再說繁簡
很多時很到簡體字我火內無名火就會立即燃起，這次見到聯合國可能會在2008年在會內停止使用停用繁體，看到有website連結可以petition，我二話不說的就在website裡signup。可能你會笑我太傻，只是區區一個無實質權力的組織，只有少少的改變，更可以在他們開會時少用一些紙張，更加環保；又或者你會說只是台灣人/香港不肯求變罷了，君不見新加坡也改了用簡體字多年，也沒有何反對。事其實有點小題大作......如果你沒有點兒驕傲於中國由商/周代以來的中國文化、也不曾為不論是文言白話詩詞句子的妙到毫巔而差不住為之讚嘆神往、更可以捨棄神奇的中國圖形文字，那麼請自便，我不送了。
簡體字就算中國五六十年代的錯誤，因為量大這原因而令它的為世所採，就是這因由就可以蓋過那千百不是的缺點嗎?
中國大陸目前施行的簡化字，其中有部分字對閱讀和理解以及繁簡轉換上造成了一些障礙。用筆劃較簡單的同音字，例如「發」與「髮」，「後」與「后」，「鬥」 與「斗」，「餘」與「余」，類似六書中的假借，使一個字帶有太多的字義，造成閱讀困難，尤其在閱讀由簡化字組成的文言文時，此問題非常明顯。假借的做字方 法多發生在古代，一種新意義出現時，卻無相對的字體，於是採用同音字，但造成一個字的字義過多，經過一段時期則再做新字，以免混淆，用筆劃較簡單的同音字 進行簡化就是漢字發展的倒退，實在為簡化字頗大的弊端。部分字形的修改被指為沒有系統性，使得原來表意很好的字在去掉了區區幾劃之後便顯得倉促無力，無法 有效表達原有的含義，例如「愛」、「產」、「鳳」、「親」、「適」等的不少漢字。
而簡體字中的同音代替字，是用一個字代表好幾個字，意義自然容易混淆。例如簡體字的「干」代替了繁體字的「干、乾、幹、贛」。看到「干江」不知是「乾江」， 還是「贛江」。「天干」也令人懷疑；到底指的是甲、乙、丙、丁……，還是指天乾物燥的「天乾」呢？又如簡體字的「丁」代替了繁體字的「丁、叮、盯、釘、 靪」，以簡體字寫成的「丁上了」，誰能知道那是指叮上了、還是盯上了、釘上了?
例如把「聽」字簡化為「听」，難道用「口」去聽的嗎？而且「听」是古寫的「晒」，意思是「笑貌」，不論發音或意義，都與「聽」一點關係沒有，很多字已簡化得極盡荒謬了。
有人說，只要有人把中國的古籍「翻譯」成簡體字的版本，只認識簡體字的人不是一樣可以看中國繁體字的古籍了嗎？尤其今天是電腦的時代，電腦可以在一瞬間將整篇古籍「化繁為簡」。但問題不那麼簡單，如果其那麼容易解決，北京當局早就規定印刷古籍也要用簡體字了。
簡體字為什麼不適用於古籍？因為簡體字在簡化時，已把繁體字作了許多合併，字音與字義已輿原來的繁體字產生歧異。例如繁體字中的「余」是我的意思； 「餘」是多餘的意思。「多余一人」是多了我一個；「多餘一人」是多出了一個人。如今簡體字取銷「餘」字，歸人「余」字，意思便產生混淆了，類似讓人混淆的 這類簡體字很多，而且在文言文中更難分辨其意義。這是註定了只會簡體字的人，讀古籍不易，在上溯中國文化時，憑生阻礙的原因。
在些時候看見一些繁體字時感覺是非常神奇的，如我在乘小巴時，車滿時會在車頭放一塊上面寫上紅色的一個滿字膠板，這滿字看清楚一點，已經把車上的清景如實的以半圖像的型式令看者完全明白。是如何?看看我的解釋
滿字很容易可以分成三部份，左面的是水/雨，加上方的是廿字或是一個屋頂，右下的是餘下，加一點幻想。在下雨之時，看到很多的人(廿個)在屋裡緊縮在一間細細的屋子裡。
所以我很到這滿字都會會心微笑呢。
可能太繁忙，但是請keep going sign up the below link
Go petition
posted by Lukia @ 23:05
10 Comments:
很有同感呢，支持你的想法。
祝旅途愉快 :)
Thx, will
I don't have a problem using simplified characters if it's a cutural and natural language evolution. But mainland shouldn't use political policies to ban the use of traditioanl characters to archieve their political goals.
Part of the simplified chinese is from 草书. And a lot of simplied chinese are started around 80 years ago, by nationalists (not communists at that time). But at that time they're simplifed through careful considerations of characters meaning, and not just by pronounciation.
some more insights on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_Chinese_character
==============================
Pros and cons
The effect of Simplified Characters on the language remains controversial decades after their introduction:
[edit]
Pros
* Proponents point out that the Chinese writing system has been changing for millennia: it has already passed through the Oracle Script, Bronzeware Script, Seal Script and Clerical Script stages. Moreover, many simplified characters are drawn from conventional abbreviated forms that have been in use for centuries; some simplified characters are in fact restorations of ancient forms that had become more complicated over time.
* Proponents also feel that simplification makes the Chinese writing system easier to learn. Literacy rates since simplification have risen steadily in rural and urban areas.
o Opponents argue that the literacy rates of Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan compare favorably, so simplification seems not to correlate with the improvement. Some have suggested that the greater etymological coherence of the traditional set might even pose an advantage when learning how to write.
* Proponents feel that simplified characters give a less cluttered appearance, preventing an overflow of useless information and thus making reading and writing easier and faster. They point to some common characters that are extremely complex in their traditional form, such as 邊 (biān), "side", with nineteen strokes; the simplified form is 边, with five strokes. They also feel that simplified characters are easier to view in print and on computer displays, as they require less space.
* Proponents also feel that some traditional characters are too similar in appearance, such as 書 (shū) "book", 晝 (zhòu) "daytime" and 畫 (huà) "drawing": the simplified forms are 书, 昼, and 画, which look much more distinct.
o Opponents claim the reverse: simplifications make distinct characters more similar to each other in appearance, giving the "shape recognition" mechanism of the reading part of the brain less unique clues. An example is 無 (wú) "without", simplified into 无, which looks very similar to the existing character 天 (tiān) "sky".
* Chinese characters are most often made up of a pronunciation-indicating part (called the phonetic) and a part that indicates the general semantic domain (called the radical). During the process of simplification, there are some attempts to bring greater coherence to the system. For example, the shape of 憂 (yōu), meaning "anxious", is not a good indicator of its pronunciation. The simplified version is 忧, a straightforward combination of the "heart" radical to the left (indication emotion) and the phonetic 尤 (yóu) to the right.
Cons
* Character simplification merged many characters with same or similar pronunciations. For example, 后 (hòu) "queen" and 後 (hòu) "behind" are both simplified into 后. Opponents complain that by merging many characters into one and hence offering new meanings to a traditional character, simplified characters create ambiguity, especially in ancient literature that depends more heavily on characters to disambiguate meaning, for example, between 后宮 "the Queen's palace" and 後宮 "the palace at the back".
o However, proponents argue that the amount of spoken and written deviation from Classical Chinese and the modern vernacular is a greater factor, and has already brought about incompatibility with ancient texts. They also claim that the ambiguity brought about by the merger of characters is minimal.
* Some characters that do not have the same pronunciations in Standard Mandarin have also been merged together. For example, 尽 is a merger of 儘 jǐn and 盡 jìn; 只 is a merger of 隻 zhī and 祇 zhǐ; 发 is a merger of 發 fā and 髮 fà. Other characters that were merged are pronounced identically in Standard Mandarin, but not in other varieties of Chinese, such as 松, a merger of 松 and 鬆, which are pronounced identically in Standard Mandarin but differently in Cantonese. Opponents feel that this adds unnecessary complexity to the Chinese writing system.
* Some simplified characters distort or entirely remove the phonetic and/or radical, reducing the internal logic of the system. For example, the traditional character 盤 (pán), meaning "plate", has the phonetic component 般 (bān) on top. The simplified version is 盘, whose upper part is now 舟 (zhōu). Although easier to write, the pronunciation of the character is no longer apparent from its shape.
* Some argue that the oversimplification results in a broken connection between characters, which makes it more difficult for students to expand their vocabulary in terms of perceving both the meaning and pronunciation of a new character. For example, 鬥 (fight) as a radical was merged with 門 (door) into 门 (door). For example, 鬧 (din, fuss) is now 闹, with a door radical that is not indicative of its meaning.
o Proponents say that the radical system is imperfect in the first place. For example, 笑 (smile, laugh) uses the "bamboo" radical.
* Some people feel that simplified characters violate the traditional aesthetics of Chinese writing. For example, the use of grass script shapes in simplified Chinese is viewed as being incompatible with writing in the regular script or the running script.
* As computers are increasingly used to write text, the speed advantage of writing fewer strokes becomes less relevant.
The sheer difficulties posed by having two concurrent writing systems, which hinders communications between Mainland China and other regions, are used by both sides of the debate to support their arguments. Translating an entire document written using simplified characters to traditional characters, or vice versa, is not a trivial task. For human translators, simplified Chinese characters can look vastly different from their traditional counterparts to the extent that the two have no signs of simplification and instead appear completely irrelevant to each other. Proponents claim that this poses no problem to anyone who has had some reading experience with both systems. For computer automated translation, one simplified character may equate to many traditional characters, and vice versa. Some knowledge of the context of the word usage is required for correct mapping; but it has been difficult for computers to work with word usage perfectly. As a result, direct computer mapping from simplified to traditional is not trivial and requires sophisticated programming. (This line of reasoning is used both by traditional Chinese advocates opposed to simplification, and simplified Chinese advocates opposed to the continued use of traditional characters.)
In addition to those practical considerations, many minds link simplified characters with the idea of communism and traditional characters with anticommunism. This often hampers rational debate about the relative merits of the two systems.
可能要黃山之行完結才可以認真的回覆你了，absoluted 兄
雖然沒看...
不過!!
我還是最支持繁體字的啦!!
大家說對不對(用台語說)
0.0
(無言....冷風吹過!!)
I'm totally on traditional chinese side. And I'm even on the side of letting our culture evolve, not manipulating our culture by policies...
我支持繁體字其實也帶點浪漫的想法。
簡體作為世界的主導已是不可改變的事實，因為由江澤民時代開始的中國領導層已經是科學派為主，至現在胡溫也是理科底。他們那有心情去還我中華文化的根本，著眼點跟本上是完全的不同，如果可以有一個清華出身的在高位還有點希望。
再說簡體字再流行下去的話，在文化學習上也會有困難的，由春秋古籍到明清詩詞也是用繁體的，加上文言文已經是在語句上的濃縮精華，如用上簡體字會令人有難上加難的感覺。
在閱讀速度上中文已經給英文比下去，如加上簡體字，更會發生日本文學常有的別字笑話出現。
我祝願大陸就算在書寫上還是用簡，在書本或各刊物上用回繁體令人更容易快捷的去明白中文文字的意思。
這真的跟理科或文科底子有關？未必全然……
本來只想回應幾句，一寫就停不了。
有空請細閱--->
這絕對是政治！
同意
在政治上簡體字主導這局面已牢不可破
而香港用離全民簡體字的日子還很遠，但都已成定局，
最好當然可以像美英文法和而共存的景況出現在兩岸三地
其實我是不反對文字上的進化進步，也沒有將事情政治化，上文absolutED 兄說到的字將它們簡體化也不無道理。
但當看到那些如在我文第五段說的「干、乾、幹、贛」用「干」字代表，真是非常容易令人混亂。間接等同將某止詞語去掉，如「丁、叮、盯、釘、 靪」，以簡體字寫成的「丁上了」，誰能知道那是指叮上了、還是盯上了、釘上了?
總括我是對那些多字化為一字的簡體做字法反感。一字多義，簡化後產生的許多類似字形，以及缺乏音義結構等，都造成閱讀上辨識的困難。
簡體做字有點虎頭蛇尾，字的發展並非只是簡化，繁化亦佔很大的比重。簡化字違反了六書造字原則，但又不是另行建立一套完整的造字系統，大大削弱了漢字的科學性與邏輯性。而簡化字的不少問題，結果並沒減輕學習負擔，甚至因為系統混亂，比繁體字更難學。
而且繁體在閱讀上是容易很多，在電腦處理漢字中，不論繁體還是簡體，輸入速度均相若。並不見得簡體字較有效率。但簡化字一字兼代數字的設計，增加了用電腦轉換時的難度，使轉換結果不太理想。
發佈留言
<< Home