more practical idea of learning simplified characters, since those are what is come across in Mainland China, which has, as was mentioned, 1/6 of the world's population.  Still though, I feel some attraction to the traditional characters.

I also am aware that learning Chinese, especially the thousands of characters, will be extremely difficult (regardless of which set of characters I use), however I am ambitious and really REALLY want to do this.  That is why, in my strange way of thinking, I think that to officially DO this, I should learn the original characters of Chinese.

And, like iamjiayi said, in the US traditional is used most often, which persuades me even more to learn this set...but I don't know.

I guess, hopefully more opinions will come, and then I'll make my final decision.  I realize that I probably sound like I'm not listening and am acting stupid, but I hear all of your comments, it's just something still tells me that traditional is the way to go.


----------



## samanthalee

From this forum (and from my Taiwan friends), the impression I gather is:

1. Native speakers who learnt the Simplified Characters can understand the Traditional Characters.
2. Native speakers who learnt the Traditional Characters have trouble with the Simplified Characters.

My conclusion is, once you are familiar with the common words (which are usually written the same way in both Traditional and Simplified forms), Traditional Characters becomes more intuitive to learn.

The Chinese characters with more strokes are made up of building blocks of radicals. In Traditional Characters, these radicals are the characters with less strokes; a character with more strokes is made up of blocks of characters with less stroke. So learning Traditional Characters becomes a Lego/Divide-and-Conquer exercise.

In Simplified Characters, on the other hand, some radicals are simplified beyond recognition from their originating characters. The "Lego" approach becomes limited in learning Simplified Characters.

Is Simplified Characters easier to learn? I don't think so. But in the long run, it may be more beneficial; if you want to understand information coming from Mainland China. Once you have mastered Simplified Characters, the Traditional Characters would be just a breeze to learn to recognise and type. I can't write Traditional Characters, but I can type them because typing Chinese is about recognising, not writing.


----------



## maghanish2

samanthalee said:


> In Simplified Characters, on the other hand, some radicals are simplified beyond recognition from their originating characters. The "Lego" approach becomes limited in learning Simplified Characters.


 
Hmmm....samanthalee, I think what you are saying is that Simplified characters are more beneficial, but then in the quoted paragraph above, I'm confused, because then you're saying that you can recognize the characters, and that this approach of being able to form more complicated characters by using already known less-complicated ones does not work.

Am I understanding you correctly?  And when you say that traditional characters become more _intuitive_ to learn, what exactly are you saying?

Thanks again!


----------



## samanthalee

I don't fully understand you questions. 

I learnt Simplified Characters in school, I didn't learn Traditional Characters formally. I learnt to read Traditional Characters by looking at their component radicals (less-complicated characters) and guessing their meanings. Learning Traditional Characters wasn't a conscious effort, it just happens. I've never come across a native Simplified Character learner who can't read Traditional Characters.

On the other hand, there're plenty of native Traditional Character learners who can't read Simplified Characters.

There are 2 possible conclusion to draw from here. Either native Simplified Character learners are more intelligent, or Traditional Characters are easier to learn.


----------



## maghanish2

Hmmm....if Traditional Characters are simpler to learn, than wouldn't that be the logical choice to start with?  I am torn between this, because it sounds like learning Simplified first would be the best, but I'm thinking I may go the Traditional route, and then when it's available, try to learn both forms.  I think it may be easier that way.


----------



## kenny4528

maghanish2 said:


> Hmmm....if Traditional Characters are simpler to learn, than wouldn't that be the logical choice to start with? I am torn between this, because it sounds like learning Simplified first would be the best, but I'm thinking I may go the Traditional route, and then when it's available, try to learn both forms. I think it may be easier that way.


 
I advised you to learn the Simplified first; I admit it's hard for me to recognize all the Simplified characters easily.


----------



## alearner

Hi maghanish2,

I've just read all the contributions to this thread (up to 2.15 PM) and must say that I am interested in and very impressed by the quality of the advice that you have received. I too am embarking on a study of Mandarin Chinese, though probably with much more modest objectives.

Having read your replies, it appears to me that you have an emotional attachment to what you see as the 'true' characters. If that's how you feel, then fine. It seems to me, however, that it might be advantageous for you to give some additional careful consideration to the relative importance of function (what you will do with your knowledge) and emotional attachment before your truly final decision.  What do you want to read? What do you want to write? With whom do you want to communicate? Difficulties will always arise whatever you choose, but can be shouldered cheerfully and overcome if you know what you really want to get from your studies.

Personally, for my objectives, I chose simplified characters first. Whatever you decide, best wishes for your journey.


