Chinese Language

>>75881136
Someone said transition from traditional to simplified is easier than other way around. I studied simplified for several years. But I often have to look up a dictionary when I see a Taiwanese poster posting traditional characters even if I know their simplified counterparts.

The old school chinese texts are translated to modern chinese text anyway. Why bother yourself to learn traditional chinese if you have learnt simplified one?
But if you want to read non translated old chinese(文言文), I think reading in traditional characters indeed is comfier than simplified ones.

>>75882684
uhmm thanks. It's just that translations of masterpieces and philosophical texts usually have great loss at word meaning and sounds. Just like reading the divine comedy translated is not even close to reading the original

better learn classical grammar than characters lol
they exist in both forms

but if you don't understand classical grammar it's hopeless

classical grammar is the not simple like modern chinese

>>75884306
>classical grammar is the not simple like modern chinese
Yeah almost every old dead language got a hard grammar, it's just that it's easier to start by the modern counterpart to get at least some kind of linguistic base of the language then later going to their old counterpart. I did that with greek 2bh, also know italian but still haven't studied latin. I don't know if I can do with Chinese or if the language is too different or something

>>75884353
it is radically different but it's easier if you know modern chinese already

for example they only have 1 character nouns, lots of reflexive verbs and parts of speech, almost no personal pronouns etc, modern chinese needed to adapt a lot of parts of speech from westerners and japan whereas traditionally no such structure exist in their literal forms

>>75884430
Uhm really interesting. So in the end it's better to simply stick to Traditional Characters? Since the Simplified character are too simple beyond redemption?

>>75884471
it's literally the same characters but written differently

stop buying into propaganda by capitalist road dogs

here is a site with loads of classical literature
as you can see on the top left there is traditional/simplified language option, it is basically 1:1 in usage

http://ctext.org/

>>75884539
>stop buying into propaganda by capitalist road dogs
hahahahaha that's a really nice site thanks anon

>>75884471
I'd say traditional characters are better because simplified removes a lot of radicals, making it hard to differentiate between two characters which would otherwise be written differently in traditional. This is not much of a problem for modern chinese as you can infer the character from context, but it is for classical chinese since it's so condensed.

Then again it's not really a serious issue and I'm biased towards traditional. Go with whichever one you like better.

学而时习之,不亦说乎?有朋自远方来,不亦乐乎?人不知而不愠,不亦君子乎

versus

學而時習之,不亦說乎?有朋自遠方來,不亦樂乎?人不知而不慍,不亦君子乎

I mean how much are you really losing in terms of meaning?

I really don't understand where people get this crap from

>>75884643
Is that traditional versus simplified?

File: mandatory.png (946KB, 1400x5552px) Image search: [Google]

946KB, 1400x5552px

>>75881136

>>75884664
yes

>>75884643
>乐
*げろげろ吐いた*
Fucking disgusting, desu senpai.

>>75884683
lol that sounds to me more like american autism than chinese incompetency

>>75884643
There are quite a few words that were simplified into the same words, though they don't appear in the passage you listed.
餘 余 vs 余
歷 曆 vs 历
幹 乾 vs 干
There's probably more but that's all I can think of.

>>75884733
only a non-native would be confused
foreigners can back the fuck off

>>75884779
>confused
It's not confusing, it's fucking disgusting how the Chinese government mutilated so many radicals. Simplified characters look disgusting.

>>75884811
it is reflection of your world view

>>75884826
No, it's a bastardisation of their own language.
Thank fuck the Taiwanese and Japanese aren't that cognitively derelict.
You can't defend that shit, anon.

>>75882921
>It's just that translations of masterpieces and philosophical texts usually have great loss at word meaning and sounds.
I had used to study classic Chinese and Confucius and I want to say this : just learn modern Chinese.

>>75884865
are you kidding me? they are all simplified in the last 200 years reducing the half million characters from the kangxi, just because theirs is more weird looking doesn't mean it hasn't been through the same process

>>75884875
thanks bro will do

>>75884906
Go butcher an endangered species, you subhuman fucking chink.

>>75884955
pick on someone else i had enough of your racism

File: 2ndsimpchar.png (26KB, 768x614px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 768x614px

>>75884733

>>75885844
it doesn't matter how far the simplification go, it is still chinese, you can just make lines crossing each other and the effect is the same

chinese characters are ideograms, they are learned through memorization, no native chinese learn through radical and component combinations, those kind of tricks are used for photo books for toddlers but it will fail as more characters are learned

such as for 我 and 其 are are no simplification through radical or components yet all chinese know what they mean

nor do radical-components give context or meaning, they are just the way things were, good for categorization purposes and fails for anything beyond that