At the beginning, I want to say that I am a native speaker and love Chinese, but I am not on a research level. It is welcomed that anyone can make comments and supply more info to my answer.
First, Wikipedia (see the link provided by Krazer) is good start to get some background knowledge why we have simplified characters. After the found of ...
8x8: Lowest necessary resolution for Chinese characters
As far as I know, the recognizable lowest resolution for Chinese characters, is about 8x8 pixels. The following paragraphs are rendered by the Special SimSun font's smallest 8x8 bitmap glyphs (Note: "Before Revision" is rendered by the Windows Vista's default simsun.ttc; "After Revision" shows how ...
The construction of 惊 follows the essence of the phono-semantic compound character. In folk culture, people who are not well-educated often invent characters in this way. Some of these characters became popular and then were included in the officially admitted simplified forms, and the others were eliminated. For example
(admitted formal ...
No, you should use 省会 (provincial capital) instead, i.e. 哈尔滨是黑龙江的省会. You could also use 省城 (in a little old-style), or 首府 (especially for 自治区(autonomous region)).
首都 is only used for the capital of a country, e.g.北京是中国的首都.
To answer your question, we need to clearly understand how Traditional Chinese characters got simplified, which I bet 99.999999% of the whole Chinese population don't even know about.
This is a very big topic that I am not able to discuss about it in detail. So I will give a much simplified explanation.
Consider these 2 sets: Traditional Characters vs ...
Although in Mandarin the pronunciation of "葉" and "叶" are very far, however the ancient pronunciation (葉 ancient ...
The radical of many simplified characters has nothing to do with the character itself; the only reason for this is just to simplify characters. I have some examples (found on the web):
1) Without the heart, how can one love
2) Looking back at the hometown, the man has already left
3) No morals, because it is none of my business
4) The ...
Simplified Chinese is no stupid command from "communist overlords". There was a committee discussing simplification, and they did choose simplified characters with academic discretion. I have found this semi-official book for explaining the sources of almost each simplified characters, plus the history of Chinese character simplification from Qing Dynasty:
是嗎？ (or 有嗎？ or 真的嗎？) 我覺得沒有很好吔。
Really? I do not think it's very good.
Really? I don't think my Chinese is very good.
No. Thank you.
Not at all. Thank you.
You don't have to worry about this.
It's just like somebody asks a foreigner, "Where are you from?".
For English technical term that does not yet have a translation in Chinese, maybe the first translation that got popular would be accepted.
The translation is done by the person who need to use the translation. Sometimes the original English term or explanation with be also noted before the term is generally accepted. Terms are usually translated by the ...
For a big-data Chinese corpus, have a look at this one:
(Taiwan) Academia Sinica Balanced Corpus of Modern Chinese 台灣 中央研究院 中文詞知識庫小組 現代漢語平衡語料庫
A million-word level corpus
Contact: Miss Su-Chu Lin (林素朱), firstname.lastname@example.org
Introduction in Chinese
Not sure if you can download it for free
Traditional to Simplified is many-to-one, right??
It is almost the case that each Traditional character maps to exactly one Simplified character (possibly itself). This is certainly the mental model that most people have about simplification, and it's not far from the truth.
Alas, there are exceptions.
One of my favorite references on this topic lists out ...
As @50-3 has mentioned, the 难 is the simplification of the traditional character 難. Most Chinese characters are phono-semantic compounds (形声字), in which the radical hints at the meaning while the phonetic hints at the pronunciation. In the case of 難, the phonetic component is 堇 while the radical is 隹. In modern Chinese, the pronunciation of 堇 has diverged ...
The most common word for "everyone" is "大家".
However, since you mentioned "people symbol 2 times", you are probably looking for "人人", which is a special form for a few words. For example 人人 is everybody, 天天 is every day and so on. It is in fact a short form for 每个人 (each person).
No fonts do, just sites with pictures or animations.
Instructions: Past the address in your browser bar, then write a character between "File:" and "-bw", like this "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:你-bw.png#file". It will show you the character's stroke order, not animated, but very clear.
The Mediawiki converter uses a combination of automatic information from the Unicode standard, SCIM tables, and other sources plus manual tweaks to build a set of translation tables. When going from Traditional to Simplified, some characters have been condensed into one. Translating back from Simplified to Traditional requires context that a computer is ...
niu bi = f**king awesome in English.
And niu in slang means awesome.
The usage is pretty same as in English.
I can eat 10 burgers in a row.
You are so awesome. You can even do such difficult questions!
Additionally, regarding to 牛X or 牛叉.
It is common in online ...
It is very likely because you are still learning.
When I started learning I had the same experience. At a regular font size, some characters that were different looked indistinguishable. As you become more familiar with the characters, you will find that you are comfortable reading them at smaller font sizes.
My suggestion is to use whatever size feels ...
This is discussed extensively in this thread:
Because the "simplified" version of this character was made PRC
standard when the new character lists were published. Even though
nothing was actually simplified. There was a committee in China tasked
with simplifying and standardizing ...
It means awesome. All English translations for 给力 at mdbg.net: cool, nifty, awesome, impressive, to put in extra effort
The word has also found it's way into English slang in the form of geilivable
Geilivable is not ...