How much faster is it really to write simplified, given similar skill levels?
Basically, writing simplified characters (SC) can be faster than traditional characters (TC).
SC comes into stage primarily because of its handy characteristics. Some people really want to boost up the writing speed, among other personal reasons, and there's no such awesome ...
From the oracle script to the seal script, character 龍 evolved from simple to complex. The seal script was already very similar to 龍.
However later, variants (there were too many!) 𢅛 and 尨 appeared:
Dictionary 集韻 (1037 AD)
The ancient forms for 龍 are [...] 𢅛(帝+尨) [...].
For the meaning "inside", 裏 or 裡 is the traditional form (as @Ringil has pointed out, 裏 is the proper form in the standard of Mainland/Hong Kong and 裡 is treated as a variant; but in Taiwan the situation is reversed), and 里 is the simplified form.
For the meaning "mile, kilometer, li (Chinese unit of distance)", 里 is the ...
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 ...
態 to 态
态 is a "new" Phono-semantic compound character. 態 sounds tài, so a simple character 太 with the same pronunciation is chosen for the phonetic part. Then it becomes 态.
This character was simplified by the people who lived in places governed by the CCP during 1940s.
Why not simplify 灬 to 一 for 熊, but for 魚
Answer: 灬 came from 火 (fire) in the ...
Both are correct.
They are just two styles： ‘’ “” ,「」『』.
The former are borrowed from western countries, the usages in Chinese are identical with English.
The latter,「」 and 『』 are from Japanese. Although they are not so often used as the former, but they are definitely acceptable. In fact, Some people claims we should only use 「」『』 for ...
Historically they were the same character. Later the meanings split, 製 is usually the verb meaning to make, and 制 the noun meaning the system, or more abstract things.
Uniform should be 制服, because it means the clothing following certain rules/system. 製服 could be literally interpreted as clothing-making. Regarding the meaning of overpower, it must be 制服.
"Simplification" is a process. If it's not reduced in stroke count, it's not actually "Simplified" - the mix-up in language is due to PRC's standard of Chinese being popularly known as "Simplified Chinese", even though PRC Chinese may have the same number of or even more strokes.
「没」 came from a popular variant of 「沒」, because ...
My understanding is that when characters were being simplified in Mainland China, they first had to standardize traditional characters (i.e. What should these new characters be simplified from?). 「綫」 was chosen as the traditional standard, thus in the PRC's Table of General Standard Chinese Characters (通用規範漢字表), you can see that 「线」 is considered to be ...
麟 (lin2) literally means female unicorn-like animal, which is an auspicious mythical Chinese animal and is the product of Chinese dragon and cow. 麟 is actually a very good and meaningful Chinese name. It is not that complicated if we decompose the character:
麟 (lin2) is a typical Phono-semantic compound (形聲): semantic 鹿 (lu4, meaning “deer”) + phonetic 粦 (...
醡醬麵 and 炸醬麵
炸醬麵 can work as it means "noodles with fried sauce"
醡醬麵 is "noodles with extracted sauce (e.g. extracting oil)"
炸 fried (火 fire radical + phonetic 乍 zhà)
醡 extract (酉 container + 窄 narrow; from 穴 hole and 乍) Archaic character for 榨 (tool for extraction process. 木 wood used to refer to tools in this case)
Alternatively, 酢醬麵 ...
Just looking at the title you can tell it's simplified.
耸 is the simplified version 聳.
Although, technically possible, it's highly unlikely that a book with a simplified title would be "in" traditional.
In simplified Chinese, both would be 台, easy peasy. Otherwise, things get a little complicated. Sometimes 台 is just an alternative form for 臺, which is the case for Taiwan: you can write 臺灣 or 台灣, both are acceptable, though the former is considered more formal. In the case of 台山, that is the correct name already, so you can't write 臺山 because 臺 is not an ...
They are utilized in the exact same way. The only difference is that 裏 is used in Hong Kong/mainland as the proper character (正体字) and 裡 is the variant character (异体字), but in Taiwan the situation is reversed.
Example: Taiwan Newspaper: http://www.cna.com.tw/news/asoc/201601310093-1.aspx
uses 這裡有個好粉絲團，需要你關 as part of an ad.
Hong Kong video: https://www....
Kanji is the Japanese word for 漢字 (Chinese character). It is "hanzi" in Chinese. And only hanzi has tranditional and simplified forms. Kanji is also simplified, but kanji has only one official form in Japan.
Chinese Simplified is the official writing system in mainland China, Chinese Traditional is the official writing system in Macau, Hong Kong, Taiwan. ...
I'm afraid different people may use these terms in slightly different ways. But the way I understand it,
standard form 標準體 is one of several ways of writing a character, chosen as standard in a particular place and time (there are different standards: standard mainland forms, standard Taiwanese forms, standard Hong Kong forms, standard Kangxi forms, etc.),
Haha, funny question. "特朗普" is the official transliteration, used most commonly in official media of China, such as CCTV（新闻联播）and People's Daily(人民日报), while "川普" is more often used in social media or among people's casual talking.
"川普" is transliterated based on the pronunciation of "Trump", which is reasonable. However, "特朗普" has been used as the ...
They can understand and will occasionally use simplified Chinese
First of all, thanks to Congliu's experiment. And I think this is a very interesting question.
I found this research called The Dynamic Statistics and Comparison of the Stroke Counts of Simplified and Traditional Chinese Characters (ftp://ftp.cs.sjtu.edu.cn:990/gshulun/%B7%A2%B1%ED%C2%DB%CE%C4my_published_papers/%BC%F2%BB%AF%D7%D6%D3%EB%B7%B1%CC%E5%D7%D6%B1%...
No. It became a variant way earlier than that. There may well have been a document to that effect in 1995, but it would not have been anything new.
It is well established that 劵 and 券 were two different seal scripts characters, as @HenryHO points out. However, according to Qing Dynasty linguist Tuan Yu-tsai's annotated version of Shuo-wen Chieh-Tzu:
My assumption has been that the variant 强 was selected as standard because the right hand side of 強 is not its own character, whereas 强 was perceived as easier to remember because it is 弓＋虽. However, etymologically, 強 = 弘 ＋ 虫, so the character reform committee kind of screwed the pooch in that sense.
Yes,「声」represented the word now written as「磬」(stone chimes).
「声」was originally part of「殸」(stone chimes), and this character later became「磬」. Later on, people began cutting off the components from「聲」(sound) to use「声」as a shorthand for「聲」(sound), but「磬」and「聲」represented different words.
「聲」(sound) is comprised of「殸」(stone chimes being struck) and「耳」(ear).
只 has two meanings and pronunciations, zhī (single) and zhǐ (only)
隻 is pronounced zhī and has the same meaning as 只 (zhī)
衹, 祇, 秖 all can mean zhǐ (only), but also had other meanings:
衹 has the same meaning, but could also mean 緹 (a reddish colour used in textiles) - hence the 衣 (clothing) radical
祇 also has the pronunciation of qí meanin 地祇, ...
Although you may think such notation is convenient, Chinese people really dislike using Latin notations in Chinese books, especially for linguistics.
"动" instead of "v." for verbs
"名" instead of "n." for nouns
"繁" instead of your "t" for Traditional Chinese.
They don't call this a "Simplification" in the PRC. Simplification is stroke-cutting achieved by various methods - if a character is standardised not by stroke cutting, it's not a Simplification.
Basically, the structure of「內」was already not clear by the time of Han Dynasty clerical script, and famous calligraphers overwhelmingly wrote the inside ...