From: Mike Ayers (mike.ayers@tumbleweed.com)
Date: Mon Mar 15 2004 - 14:50:05 EST
> From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org]On
> Behalf Of Frank Yung-Fong Tang
> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 11:16 AM
> It seems not a very new idea. Similar idea have been used in
> Chinese 40
> years ago and create the differences between Simplifed Chinese And
> Traditional Chinese.
Really? That conflicts with my understanding, which is:
When writing Chinese, there are certain stroke elements which, when
written in the more flowing script of everyday usage (grass script et al.),
closely resemble other stroke elements which use less strokes to write.
These stroke reduced elements are substituted for the original elements.
Also, there are certain "paired" character elements, such that one may be
substituted for the other, and the quicker-to-write stroke reduced element
gets substituted. I do not really understand these substitutions, but it is
my understanding that they are intuitive to literate Chinese. These two
"simplification" methods were formalized and standardized to become
Simplified Chinese.
Am I getting this wrong? I don't see the connection between organic
change in a script and singular revolutionary change.
/|/|ike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 15 2004 - 15:33:16 EST