----------



## Ge Ne Sis

maghanish2 said:


> Hello everyone! I have just started to learn Chinese and, as of now, have decided to study the traditional characters. This is mainly because they are the true characters of the language, which I find fascinating.
> 
> However, I have come across many articles and warnings that say learnign the simplified would be much much better in our modern world today. My main question is, which set of characters (simplified or traditional) do you all think is most helpful?
> 
> Also, if I do learn the traditional characters, is it easy to recognize what the simplified ones are trying to represent, or is it difficult?
> 
> Thank you so much for all of your help!


 

Though I did not use Chinese as my first language, but I did went to a chinese school for a few years. The traditional characters are getting obsolete even in China itself. It is better to learn the simplified first and then when you are good in it, you can learn the traditional ones (it's a cinch once you reach that level).


----------



## palomnik

Like you, I'm a foreigner who learned Chinese.  I learned the traditional characters first, because back when I started in the sixties that was _de rigeur _in the USA.  

Frankly, I don't have much trouble understanding simplified characters.  Of course, there are a few that seemed unfamiliar at first, but after a few weeks of only reading simplified material I didn't have any problem.  The differences between old and new for the most part are uniform, and you learn to apply them in new situations.

I suppose if I were learning the language today I'd learn the simplified ones first, but it's not such a big deal.  You could even learn both forms simultaneously, it would be easier than you think.

As far as traditional characters being the "true" characters, it's worth pointing out that many simplified characters were recognized variants of traditional characters centuries ago; it just that they were considered "substandard" by the scholar elite.

And while we're on the subject, don't think that EVERY character in the language has two forms!  Based on my experience, less than half of them do.  Out of the half that do, about 75% of the time you can predict what the simplified form will be from the traditional form, and vice versa.  

And don't hold your breath about the "thousands of characters" - if you can read 2000 characters you can read 99% of what is printed in China nowadays.  The real challenge is that the characters combine together to form multisyllable words.


----------



## maghanish2

Thank you very much to everyone for the many many replies. Palomnik, as a foreigner who learned Chinese (and like me, started with English), I am very glad that you say recognizing simplified when you've learned traditional is not as hard as one might think. Also, is it really true taht you only need to know 2000 characters to read normal printed material? That is quite interesting.

And to alearner: Thanks for the wishes, best to you too! And I do have a strange 'emotional attachment' to the traditional ones, and even though that may sound silly, I guess I am more interested in the ancient texts, and even more, Taiwan looks very interesting to me, which uses the traditional set. Moreover, since I am in the USA, and as has been mentioned, most 'Chinatowns' use traditional, this seems to be the better fit.

I hope by deciding this, that I don't seem like I'm disregarding all of the other contributions. I greatly appreciate the advice and it helped me a lot. I was swaying to simplifed, then back to traditional, and now I think I am going to stick with traditional for sure. Also, as palomnik said, it is quite possible to learn both simplified and traditional together. And I would think that if the focus is on traditional (the so-called harder set), spending less time on the so-called easier set (simplified) doesn't sound too terrible.

So once again, thank you to everyone for all of your wonderful advice! I do appreciate it very much! And now I'm off to start my study of the amazing traditional characters of the Chinese language!


----------



## kareno999

iamjiayi said:


> Hey,
> 
> (e.g. when writing the total sum of money on a check, even if here in Mainland China where we use the simplifed characters, you must use traditional characters on a check)


Hi iamjiayi,
I don't think 壹贰叁肆伍陆柒捌玖拾 is the traditional version of 一二三四五六七八九十. It's uniquely used in financial systems to ensure accuracy of written numbers. Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese use the same set of characters to express 10 numbers.


----------



## palomnik

maghanish2 said:


> Thank you very much to everyone for the many many replies. Palomnik, as a foreigner who learned Chinese (and like me, started with English), I am very glad that you say recognizing simplified when you've learned traditional is not as hard as one might think. Also, is it really true taht you only need to know 2000 characters to read normal printed material? That is quite interesting.


 
Maghanish, you can read most items in newspapers and other modern material with 2000 characters.  You'll need more to read the older literature, including the classics, poetry and the great novels.

Be aware, though, that 2000 characters doesn't represent 2000 words.  Most words in Chinese consist of two or more characters.  You may know all of the characters in a word and still not understand what the word means.


----------



## iamjiayi

kareno999 said:


> Hi iamjiayi,
> I don't think 壹贰叁肆伍陆柒捌玖拾 is the traditional version of 一二三四五六七八九十. It's uniquely used in financial systems to ensure accuracy of written numbers. Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese use the same set of characters to express 10 numbers.


