Efficiency will dictate the way Chinese writing evolves

Sopida Zheng proposes to resolve the conflict between traditional and simplified Chinese characters by using both systems – traditional for formal writing, simplified for informal. While sympathising with her admirable attempt to forge a compromise, I have to note that it would require students of Chinese to learn two systems instead of one. That would double the difficulty of learning how to read Chinese. 

In any conflict between tradition and efficiency, efficiency usually wins. So the simplified characters are bound to drive their traditional rivals to eventual extinction – at best, to being a special study known only to scholars. If you really want tradition, you go back to the old Shang Dynasty oracle-bone characters, which date back to around 2000 BCE. If you really want efficiency, you scrap the characters entirely and go to a romanised spelling system. The Hanyu pinyin system would probably prevail, since it has the weight of the Chinese government behind it. It has defects, but they could easily be corrected. To cite just one example, the name of the founder of Taoism has traditionally been spelled “Lao Tzu” or “Lao-tse”.  Actually, it is pronounced, approximately, “Lao Dze”. Pinyin spells it “Laozi”.  Most people would pronounce that “lousy”, which Lao Dze most certainly was not. 

S Tsow

Bangkok