• Simplifed vs. Traditional Characters — New York Times Debate

    Date: 2009.05.04 | Category: General | Tags:

    The New York Times weblog had a debate (or at least posted opinions from a number of scholars and writers) on the Traditional vs. Simplified characters issues. Most of what they had to say was reasonable, although I wonder about this claim from someone named Hsuan Meng:

    The advantage of traditional characters is that they offer a stronger and richer connection with the history of the Chinese language. The simplified writing system has reduced the variety and changed the nature of many character shapes, making it more difficult for people to access classical texts in their full richness.

    This is more than an academic concern. Just as Shakespeare’s plays and the language he used serve as a foundation for the English language, so are the canonical writings of Confucius, Lao Tzu and countless others who had exploited the full range and expression of the traditional characters.

    I wonder. Here’s the first line of Laozi’s Dao De Jing:

    道 可 道 ， 非 常 道 。 名 可 名 ， 非 常 名 。

    The characters are the same in both Traditional and Simplified scripts. I wonder if anyone could really read them, though, just knowing modern Chinese.

    Character by character it goes something like this:

    Road can/maybe Road, very road. Name can/maybe name, very name.

    It’s translated thus by S. Mitchell:

    The tao that can be told
    is not the eternal Tao
    The name that can be named
    is not the eternal Name.
    I’m no scholar of classical Chinese, but my guess is that differences in script are not the greatest obstacle to access to these ancient texts among modern speakers and readers of Chinese.
    I’m