 
No, they ARE the traditional versions of 一二三四五六七八九十. You rarely see them used on other occasions because they are too complicated, but this is exactly why they are still used when writing the sum of money. 

Note that these traditional characters are only used AFTER you have written the sum of money using 一二三四五六七八九十 or maybe numbers 123456789--traditional characters come after these numbers to ensure that the total sum will not be easily written over.

The original meanings were not simply numbers when they were first created, but when they became widely used in the Tang Dynasty, they are accepted as standard characters, which are now referred to as "traditional characters".


----------



## ymt

samanthalee said:


> 1. Native speakers who learnt the Simplified Characters can understand the Traditional Characters.
> 2. Native speakers who learnt the Traditional Characters have trouble with the Simplified Characters.



Why thing is like that? I think people in China have more chance to read traditional characters, e.g. from ancient books. But people in Taiwan(not sure about other areas use traditional characters) have rarely chance to read simplified characters.

I agree with that it's not so difficult to read another character set if you get familiar with one of them. It's just a matter of time. Not even months, just need a couple of weeks you can get used to it.

I am from Taiwan learned Traditional Chinese and my wife is from China learned Simplified Characters. Now, both of us can read both the character set without any problem.


----------



## kareno999

iamjiayi said:


> No, they ARE the traditional versions of 一二三四五六七八九十. You rarely see them used on other occasions because they are too complicated, but this is exactly why they are still used when writing the sum of money.
> 
> Note that these traditional characters are only used AFTER you have written the sum of money using 一二三四五六七八九十 or maybe numbers 123456789--traditional characters come after these numbers to ensure that the total sum will not be easily written over.
> 
> The original meanings were not simply numbers when they were first created, but when they became widely used in the Tang Dynasty, they are accepted as standard characters, which are now referred to as "traditional characters".


一二三四五六七八九十 were written more or less like this even in ancient Chinese and they are not simplified versions of "壹贰叁肆伍陆柒捌玖拾", the latter were used much later than "一二三四五六七八九十 " as another way to write numbers in commercial transactions.


----------



## maghanish2

Thanks again for the input.  I can't say about the different number sets, but it's quite interesting that there's two sets actually.

Anyway, ymt, I'm glad to know that you were able to learn the Simplified forms quickly.  That makes me very happy.


----------



## kenken

kareno999 said:


> 一二三四五六七八九十 were written more or less like this even in ancient Chinese and they are not simplified versions of "壹贰叁肆伍陆柒捌玖拾", the latter were used much later than "一二三四五六七八九十 " as another way to write numbers in commercial transactions.



Agreed. They are simply two sets of characters used in referring the numbers in different occasions. And actually Karen is using the simplified characters "贰" and "陆". Their traditional counter parts should be "貳" and "陸".


----------



## Mythtype

I personally would think you should learn traditional if possible.  I can read most of all the words i know in traditional in simplified as well.  You would benefit, as many words are readable from the traditional view in simplified.  Once in chinese school, my teacher taught us a character.  One of my peers came back telling the teacher that that one was wrong.　　The next thing he told us was that one was simplified and the other was traditional.  THere are many characters with the same pronounciation but with the same type of base added on to it to make it the word of its simplified counterpart.

This way, if you do come up to a simplified character knowing traditional, you'll generally have no problem at all.

Many are moving on to Simplified though; so if you do choose to go simplified, you wont be in trouble.

I personally think you should go for traditional, as there is a lot of chinese history behind those words.  IF we do all go simplified, we'd deprive the chinese history, and destroy the chinese background.  This is because many chinese words have parts added on to them to make them have meaning.

We can basically say that they're puzzles put together to make one single thing.
Mythtype


----------



## Zulis

I'm surprised that an important point hasn't been mentioned, that is, the traditional Chinese is THE Chinese, evolved through thousands of years of history (etymology)

Simplified Chinese has less than 100 years old, but it is indeed easier to learn, and much more popular population-wise.

Personally I think simplified Chinese hurt the written Chinese by destroying their original forms. A bit extreme I admit, but i would suggest Traditional Chinese, not that much harder anyway.

Edit: Oh it has been brought up, I'm all with Mythtype


----------



## Spectre scolaire

In order to have an open-minded opinion about the question of this thread – which I might not have as long as I am _a priori_ favouring simplified script  - I’d like to enter into the argument of _samanthalee_.




samanthalee said:


> I didn't learn Traditional Characters formally. I learnt to read Traditional Characters by looking at their component radicals (less-complicated characters) and guessing their meanings. Learning Traditional Characters wasn't a conscious effort, it just happens. I've never come across a native Simplified Character learner who can't read Traditional Characters.
> 
> On the other hand, there're plenty of native Traditional Character learners who can't read Simplified Characters.


