Comments on: Lost in translation, all 8,000 characters of it http://bla.nointrigue.com/blog/2009/04/28/lost-in-translation-all-8000-characters-of-it/ my random thoughts Sat, 04 Jun 2011 03:04:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: John lee http://bla.nointrigue.com/blog/2009/04/28/lost-in-translation-all-8000-characters-of-it/comment-page-1/#comment-35718 John lee Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:59:14 +0000 http://bla.nointrigue.com/blog/?p=353#comment-35718 lol, I note though that every name requires government authorisation in Germany. To protect the child. So even inoffensive names may be banned as first names because they're also last names. lol, I note though that every name requires government authorisation in Germany. To protect the child.

So even inoffensive names may be banned as first names because they’re also last names.

]]> By: Tommy Chen http://bla.nointrigue.com/blog/2009/04/28/lost-in-translation-all-8000-characters-of-it/comment-page-1/#comment-35560 Tommy Chen Wed, 29 Apr 2009 07:22:00 +0000 http://bla.nointrigue.com/blog/?p=353#comment-35560 The NY Times were by no means the only people guilty of sensationalism in this episode. The Yangcheng Evening News were pretty bad with their headline that had nothing to do with the story. It didn't help that China has a thriving cyber-media community and blogosphere where journalistic standard is, well, n/a. When I was doing my detective work, I found some pretty hilarious and exaggerated Chinese-language headlines as the "government limiting name choice" story spread through the internet, e.g. "Congratulations to the Chinese people on losing another human right: the right to choose a name". The NY Times were by no means the only people guilty of sensationalism in this episode. The Yangcheng Evening News were pretty bad with their headline that had nothing to do with the story. It didn’t help that China has a thriving cyber-media community and blogosphere where journalistic standard is, well, n/a. When I was doing my detective work, I found some pretty hilarious and exaggerated Chinese-language headlines as the “government limiting name choice” story spread through the internet, e.g. “Congratulations to the Chinese people on losing another human right: the right to choose a name”.

]]> By: legallyasian http://bla.nointrigue.com/blog/2009/04/28/lost-in-translation-all-8000-characters-of-it/comment-page-1/#comment-35559 legallyasian Wed, 29 Apr 2009 06:35:41 +0000 http://bla.nointrigue.com/blog/?p=353#comment-35559 Perhaps the mistake was merely due to a lack of competent translation skills by the NY time journalist, as opposed to a conspiracy theory to defame the Chinese government. Or perhaps that is too naive of an explaination? The government switched from traditional to simplified text and replaced many duplicate words to eradicate confusion when the communists decided that education should be offered to the masses, including peasants of rural areas. Words were made easier to write and recognise so that farmers would have an opportunity to quickly learn these skills. Actions to simplify the language back then was not an example of the government's autocratic nature but rather its attempt to provide access to literacy skills for its citizens, whilst also simplifying a language that had become largely archaic for its time. This action is hardly something that the US or the NY times could criticise. If it were repeated in modern times perhaps it may be considered heavy handed but if the Chinese language were to be further simplified today, it would result in making the language easier for foreigners to learn, and therefore less exclusive. Wouldn't such an action to 'dumb down' the language only create an advantage for foreigners? If this were true why is the NY times complaining... Perhaps the mistake was merely due to a lack of competent translation skills by the NY time journalist, as opposed to a conspiracy theory to defame the Chinese government. Or perhaps that is too naive of an explaination?

The government switched from traditional to simplified text and replaced many duplicate words to eradicate confusion when the communists decided that education should be offered to the masses, including peasants of rural areas. Words were made easier to write and recognise so that farmers would have an opportunity to quickly learn these skills. Actions to simplify the language back then was not an example of the government’s autocratic nature but rather its attempt to provide access to literacy skills for its citizens, whilst also simplifying a language that had become largely archaic for its time. This action is hardly something that the US or the NY times could criticise. If it were repeated in modern times perhaps it may be considered heavy handed but if the Chinese language were to be further simplified today, it would result in making the language easier for foreigners to learn, and therefore less exclusive. Wouldn’t such an action to ‘dumb down’ the language only create an advantage for foreigners? If this were true why is the NY times complaining…

]]> By: Tommy Chen http://bla.nointrigue.com/blog/2009/04/28/lost-in-translation-all-8000-characters-of-it/comment-page-1/#comment-35557 Tommy Chen Tue, 28 Apr 2009 23:43:31 +0000 http://bla.nointrigue.com/blog/?p=353#comment-35557 It's surprisingly hard to find how many Chinese characters are supported by the standard character sets. What I can find is that GB18030-2005, the Chinese national standard, contains 70,244 characters, while the national standard CNS11643 in Taiwan supports 76,067 characters. But most people use GB18030-2000 / Big5 encoding, which only contain less than 30,000 characters. I think the main problem is that nobody really knows how many characters there *are*, mainly due to the presence of variant characters which were used in one area or at one time, and faded into obscurity afterwards. For example, some of the characters in the expanded sets are characters found only in scripture from Dunhuang, a desert oasis in Western China which was a thriving Silk Road pilgrimage site some 1000 years ago. The current count for the number of characters for which meaning is known, according to the Hanyu Da Zidian ("Comprehensive Chinese Character Dictionary") from mainland China, is 54,678. The Ministry of Education in Taiwan compiled a "Dictionary of Variant Characters", which collected a total of 106,230 characters, including both "standard" and "variant" characters. It’s surprisingly hard to find how many Chinese characters are supported by the standard character sets. What I can find is that GB18030-2005, the Chinese national standard, contains 70,244 characters, while the national standard CNS11643 in Taiwan supports 76,067 characters. But most people use GB18030-2000 / Big5 encoding, which only contain less than 30,000 characters.

I think the main problem is that nobody really knows how many characters there *are*, mainly due to the presence of variant characters which were used in one area or at one time, and faded into obscurity afterwards. For example, some of the characters in the expanded sets are characters found only in scripture from Dunhuang, a desert oasis in Western China which was a thriving Silk Road pilgrimage site some 1000 years ago.

The current count for the number of characters for which meaning is known, according to the Hanyu Da Zidian (“Comprehensive Chinese Character Dictionary”) from mainland China, is 54,678. The Ministry of Education in Taiwan compiled a “Dictionary of Variant Characters”, which collected a total of 106,230 characters, including both “standard” and “variant” characters.

]]> By: Jerry http://bla.nointrigue.com/blog/2009/04/28/lost-in-translation-all-8000-characters-of-it/comment-page-1/#comment-35556 Jerry Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:01:12 +0000 http://bla.nointrigue.com/blog/?p=353#comment-35556 So many horses in one name! So many horses in one name!

]]> By: enoch http://bla.nointrigue.com/blog/2009/04/28/lost-in-translation-all-8000-characters-of-it/comment-page-1/#comment-35555 enoch Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:19:37 +0000 http://bla.nointrigue.com/blog/?p=353#comment-35555 Although I have to wonder why it is so unreasonable for the government to implement a character set that covers all characters, ancient or otherwise. Although I have to wonder why it is so unreasonable for the government to implement a character set that covers all characters, ancient or otherwise.

]]>