[KS] == formal question (which version of Chinese characters?)

Marion Eggert 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.
> Jonathan
> ________________________________________
> 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) ...
> ==>
> http://koreanstudies.com/pipermail/koreanstudies_koreanstudies.com/2015-May/024018.html
> Best,
> Frank

Prof. Dr. Marion Eggert
Ruhr-Universität Bochum
Sprache und Kultur Koreas
GB 1/46
D-44780 Bochum

More information about the Koreanstudies mailing list