Tennessee Gock's discussion (Letters, June 9, page 8) on whether traditional or simplified Chinese is better makes me think of two men, in an age of cheap, accurate quartz watches, furiously arguing about which are better: sundials or hour-glasses. It may be that one is better than the other, but who cares, when much better alternatives exist?
Similarly, it may be, as Gock argues, that traditional characters are better than simplified characters (I suspect the difference is minor), but who cares?
Both are clearly worse than the alternatives -- alphabets and syllabaries.
Language evolved over millions of years as an exclusively oral skill. Writing is an artificial addition bolted onto language very recently. Biologically, language is oral, not visual, and writing systems that don't honor this oral basis will inevitably be difficult to use.
The further a writing system moves away from the sounds of a language, the more difficult it will be to learn. Chinese characters fail miserably in this regard.
Gock states that "Chinese writing (pictograms or ideograms) immediately conveys the meaning of each character." This is nonsense. If Chinese writing immediately conveyed the meaning of each character, then why do students in Taiwan spend so much time learning them? Why can't non-Chinese speakers (or, for that matter, illiterate Chinese speakers) immediately grasp the meaning of an arbitrary piece of Chinese text?
The reason is simple -- there is no inherent meaning in Chinese characters, any more than there is inherent meaning the in the squiggles that make up English words.
The meaning must be learned. And because the relationship in Chinese between the written symbol and the spoken word is so tenuous, learning this relationship is exceedingly difficult.
Other common arguments about why Chinese characters must be retained -- they're beautiful, they're needed to read ancient texts, they're needed to disambiguate the many homonyms in Chinese -- are equally spurious. In the interest of saving newsprint, I direct interested readers to John DeFrancis' excellent book The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy.
The real debate about Chinese characters is not whether simplified or traditional characters are better. It's about when they should be replaced altogether by a much simpler system, and what that system should be.
Unfortunately, the chances of that happening are slim, because people cling to that which is familiar, regardless of its utility. As Ni Haishu said, "Habit is a very irrational thing. The force of habit of a billion people is a force to be feared."
Brian Schack
Taipei
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers