首页 | 博客群 | 公社 | 专栏 | 论坛 | 图片 | 资讯 | 注册 | 帮助 | 博客联播 | 随机访问
Dialects of Revolutionary Students- -| 回首页 | 2005年索引 | - -One Day

Even Simpler Than Before

                                      

TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE against the chart below. These are all common words; most of them fall in the basic set for primary school learners (no. 14 is a bit more obscure, so I've provided a compound). Answers are provided at the end of the article, although individual characters will be discussed in the text.

Simplified Quiz

So, how'd you do? Not too great, huh? I put this quiz together and I still have trouble with some of them. If the winds of history had blown in a slightly different direction, however, every last one of them would be recognizable on sight.

   The first round of simplification of Chinese characters is well-documented. Put into practice in 1956 and 1964, it caused the break between the mainland's writing system and that of the overseas community. Less well known is the second round of simplification, a draft of which was published in 1977, but which was repealed in 1986. There are several books in print that discuss this plan, but any reference to it on the web takes the form of the second half of the previous sentence. Since I have not been able to find a full list online, I've taken the liberty of scanning in the relevant pages from 第二次汉字简化方案 (the quality's not so great because the pamphlet is non-circulating - I had to scan a rather poor photocopy).


   The characters in the quiz all come from that draft. Some of them may be familiar - the first three, in fact, are quite common on rough, hand-lettered signs despite government campaigns urging standard characters. "早歺" can be seen on the door of a shack selling breakfast buns, "禁止仃车" spray-painted on a metal garage door proclaims "No Parking", and points out roads on sketched maps. Each of these characters has an older meaning and pronunciation that is simply overlooked in this folk usage: is a variant of "evil", is used in 伶仃, "solitary", and is used in 彳亍, "walk slowly". Number ten, also a folk simplification, is more widely accepted (visited Hong Kong recently?), since its base meaning, "chew" is similar to the borrowed meaning, "mouth".

   Other characters resurrect historical usage. is an ancient form of , "private", and is an ancient variant of , "hall". is an ancient variant of , "coin", but here it takes its inspiration from a calligraphic form of , "greet" (this usage is quite common on banners). Character 27 is based on a script form of , and character 28 is a regularized script form of .

   Characters that somehow escaped simplification under applicable rules during the first round are addressed here. The script form of became regularized as in 1956, so here the framers understand that simplifies to, and reduce to . Likewise, contains , which was previously simplified to , so the secondary result is character 19.

   The 1977 plan is much more ruthless in its phonetic substitutions, eliminating wholesale those components that no longer have a phonetic relationship with modern Chinese pronunciation. Compare character 32, with (gān) as a phonetic, against the original, (gǎn), phonetic (xián). Or number four, (dào), phonetic (dāo), against , phonetic (shǒu).

   Where the first simplification was basically a reduction of strokes, this round turns its attention to needless semantic components. The "radicals" in Chinese characters often have little relationship to the current meaning, anyway, so when the meaning of a certain sound is evident from context, why not do away with useless strokes? Thus 葫猢蝴糊 (hú) all reduce to the phonetic component , and 菜蔡 (cài) reduce to a single character with a simplified phonetic [艹才] (see the second character of 14). Note that not all characters with identical pronunciation are so conflated; , "lake", retains its original form, probably because the semantic compoent "water" is closely related to the meaning.

   Some results defy explanation. Character 18 is a simplification of , through what tortured logic I cannot fathom. And the prize for most obscure goes to character 20, whose traditional form is . The glyph itself only occurs one other place, as part of , the simplified form of . There is perhaps a chain through , but it remains one ugly character.

   Of course, ugly is relative. The entire Unicode Ideograph Extension is immense (check out the 方正超大字符集; it includes both A and B), and when I open up a character browser I often lose my way, sidetracked by the marvelous, strange, and incomprehensible. Some of the characters I can guess at - some are ancient seal forms recast in modern angular strokes, others are taken from handwritten variants. Finding alternative characters for my name is a great time-waster.

