[KS] == formal question (which version of Chinese characters?)
marion.eggert at rub.de
Mon May 25 04:15:49 EDT 2015
Dear Frank and all,
The matter is indeed tricky, but for simplified/traditional Chinese not
because these were "independent scripts used to represent different
languages", as has been suggested. They are somewhat politically coded
variants of the same script used to represent the same language, and
there have been scribal variants in writing these character all
throughout history. In theory, therefore, I would not hesitate to use
one font for all. The problem comes with the ambiguity of some of the
simplified characters. So if you have materials from Taiwan and the
mainland and use Simplified, you might make Taiwanese terms/names
ambiguous where they are not, while using Traditional, you might have
problems disambiguating mainland materials correctly.
But since the text you are talking about is on Korea and part of Korean
Studies, you may not encounter such a case among the side references to
China you wish to make. So I would say using a Korean font is just fine,
even for the Japanese stuff, since this is the way the names and
concepts will appear in Korean language secondary literature as well
(using 靑, not 青 even as part of a Japanese name). Or so I assume on
the basis of earlier experience - have not paid attention for a long time.
Am 24.05.2015 um 17:57 schrieb Best, Jonathan:
> Dear Frank and all,
> What I hoped my response would say is:
> I suspect that most Koreans would be able to read the Japanese 伝承, but the Chinese 民间 might be a problem for some, so maybe I'd try "民间 (i.e., 民間)". . .
> That is, I'd first insert the term in simplified and then in parentheses provide the equivalent in good old fashioned graphs preceded by an i.e. or an equals sign or some such.
> But it didn't show up that way on Frank's screen (and others?), in part, I suspect, because my computer is not presently set up to do simplified characters and in part because I mis-typed my less-than-brilliant suggestion and copied the simplified version from his earlier email and then stupidly inserted it twice, including once within the parens where the old standard equivalent should have been and so my text appeared with two bits of gobbledygook.
> But again, given my research interests, the problem of what to do with simplified characters is, happily, not something that I have had to deal with, but surely there are others on the list who have a solution to Frank's original query based on actual experience.
> From: Frank Hoffmann [hoffmann at koreanstudies.com]
> Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2015 9:57 PM
> To: Best, Jonathan
> Subject: == [KS] formal question (which version of Chinese characters?)
> Jonathan, there is a technical problem -- THIS is how your mail looks
> for me and I suppose most other list subscribers:
> ... I'd try "Ãñ¼ä (i.e., Ãñ¼ä) ...
Prof. Dr. Marion Eggert
Sprache und Kultur Koreas
More information about the Koreanstudies