W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-cjk@w3.org > July to September 2016

Re: Simplified or traditional for each Chinese macrolanguage

From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 12:12:09 -0400
To: Xidorn Quan <me@upsuper.org>
Cc: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>, 董福興 <bobbytung@wanderer.tw>, CJK discussion <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>, Makoto Kato <m_kato@ga2.so-net.ne.jp>, 劉慶 <ryukeikun@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20160726161209.GA25795@mercury.ccil.org>
Xidorn Quan scripsit:

> My reason is that, Taiwan and Hong Kong have some formal documents about
> the writing form of the languages they use from their governments, while
> mainland China doesn't. 

That seems sound enough as a default position.

> The only thing we currently have no idea is Literary Chinese (Classical
> Chinese, or kanbun in Japanese). In mainland China, Simplified Chinese
> characters are  used for Literary Chinese, 

My understanding is that this is not entirely true: that works written
in wenyan are usually written using traditional Chinese, at least if
they are older than 1919 (the May Fourth Movement), even in the PRC.

John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        cowan@ccil.org
Micropayment advocates mistakenly believe that efficient allocation of
resources is the purpose of markets.  Efficiency is a byproduct of market
systems, not their goal.  The reasons markets work are not because users
have embraced efficiency but because markets are the best place to allow
users to maximize their preferences, and very often their preferences are
not for conservation of cheap resources.  --Clay Shirky
Received on Tuesday, 26 July 2016 16:12:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 26 October 2016 23:39:18 UTC