From: Doug Ewell (dewell@adelphia.net)
Date: Thu Nov 24 2005 - 12:06:32 CST
Mark E. Shoulson <mark at kli dot org> wrote:
> This isn't to say that Hans vs Hant is not a distinction worth making.
> This and the Roman/Fraktur distinction is there because librarians and
> bibliographers have been using it for a while. There are going to be
> arguments and debates over what counts as a font-choice and what
> counts as a separate script--as we're seeing now. But there *are*
> some cases that are just font-choices.
I don't think Hans vs. Hant belongs in this discussion. Unlike the
variants of Latin and Arabic being discussed, where a few characters may
be different or unique to a particular variant, the difference between
simplified and traditional Chinese amounts to hundreds or thousands of
completely different characters. Some characters are the simplified
form of another character, and simultaneously the traditional form of a
third. This is not just a matter of tradition among librarians and
bibliographers.
-- Doug Ewell Fullerton, California, USA http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2005 - 12:12:23 CST