 Skipping the conclusion of these remarks I wonder if there is a very specific reason why “[you]'ve never come across a native Simplified Character learner who can't read Traditional Characters.” 

Most _native simplified character learners_ live in the PRC. If they finish school requirements for entering university, they will have a smattering of Classical Chinese, which means they are not entirely ignorant of traditional characters. There are also reviews published in Hong Kong and elsewhere “abroad” which are being sold in the big cities in China. 

On the other hand, a corresponding group of students coming from Singapore or Taiwan, why would they learn simplified characters? Would it be in order to read things published in the PRC? Until mainland China really opened up for _foreigners_ – including native speakers from outside PRC! – there wouldn’t be any reason for getting “initiated” to this “orthographic experiment of the communists.” The question as to what extent this mentality is still prevailing should perhaps be asked.

Now, _samanthalee_’s mother tongue _is_ Chinese. Then I wonder what we are actually discussing. Is it an internal Chinese pedagogical discussion or are we talking about foreigners learning Chinese?

For a person from Europe or America (or wherever else) learning Chinese, each word includes the knowledge of a particular

*1*) phonemic sequence (limited to about 420)
*2*) toneme (limited to 4 [in Mandarin])
*3*) semantic content (unlimited)
*4*) conventional ideogram (limited to, say, 3.500)

A native Chinese already knows *1*), *2*) and *3*), and he has to go to school in order to learn *4*). A person who never learned the language, has to cope with the whole lot! And he is certainly not a child. Quite often he is even much older than an ordinary student.

Teachers in the PRC are curiously “unaware” of this predicament of the non-Chinese. Considering a book like “ 汉宇速成课本 Easy Way To Learn Chinese Characters ” (ISBN 7-5619-0911-X) – 292 pages _in Chinese_ with an English translation of every single sentence - one wonders who is actually the aim group. Practically all textbooks are made like that. Reading the preface of this book, you realize who has got any interest in it. A student is being treated in such a paternalistic way that I preferred myself to have a private tutor whom I dismissed as soon as I got into the nitty-gritty of analysing Chinese characters and pronouncing the phonemes correctly (which would normally take you ten weeks with one or two hours a week). A non-Chinese(!!) textbook with cassettes will then have to follow you until you are able to continue on your own. 

Books published in the PRC are not primarily made for foreigners who want to learn Chinese, but for Chinese teachers who would like to impart their language to foreigners. A functional contrastive approach seems to be lacking altogether. The Chinese themselves only learn the characters and _not_ the other three elements of a word, these three elements belonging to their natural language. Their pedagogical approach is therefor entirely different from ours.

_samanthalee_ says indeed that “I learnt to read Traditional Characters by looking at their component radicals (less-complicated characters) and guessing their meanings.” With all respect, this argument has nothing to do with the question as to which script to learn first, traditional or simplified. Learning Chinese, especially in China, means to be overwhelmed by Chinese school precepts which, for all intents and purposes, are pretty useless for foreigners. Learning Chinese, say, at an American university is a very different procedure. I am _not_ saying that one is better than the other; I am only focusing on the differences. Starting in the US you may “have to” start with traditional characters. Starting in PRC you’ll have to get used to Chinese teaching methods.

So, if I may then turn back to an ettempt to look at the question from an unbiased point of view. 

Having learnt only simplified (and being to a _very_ limited extent exposed to traditional) characters, I am _a priori_ biased – as much as those in the PRC who already speak the language. But I admit having at least one solid argument in favour of traditional characters:

Struggling with the script – the simplified  (in fact, the real struggle is over!) – I have discovered a number of “inconsistencies” and “curiosities” which are certainly due to the fact that simplified script was “invented”, as it were, whereas the traditional characters – obviously! – are the product of a subtle balance achieved through the centuries (if not millenia). To the extent that the Chinese script is logical – it has indeed its own internal logic (which, again, is made up for the Chinese themselves and not for those who don’t already know the language; I am thinking of the so-called “phonetic element” of the character) – I am convinced that traditional script is more logical than simplified, if indeed the Chinese script can be said to exhibit any great logic at all.