   The goal of all this is to allow scholars of Chinese to discuss historical tetragraphs in print without resorting to the ugly graphical representations I used in the quiz. Apparently this means that the slip of the woodblock-carver's chisel gets a slot, as does the effort made by a calligrapher who had just a bit too much to drink. And there is someone somewhere who will not be satisfied until there is space enough for the entire 千寿图, 万福图, and 亿操图. In a fine slice of irony, the "Four Dragons" character, cited in a footnote in John DeFrancis as an extreme example of why the current written form of Chinese is needlessly difficult and unlikely to work well in a computerized age, has been granted a slot at the far end of extension B.

   Scholars using Unicode will find themselves able to discuss the length and breadth of China's Glorious Five-Thousand Years of history, and yet there is one period about which they must remain silent: the vast majority of the characters in the 1977 simplification draft are simply not present. The first sixteen characters in the quiz are all present in a full Unicode font, although 13-16 are in the Extension space. The remaining sixteen I pieced together with eudcedit.

   The sinograph section of Unicode has always been a hotbed of political controversy, mostly in the form of nationalism on the part of Japan and the traditional-simplified struggle among China and her outlying regions. I suspect our situation here is much the same, whether through active efforts to exclude the characters, or a simple indifference. With electronic composition and transmission, scanning and indexing integral parts of current-day research, this decade-long orthographic experiment is as if it had never even existed.

   Or perhaps not entirely. A friend of mine who was in school during the proposed second simplification still uses many of these forms in her casual writing, and I'm sure she's not the only one.

Quiz Answers

1 餐、2 停、3 街、4 道、5 迎、6 私、7 算、8 建、9 酒、10 嘴、11 信、12 堂、13 宣、14 韭菜、15 影、16 款、17 量、18 部、19 套、20 器、21 儒、22 煤、23 面、24 靴、25 酱、26 鼻、27 真,28 青,29 鞋、30 察、31 整、32

【作者: neohet】【访问统计:】【2005年01月24日 星期一 03:59】【注册】【打印

搜索

Google

Trackback

你可以使用这个链接引用该篇文章 http://publishblog.blogchina.com/blog/tb.b?diaryID=609696

回复

tr align="left">

- 评论人:mrtn   2007-10-19 10:54:22   

Great post! I recommend everybody interested to take a look at this dissertation presented at Stockholm Uni last year:http://www.diva-portal.org/diva/getDocument?urn_nbn_se_su_diva-993-2__fulltext.pdf

Long Story of Short Forms: The Evolution of Simplified Chinese Charcters

by Roar Bökset.

- 评论人:Mark S.   2005-07-01 22:46:39   

Very nice work. Thanks for posting this.

Perhaps the "Basic Hanzi" list the earlier poster is thinking of is this chart by John DeFrancis:
http://www.pinyin.info/readings/texts/visible/p118.gif
This is from Visible Speech
http://www.pinyin.info/readings/texts/visible/
but originally appeared in The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy
http://www.pinyin.info/readings/chinese_language.html

- 评论人:neohet   2005-04-13 20:29:12   

Thanks for the report. What I'm looking for now is a monograph done up by Zhao Yuanren in the 50s, I believe, in which he proposes a "Basic Hanzi" set that condenses the set of Chinese characters into a small subset of phonetic equivalents. I came across it once in the library of a different university, but I can't seem to find it in the catalogue here.

- 评论人:Brendan   2005-04-13 15:34:16   

Returning to the thread very late: I did get out the Zhou Youguang book on Chinese writing systems, but the section on the second simplification was very brief, and said, basically, that the whole thing was a dumb idea gone about in a haphazard manner by nonspecialists. The whole thing was about two paragraphs.
I xeroxed the page, and then put it somewhere and lost it -- but it was kind of a disappointment anyway.

- 评论人:saimu0@yahoo.com.sg   2005-03-27 12:48:28   

Hello.
Im a chinese language student in china and im very interested in the simplification process in 1977, i think that this simplification makes better sense than the previous ( as you said the main point of the last simplificaytion was to remove strokes and phonetics where forgotten)...
Does anyone have any idea where i can get a copy of the proposed simplification, or even better a input method using the Simplified ones..?

