{"id":13739,"date":"2020-12-07T18:04:21","date_gmt":"2020-12-07T17:04:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.hackingchinese.com\/?p=13739"},"modified":"2021-07-27T17:48:47","modified_gmt":"2021-07-27T15:48:47","slug":"are-simplified-characters-really-simpler-to-learn","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.hackingchinese.com\/are-simplified-characters-really-simpler-to-learn\/","title":{"rendered":"Are simplified characters really simpler to learn?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>Simplified characters have fewer strokes, which makes them simpler, right? A character with fewer strokes is faster to write, of course, but does that also make it easier to learn? This is a question I think most people who have learnt at least some characters from both sets have asked themselves, but which isn’t easy to answer.<\/em><\/p>\n

In this article, Ash Henson from Outlier Linguistics<\/a> attempts to bring clarity to the traditional vs. simplified debate. Ash is a PhD candidate in Chinese palaeography (the study of historic writing systems) and CTO at Outlier Linguistics. If you want to learn more about Ash, I interviewed him for my article about the Outlier Chinese Character Dictionary<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u611b, the traditional version of the character for \u00e0i<\/em> \u201clove\u201d is noticeably superior to the simplified version, \u7231, because \u611b has \u5fc3 \u201cheart\u201d in it. How can you have love without a heart?<\/p>\n

I bet at this moment, you’re pretty clear on which camp you’re in when it comes to the traditional vs. simplified debate. If the former, then you’re probably beaming with pride, and if the latter, red in the face.<\/p>\n

When it comes to the debate between whether simplified characters are superior to traditional or vice versa, there is far too much emotion. The proof of this, is that the top of both traditional \u611b and simplified \u7231 is \"\"\u00a0, which is meaningless. It’s not related to \u722b zh\u01ceo<\/em> \u201cclaw\u201d nor to \u5196 m\u00ec<\/em> \u201ccover.\u201d It’s simply a corruption of an earlier form.<\/a>1<\/sup><\/a> Neither the pro-Traditional, nor the pro-Simplified camp ever seem to notice that.<\/p>\n

How could both sides of the debate ignore this very important detail? Probably because they’re too busy trying to prove their side. By the way, the simplified camp can retort, \u201cBut it has \u670b\u53cb\u7684\u53cb! Isn’t that the same?\u201d to the no-heart statement.<\/p>\n

A brief history of simplified characters<\/h3>\n

I’m not going to argue here for the superiority of either type of character. I just want to try and set up a rational basis for comparison. Then, of course, we’ll have a little fun at the expense of traditional characters, and then turn the lens onto simplified characters and have some fun there too. While we’re talking about simplified characters, I’d like to offer some alternatives to some of the common simplifications.<\/p>\n

One important thing to consider is \u201cWhy were characters simplified to begin with?\u201d Ideas for modern simplification started out in the 1800’s, though characters have had simplified and complex forms for thousands of years. When Europeans showed up in Asia in the 1600’s, they surprised China with their military and technological advances.<\/p>\n

Chinese intellectuals pondered the question of how this could have happened and one of the answers they proposed was that the Chinese language itself was backward. One scholar even proposed doing away with it entirely in favor of adopting Esperanto!<\/p>\n

(I often daydream about what it would have been like to be a government bureaucrat tasked with going into a farming village to explain to the people that they would have give up the language they’ve been speaking their whole life in order to adopt Esperanto \u2013 perhaps there would be a ch\u00e9ngy\u01d4<\/em> now meaning \u201cto get tarred and feathered\u201d had that actually happened).<\/p>\n

Does more strokes mean that a character is harder to learn?<\/h3>\n

The high levels of literacy in Taiwan and Hong Kong, however, show definitively that the language itself was not the problem. Access to education was the problem. Since native character learning education is often based upon writing and re-writing, the idea was that lowering stroke count would make the writing system simpler.<\/p>\n

Let’s look at some traditional characters that may have given them the impression that stroke count was simply too high. But, there is more to the story than simply stroke count. Take \"\" zh\u00e9<\/em> (or ti\u00e8<\/em>) \u201cverbose\u201d for example. It has a whopping 64 strokes! But, it’s structure is rather simple. If you know how to write \u9f8d l\u00f3ng \u201cdragon,\u201d then you just write it four times in a symmetrical pattern. So, while \"\" has a huge number of strokes, it’s actually quite easy, albeit a bit tiring, to write and remember. It may bring you some comfort that you’ll probably never need to write \"\" unless you’re having a discussion about high stroke counts.<\/p>\n

What makes a successful character simplification?<\/h3>\n

In order to judge whether a particular simplification is successful or not, we need to ask ourselves, \u201cWhy do characters exist in the first place?\u201d The answer to that is obviously \u201cto represent Chinese visually.\u201d In other words, to give a visual representation to a spoken Mandarin word. Spoken words are sound-meaning combinations.<\/p>\n

So, the better a visual symbol can represent sound and meaning, the more valuable it is as a written symbol. Of course, there are other questions one could ask as well, such as \u201cIs it easier to learn?\u201d \u201cIs it easier to read?\u201d etc. But having said that, sound and meaning representation is a good place to start.<\/p>\n

Characters with high stroke counts are sometimes easy to understand and learn<\/h3>\n

\"\"As I mentioned before, there have been simplified forms of characters virtually for as long as there have been characters. The correct way to understand the term \u201csimplified forms\u201d here is \u201cforms which are written with fewer strokes,\u201d not to be mistaken with \u201cconceptually more simple.\u201d I’m taking a liberty with the word \u201cstrokes\u201d here as \u201cstrokes\u201d as they are interpreted today did not exist in early writing. Another way of saying that is that any and all lines or shapes were acceptable in early writing.<\/p>\n

So, why are we even faced with the Simplified vs. Traditional dichotomy? Mostly due to characters like these:<\/p>\n

\u9b31 \u9f9c \u807d \u8d0f \u8fad \u97ff \u6500 \u9e9f \u5c0d \u96a8 \u64d4 \u5fb5 \u5289 \u9435 \u85dd \u5bf6 \u9e97 \u91c1 \u568f \u64fa \u737b \u89f8 \u5914 \u58fd \u896f \u7e6b<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

To the untrained eye, these would all appear to be equally difficult, but there is a vast difference in difficulty represented here. For instance, look how easy these are to understand:<\/p>\n