Now, logic in China is a chapter of its own. I could recommend some books which are real eye-openers to classical Chinese way of thinking. And if you really want to dive into this world _in the original_, you’d definitely need to learn traditional characters. Here, we are back to my argument about being a scholar of Chinese or not. The large majority of us don’t need to go _ad fontes_. What we need is to cope with Chinese language, mainly Mandarin, spoken _and written_ in the People’s Republic of China.
 ​


----------



## Zulis

You have my vote for the best post of the month 

I guess it doesnt have to point directly at samanthalee, but I will have to agree on 2 things, 1 the history of trad. chinese, 2 the inconsistencies of reduction of strokes of the simplified chinese.

I think one's intention in learning Chinese is a very important ground for choosing which type of Chinese words hes gonna learn. Like for fun, i would say it doesnt matter which type; for travel, depends on where you want to go, Mainland China - simplified, Hong Kong, Taiwan maybe Singapore - Trad; for business, I would say both are equally useful, depends on your business location.

To me, Traditional Chinese is *NOT* of a higher status that only scholars learn them nor it's only for "going _ad fontes"._ The subject here is the symbols themselves (whether simplified or not, for users), not the way to put those symbols together (the linguistics stuff, for scholars). Even if you want to "dive in the original", there are more than enough books about that in Simplified Chinese.

One thing that a future learner has to bear in mind is that, Trad or Simplified Chinese *may or may not* be interchangable, but ME PERSONALLY think that Trad will help one to understand Simplified than vice versa (Im a native Trad.), and I am quite certain to say that a native Simplified user will say the opposite. there is reason for "Traditional Chinese" to get its name.

Trad or Simplified, You decide


----------



## samanthalee

ymt said:


> Why thing is like that? I think people in China have more chance to read traditional characters, e.g. from ancient books. But people in Taiwan(not sure about other areas use traditional characters) have rarely chance to read simplified characters.
> 
> I agree with that it's not so difficult to read another character set if you get familiar with one of them. It's just a matter of time. Not even months, just need a couple of weeks you can get used to it.
> 
> I am from Taiwan learned Traditional Chinese and my wife is from China learned Simplified Characters. Now, both of us can read both the character set without any problem.



Oh yes. That has never occurred to me before. You are right, we do have more chances to read Traditional Characters.   Since Singapore (and Brunei and Malaysia) is about the only region outside of China using Simplified Characters, there wasn't a need for Taiwan and Hong Kong to publish books in Simplified Characters. A lot of our "non-school" books were in Traditional Characters.

Even though books from Hong Kong and Taiwan are starting to have Simplified Characters versions (for the sake of sale in the huge China market), Singapore still imports the "original" Traditional Character version. Yes, I'm sure ymt is right. It's all because of exposure. Well, so much for my "insight"; in fact I was quite blind.  Thanks for pointing it out. 

So perhaps Traditional Characters aren't easier to learn. But that's not to say Simplified Characters are easier. There is no way a person can start learning both at the same time, so there really is no way of objective comparison. This issue has been discussed previously in this forum but the discussion always gets political and passions run high. I hope this thread wouldn't go the same way as all the other threads on this issue.


----------



## Kwunlam

samanthalee said:


> From this forum (and from my Taiwan friends), the impression I gather is:
> 
> 1. Native speakers who learnt the Simplified Characters can understand the Traditional Characters.
> 2. Native speakers who learnt the Traditional Characters have trouble with the Simplified Characters.
> ...
> The Chinese characters with more strokes are made up of building blocks of radicals. In Traditional Characters, these radicals are the characters with less strokes; a character with more strokes is made up of blocks of characters with less stroke. So learning Traditional Characters becomes a Lego/Divide-and-Conquer exercise.
> 
> In Simplified Characters, on the other hand, some radicals are simplified beyond recognition from their originating characters. The "Lego" approach becomes limited in learning Simplified Characters.
> 
> ......I can't write Traditional Characters, but I can type them because typing Chinese is about recognising, not writing.



I am not denying your impression. I fully think that you have your reasons to think in this way. And I agree to the addition by Spectre scolaire (#23) as well. I just would like to add my two cents.

*1. *I am from Hong Kong, using the traditional script. I and other friends studied in Singapore for 4 or 6 years during our secondary school years. None of us have problems with the simplified scripts. In my university, my friends who study Philosophy or Chinese do read a lot of books printed in Mainland China. We seldom have problems. Practice makes perfect. 

I have witnessed some people who, due to a miserable cultural bias, simply does not like simplified characters and simplified Chinese books. They really miss a great treasure of wisdom, since many books are published only in simplified Chinese in Mainland China (perhaps the cost of publishing some not-so-marketable titles is quite expensive in Taiwan and in Hong Kong). They seldom read and seldom put effort to learn and to admire.  These people of course have difficulties with the simplified characters. 

Well, all these are just some personal sharings.