Any websites or even samples will be good!

Thanks
Sam
Hebei
China

- 评论人:罗大卫   2005-03-12 07:40:26   

I studied Chinese through the Cal State University program (SJSU) back from '89 - '92. Course material books for the beginner level were from the Mainland cirriculm. We leared #10.咀 for zui3 mouth. I leared the trad form in Taiwan.

- 评论人:crane   2005-02-06 21:30:17   

let's forget about the 2nd simplification stuff.

- 评论人:neohet   2005-01-28 11:51:52   

Huixing: Amazing! Thanks for the links.

The links are to pictures of all of these strange characters in the wild. The main site apparently is titled "A Photo Dictionary of Rare Chinese Characters" and is found at
http://homepage2.nifty.com/Gat_Tin/kanji/kaindex.htm

- 评论人:huixing   2005-01-28 02:13:47   

http://homepage2.nifty.com/Gat_Tin/kanji/genryaku.htm
http://homepage2.nifty.com/Gat_Tin/kanji/genryaku2.htm

- 评论人:neohet   2005-01-26 20:50:30   

Andrew: I haven't seen the earlier versions online anywhere either. The 1986 version that you can find linked from the Wikipedia, however, is basically the 1964 standard with a few clarifications, detailed (in Chinese) on this page:
http://www.mhedu.sh.cn/cms/data/html/doc/2003-09/10/28914/index.html
Essentially they allow the traditional forms of four or five individual characters to be standard in order to resolve ambiguity.

- 评论人:Andrew Dunbar   2005-01-26 19:33:04   

Wow. I've been looking for just this information for the past couple of months. I've even asked on the English and Chinese Wikipedias. I did find the story of the 1977 changes and their repeal in an obscure scholarly Australian book on the Chinese language, but I had not been able to find the actual documents from 1956, 1964, or 1977 - or the lists of characters in them.

I am still quite interested in finding the 1956 and 1964 documents in scanned or online versions. I may have found them online but since I don't read Chinese I can't be sure.

- 评论人:Brendan   2005-01-26 15:47:58   

Oh - the Zhou Youguang book? Temple's library doesn't have it - no surprise there - but UPenn's Van Pelt does, in the original Chinese. If you like, I can take a look the next time I go there, which should be soon. I won't be able to check it out, but I could xerox the chapter in question, and then scan or retype it.

- 评论人:neohet   2005-01-26 14:55:54   

I don't really make it easy to identify, do I?

Thanks for the Mojikyo link--they have Xixia characters! (not that I have any use for them).

I think the fact that the first simplification scheme was proposed in 1956 (which included print direction, character formation, and stroke order, I believe), but was revised before the final version in 1964, might lead to some sources identifying these as two separate programs. Either way, there's not much out there on the 1977 system (one of the books recommended on pinyin.info has a chapter on the reasons for its failure; unavailable to me, though)

I included an example in the previous post of mid-50's simplification by an individual publisher. There's something odd when you first read it, but you can't put a finger on it.

- 评论人:Brendan   2005-01-26 13:09:24   

Oh, so <i>this</i> is your other blog! I'd been wondering.

In retrospect, I think I had been searching for this as a <i>third</i> simplification. Not sure where I got the idea.

Not sure whether or not I mentioned it while I was back, but I found a mid-to-late '50s Beida Chinese-for-foreigner textbook which features, aside from some seriously awesome political rhetoric, a mixture of full-form and short-form characters. The publication date would put it around the time of the first wave of simplifications, I guess.

- 评论人:Brendan   2005-01-26 13:03:04   

Thanks very much for posting this. I'd heard about these simplifications from a professor who'd been in school when they were introduced, but he said he'd forgotten all of them. Web searches in English and Chinese didn't turn up much.

There's a project out there called Mojikyo whose aim is to document all variant characters, but it seems to be concerned primarily with archaic forms. It's also run out of Japan, though that didn't stop my 文字学 professor at Beida from using it.

验证码:   
评论内容: