| | 10 | |
| | 11 | Replying to [comment:3 nephele]: |
| | 12 | > Anyhow, the distinction for simple vs traditional characters is not something you can answer in isolation because this is a nom-phonetic alphabet. Just like you can't group european languages based on "what version of latin do you use to write?" We don't write in latin but a derived alphabet. |
| | 13 | Misleading statement, in practice it's quite the opposite. Comparisons with alphabets do not apply, these writing systems are not alphabets and are much more consistent with each other than the various derivatives of latin alphabets are. Most words that are actually different between the two are new or loaned words from like the 50's to now, which could *still* be understood, albeit with some trouble, by the other side, as the characters get interpreted by the reader. These different words are few and far between as well. No language in Europe uses latin alphabet directly but virtually all Chinese people use either simplified or traditional, there's no other standards. |
| | 14 | |
| | 15 | (Because making/enforcing more versions of characters for variants that only diverge when spoken would be a massive waste of time, money and all in all a literal nightmare. Just think about codifying your own standard for about 200k+ characters, and to me that's a low estimate.) |