2. Most simplifications are lawful (  說話 vs 说话 ) while some are really unpredicable. But the number is not that great. 

Concerning "reading", I do not regard that both parties have particular problems. A traditional user can read simplified characters, and a simplified user traditional ones. 

But concerning "writing", or "judging", a simplified Chinese user might have problems in judging which is the correct form to be used in traditional Chinese. It is because, in simplification, few characters are simplified into one same character. So there is a "many-to-one" correspondance relationship (復, 覆, 複 - > 复). This is not difficult for the traditional Chinese users. 

But to proceed from the simplified to the traditional, one may have to overcome the "one-to-many" problem (复 -> 復? or 覆? or 複? ). It has something to do with meaning-distinction and with habits.

For example: 
復活 vs 复活 [in the sense of again ]

回覆 vs 回复 [in the sense of replying ]

重複 vs 重复, 複製 vs 复制  [in the sense of repeating or duplicating ]

Well, not many words post great difficulties. There is a book published in Joint Publishing Books (H.K.) which deals with this problem of conversion. It lists around 100 pairs of such characters. 

But as I suggested, practice can make perfect. 
-- Moreover, people would not really expect a foreigner to be able to make such distinctions with high accuracy.  



By the way, I worked as an editor before, and I handled many manuscripts written in simplified Chinese. One routine part of my job is to use the MS Word to transform the characters. Then check the entire manuscript and spot all those mis-conversions. For example, the conversion machine always has problems in judging "里-> 里? or 裡/裏?". 

I worked with few scholars and Ph.D. students from China, they studied arts and philosophy and read a lot of literature stuffs. They have no problems at all in "reading" traditional characters. But they after all cannot produce a edited manuscript in traditional characters "error-free". In Mainland China, the editors have a standard to determine the quality of the editing. I forgot the exact numbers already, it is something like: one only tolerates 15 errors per 100,000 characters (0.015%). 



3. Concerning utility, I fully agree with all of you. It is really beneficial to start with the Simplified. And it is really easy to use computer to convert Chienses characters from webpages (although with some imperfections). Even Wikipedia allows such a code-conversion. 

But If someone has a good "romanticism", I would just say: "why not?"


----------



## Kwunlam

Zulis said:


> im surprised that an important point hasnt been mentioned, that is, the traditional chinese is THE chinese, evolved through thousands of years of history (etymology)
> 
> simplified chinese has less than 100 years old, but it is indeed easier to learn, and much more popular population-wise.
> 
> Personally I think simplified chinese hurt the written chinese by destroying their original forms. A bit extreme I admit, but i would suggest Traditional Chinese, not that much harder anyway.
> 
> edit: oh it has been brought up, Im all with Mythtype



Although I am also from Hong Kong and I use traditional Chinese more, I have some small doubts. 

Firstly, I do not think that there IS something called "the" only form of writing, as you said. I would just say, it WAS the main form of writing for a certain, although quite long, period of time. So, it is really necessary if people want to read the historical texts produced in this period and not re-transcribed into the simplified versions. A foreigner would seldom get into a closer touch with these stuffs (the Chinese calligraphy maybe an exception). 

Secondly, we have for example Oracle bone script (甲骨文), Bronzeware script (金文),  Seal script (篆文) [Large Seal Script (大篆), Small Seal Script (小篆)], Clerical script (隸書),  Regular script (楷書). 

What I want to suggest is that, if we want to know the "original spirits" of the Chinese characters, I have to go back before the process of 隸變, which means the process from the "Clerical script" to the modern "Regular script". Through this process, many _original _component-meanings of  Chinese words are lost through simplification and oversimplification.  

As a result, even if we would like refer to the traditional writing as "the" writing-form, we still cannot explain to a foreigner why a particular Chinese word (like 龜, 學...) must comprise of such and such components. Textbooks would indicate that their breaking down and analysing of Chinese words into their root-components are just "convenient for learning" and does not really reflect the "original reality".


----------



## Zulis

Kwunlam said:


> Although I am also from Hong Kong and I use traditional Chinese more, I have some small doubts.
> 
> Firstly, I do not think that there IS something called "the" only form of writing, as you said. I would just say, it WAS the main form of writing for a certain, although quite long, period of time. So, it is really necessary if people want to read the historical texts produced in this period and not re-transcribed into the simplified versions. A foreigner would seldom get into a closer touch with these stuffs (the Chinese calligraphy maybe an exception).



It is known that we have 2 forms of writing. I said "THE Chinese" I meant that this is the original form of writing. Traditional Chinese was and still is one of the main forms of writing, we both know it.

