From: Mark E. Shoulson (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Nov 24 2005 - 21:29:51 CST
Doug Ewell wrote:
> Mark E. Shoulson <mark at kli dot org> wrote:
>> This isn't to say that Hans vs Hant is not a distinction worth making.
>> This and the Roman/Fraktur distinction is there because librarians and
>> bibliographers have been using it for a while. There are going to be
>> arguments and debates over what counts as a font-choice and what
>> counts as a separate script--as we're seeing now. But there *are*
>> some cases that are just font-choices.
> I don't think Hans vs. Hant belongs in this discussion. Unlike the
> variants of Latin and Arabic being discussed, where a few characters
> may be different or unique to a particular variant, the difference
> between simplified and traditional Chinese amounts to hundreds or
> thousands of completely different characters. Some characters are the
> simplified form of another character, and simultaneously the
> traditional form of a third. This is not just a matter of tradition
> among librarians and bibliographers.
For the record, I know precious little about the difference between
simplified and traditional Chinese characters. But I was arguing that a
case that was mentioned was or could be seen as merely a font-choice,
and I wanted to make it clear that I didn't necessarily believe that
such dismissal always applied. So I agree with you, or at least agree
that you know better than I do.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2005 - 21:33:00 CST