[To South China Morning Post]
I would like to weigh in on the discussion of Chinese characters by Wang and Dunn (“Revival of old characters isn’t likely”, Letters, October 29).
I write as one who learnt the simplified characters at the Peking Language Institute and Peking University in 1976, then the “old” characters at the Chinese University of Hong Kong in 1977.
First, it was easier for me as an adult to learn the simplified characters first and then the traditional (“old”) characters. The same must surely be true for children learning them. Going from simple to complex is more sensible than going from complex to simple: walk before you run.
Second: many of the simplifications were done by taking existing hand-written forms as the basis. For example, the character shuo (to speak), printed as 說, was commonly hand-written as 说 , a saving of five strokes in seven for its radical yan (言). This 70% saving is carried over into the many characters that have the “speech” radical 言.
Third: if Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan and Korea use traditional characters in their trading relationship with China, so what? A click of a software button will convert a document from simplified Chinese to traditional, if needed.
As for “building culture”, which is alleged to flow from use of “old” characters, I make the following observation. I studied both calligraphy and the Analects of Confucius in its original classical Chinese. When I was later the boss of offices in China and Hong Kong, I found that the calligraphic skills of staff on the mainland were far better than those of our Hong Kong staff [at the risk of angering Hong Kong readers: Chinese staffs’ calligraphy was elegant; Hong Kong staffs’ calligraphy was childish]; and their knowledge of Confucian references was measurably better than that of their Hong Kong colleagues. So which way does the culture “build”, Mr Wang?
There is no need for China to own up to any “mistake”, as Dunn contends. Introducing simplified characters helped spread literacy in China and helped foreigners in learning the language. It was and remains a good move.
Messrs Wang & Dunn would do well to heed the words of Confucius, the Master: “thought without learning is perilous” (…思而不學則殆)
**********
I would like to weigh in on the discussion of Chinese characters by Wang and Dunn (“Revival of old characters isn’t likely”, Letters, October 29).
I write as one who learnt the simplified characters at the Peking Language Institute and Peking University in 1976, then the “old” characters at the Chinese University of Hong Kong in 1977.
First, it was easier for me as an adult to learn the simplified characters first and then the traditional (“old”) characters. The same must surely be true for children learning them. Going from simple to complex is more sensible than going from complex to simple: walk before you run.
Second: many of the simplifications were done by taking existing hand-written forms as the basis. For example, the character shuo (to speak), printed as 說, was commonly hand-written as 说 , a saving of five strokes in seven for its radical yan (言). This 70% saving is carried over into the many characters that have the “speech” radical 言.
Third: if Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan and Korea use traditional characters in their trading relationship with China, so what? A click of a software button will convert a document from simplified Chinese to traditional, if needed.
As for “building culture”, which is alleged to flow from use of “old” characters, I make the following observation. I studied both calligraphy and the Analects of Confucius in its original classical Chinese. When I was later the boss of offices in China and Hong Kong, I found that the calligraphic skills of staff on the mainland were far better than those of our Hong Kong staff [at the risk of angering Hong Kong readers: Chinese staffs’ calligraphy was elegant; Hong Kong staffs’ calligraphy was childish]; and their knowledge of Confucian references was measurably better than that of their Hong Kong colleagues. So which way does the culture “build”, Mr Wang?
There is no need for China to own up to any “mistake”, as Dunn contends. Introducing simplified characters helped spread literacy in China and helped foreigners in learning the language. It was and remains a good move.
Messrs Wang & Dunn would do well to heed the words of Confucius, the Master: “thought without learning is perilous” (…思而不學則殆)
**********
Revival of old characters isn't likely
Wang Xiangwei in his China Briefing column is quite right when he says China should reintroduce traditional characters ("How our old characters build culture", October 24).
In addition to cultural factors, there are many practical considerations that recommend such a reintroduction.
First, in an era of digital communications, the speed with which a simplified character, averaging seven strokes, can be written is of lessening importance. A traditional character, averaging 13 strokes, is easier to recognise and distinguish from other characters. Recognition is now the key attribute in reading and writing characters.
Second, traditional characters are much easier to read, not only for Chinese in Hong Kong, Taiwan and elsewhere but also for Japanese and Koreans. With increasing imports from China, Koreans and Japanese have a greater need to access information in Chinese. Use of traditional characters would facilitate that process.
However, the likelihood that China will make such a change is unfortunately quite low.
The central government is of the mindset that any change made today is an admission of mistakes in the past. An obvious example is the one-child policy, which has long outlived its usefulness and has contributed to an imbalance of the sexes and a future of too few workers supporting too many retirees.
Despite the fact that there has been a need for change for many years, that policy continues, largely in its original form.
David Dunn, Beijing