I shall give an example like this. If one want to learn English, he doesn't learn something like " hi how r u? fine, thx." instead you learn the original spelling "Hi, how are your? Fine, thanks." After he figures out how the original form is, he then starts to look for a simplified version of words to replace the more complicated ones, eg. "thx"(thanks) "mci bcp"(merci beaucoup), you can find more on the internet.

I know Simplified/Traditional Chinese is different from the Internet/General English, it's just an example.


Kwunlam said:


> What I want to suggest is that, if we want to know the "original spirits" of the Chinese characters, I have to go back before the process of 隸變, which means the process from the "Clerical script" to the modern "Regular script". Through this process, many original component-meanings of Chinese words are lost through simplification and oversimplification.


I didnt know anything about 隸變, thanks for the new knowledge 
I guess its the same as etymology for English and for scholars mainly. We don't need it for general use, you see, even me as a native Trad user, i dont know 隸變, but as an English student, knowing etymology helps, but that's off topic.



Kwunlam said:


> As a result, even if we would like refer to the traditional writing as "the" writing-form, we still cannot explain to a foreigner why a particular Chinese word (like 龜, 學...) must comprise of such and such components. Textbooks would indicate that their breaking down and analysing of Chinese words into their root-components are just "convenient for learning" and does not really reflect the "original reality".


Indeed, but it is still the "Traditional form", no? 

My opinions only, please don't attack me


----------



## maghanish2

I am really fascinated by all of the many responses on this topic.  It keeps making me rethink whether I should first study simplified or traditional.

This discussion really does get more and more interesting, so many thanks to all for your opinions.


----------



## Kwunlam

Anyway, I am not attacking anybody, but just trying to regard the issue from another angle.  

What I said is just to invite Maghanish2 to think again what interests him/her most. It is not really a must that a foreigner should know how to write in traditional forms with high accuracy. The effort is greater, and the benefit is not that great in practical terms, except the fascinating romantic feeling (romanticism is nothing wrong, it just depends on what Maghanish2 wants to achieve). 

If Maghanish2 wants to know "why" each character is composed, then the sad thing is that even the modern traditional form would not be so enlightening, because the traditional forms are already "simplified" some 1300 years ago. If Maghanish2 is so eager to learn the "origins" of each Chinese words, (s)he can, for instance, instead learn the simplified form first, then learn "etymology". 

By the way, a foreign beginner might even have difficulties in distinguishing some relatively simple words which are pretty straightforward for native users. If this applies to Maghanish2 as well in his/her learning experience, then I guess that it is not that rewarding to learn the traditional forms. 

But for the meanwhile, Maghanish2 can actually learn both forms together, and see if (s)he would get him/herself confused. Perhaps Maghanish2 is a great Chinese learner, who knows?


----------



## maghanish2

Kwunlam, I sure hope that I'll be a great Chinese learner!  And I'm not exactly entirely sure as to what I want to fully acheive, however I think Taiwan might be my destination someday, so it would be better to know Traditional forms.

However, I'm not understanding what you mean by this paragraph:

*By the way, a foreign beginner might even have difficulties in distinguishing some relatively simple words which are pretty straightforward for native users. If this applies to Maghanish2 as well in his/her learning experience, then I guess that it is not that rewarding to learn the traditional forms.* 

Are you saying that it'll be difficult to distinguish the difference between simplified and traditional or just in general it'll be difficult to distinguish characters among each other?

Thanks again!


----------



## samanthalee

maghanish2 said:


> Are you saying that it'll be difficult to distinguish the difference between simplified and traditional or just in general it'll be difficult to distinguish characters among each other?
> 
> Thanks again!




He means some non-natives find it difficult to distinguish characters from one another within a character set.


----------



## maghanish2

Okay, thanks samanthalee, I thought that was what he was saying.


----------



## Kwunlam

maghanish2 said:


> Kwunlam, I sure hope that I'll be a great Chinese learner!  And I'm not exactly entirely sure as to what I want to fully acheive, however I think Taiwan might be my destination someday, so it would be better to know Traditional forms.
> 
> However, I'm not understanding what you mean by this paragraph:
> 
> *By the way, a foreign beginner might even have difficulties in distinguishing some relatively simple words which are pretty straightforward for native users. If this applies to Maghanish2 as well in his/her learning experience, then I guess that it is not that rewarding to learn the traditional forms.*
> 
> Are you saying that it'll be difficult to distinguish the difference between simplified and traditional or just in general it'll be difficult to distinguish characters among each other?
> 
> Thanks again!



I meant just that to distinguish between some simple characters is already a great challenge to a foreigner learner. One may for example find 字 and 宇 looks very similar and get confused easily. But for the native, we seldom have such problems. 

If one already has great difficulties in distinguishing between 字 and 宇, then it may not be a great idea even to master TWO forms (simplified and traditional) to get oneself even more confused.


----------



## maghanish2

Ah, I understand what you were saying now, Kwunlam.  Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## palomnik

While I think I'm reiterating something that has been done in other forums, I have to throw my two cents in further and say that I've never understood why simplified characters were created to begin with. 

You still have to learn a separate character for each syllable - maybe there are a few cases in the simplified list that are combinations of more than one traditional character, but not very many. What's more, from what I see simplified characters aren't any more logical in their construction than traditional ones. That being the case, I've never understood why simplified is supposed to be easier to learn.

The major virtue of simplified characters is that they're faster to write, and that's an advantage that's not to be denigrated. Maghanish, even if you learn traditional you will eventually find yourself sorely tempted to use simplified characters instead of traditional ones in writing, at least for commoner words - after all, which is easier to write, 甚麼 or 什么?

Of course, you don't need a government campaign to encourage people to use an abbreviated form of writing, and a fair number of the simplified characters are simply based on running hand abbreviations that people have been using for centuries.

Aside from this, the only good reason I see to use simplified characters is the fact that the vast majority of modern Chinese use them - which isn't a bad reason, I guess.


----------



## Kwunlam

By the way, in the computer age, I seldom _write_ Chinese. I _type _Chinese with the Microsoft IME PINYIN input method. So, there is no time to be saved whether I want simplified or traditional characters. What matters more is then to use a converter and then to spot-check for any mis-conversions.  

(By the way, this is an online-chinese-inputer, you may type _women _to get "我們/我们". ) 







palomnik said:


> ...The major virtue of simplified characters is that they're faster to write, and that's an advantage that's not to be denigrated. Maghanish, even if you learn traditional you will eventually find yourself sorely tempted to use simplified characters instead of traditional ones in writing, at least for commoner words - after all, which is easier to write, 甚麼 or 什么?
> 
> ... Aside from this, the only good reason I see to use simplified characters is the fact that the vast majority of modern Chinese use them - which isn't a bad reason, I guess.


----------



## maghanish2

Kwunlam, what exactly is an IME PINYIN input method?  I'm quite new to the typing Chinese and still don't understand how it's done.


----------



## Kwunlam

maghanish2 said:


> Kwunlam, what exactly is an IME PINYIN input method?  I'm quite new to the typing Chinese and still don't understand how it's done.



IME is just a name for the tool for people to type any language in MS Windows.

Can we open a new thread to deal with this problem (if this forum allows such a technical but useful topic), as in how to type Chinese in computer (MS Windows, Mac or other platforms)?

What I wish to say here is just that the "save-writing-time" is no longer so significant in the computer age.


----------



## maghanish2

Sure, I'll open up a new thread soon.


----------



## Zulis

Kwunlam said:


> ...
> 
> What I wish to say here is just that the "save-writing-time" is no longer so significant in the computer age.



I dont think it really matters even before the computer age. Just think how long people in China lived without Simplified Chinese.


----------



## samanthalee

Zulis said:


> I dont think it really matters even before the computer age. Just think how long people in China lived without Simplified Chinese.



That's not exactly true. The simplified form has existed for centuries, as mentioned by palomnik: 





palomnik said:


> Of course, you don't need a government campaign to encourage people to use an abbreviated form of writing, and a fair number of the simplified characters are simply based on running hand abbreviations that people have been using for centuries.



The "running hand abbreviations" is what we called 俗体 or 破体 which were non-official and not standardized. What China did was taking these 俗体字 to create the Simplified Character form, giving these "running hand abbreviations"  standardization and an official status.

There has always been a need to "abbreviate" the Traditional Characters especially in the era when "publishing a book" means "writing out copies by hand".


----------



## palomnik

Kwunlam said:


> By the way, in the computer age, I seldom _write_ Chinese. I _type _Chinese with the Microsoft IME PINYIN input method. So, there is no time to be saved whether I want simplified or traditional characters. What matters more is then to use a converter and then to spot-check for any mis-conversions.
> 
> (By the way, this is an online-chinese-inputer, you may type _women _to get "我們/我们". )


 
Wow! What a great site! And I've been copying entries from an online dictionary or else using my antiquated copy of Japanese Word! Thanks, Kwunlam!

It's a little unforgiving of spelling mistakes in Pinyin, though. The kind of problem a foreigner faces.


----------



## min5

you can learn simplified, traditional is more difficult on writings.


----------

