Re: A product compatibility question
Hello, > Incorrect. Again, they are *not* separate languages, but two > orthographic renditions of the same *written* language. ... yet there are a few differences in the vocabulary which actually require entirely different characters - and I don't just mean the traditional and the simplified version of a particular character. Take e.g. the word for "bicycle". But after all, it's AFAIK just a list - not too long - of words which has to be replaced when doing a conversion, quite regularly. As John Jenkins already pointed out on May 5, > Partial data to interconvert between simplified and traditional > characters is available through the Unihan database. However, the > problem is not a simple one, as there are frequently multiple > traditional forms that correspond to a single simplified form. > Moreover, the vocabulary used in the PRC with simplified characters > differs on occasion from the vocabulary used in Taiwan and elsewhere > for traditional ones (e.g., the names of the chemical elements, until > recently the word for "computer"). It really isn't possible to > convert between simplified and traditional characters without doing a > lexical analysis. There are some solutions around, AFAIR it's also possible in current versions of MS Office. Regards, Berthold Japanese Studies, Free University Berlin
RE: A product compatibility question
: > Incorrect. Again, they are *not* separate languages, but two : > orthographic renditions of the same *written* language. : ... yet there are a few differences in the vocabulary which actually require : entirely different characters - and I don't just mean the traditional and : the simplified version of a particular character. Take e.g. the word for : "bicycle". : But after all, it's AFAIK just a list - not too long - of words which has to : be replaced when doing a conversion, quite regularly. You mean differences like "lift" vs "elevator", "muesli" vs "granola", "pavement" vs "sidewalk", etc? I do know that US and UK are two countries separated by one language :-)
RE: A product compatibility question
> From: Hietaniemi Jarkko (NRC/Boston) > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > : > Incorrect. Again, they are *not* separate languages, but two > : > orthographic renditions of the same *written* language. > : ... yet there are a few differences in the vocabulary which actually > require > : entirely different characters - and I don't just mean the > traditional > and > : the simplified version of a particular character. Take e.g. the word > for > : "bicycle". > : But after all, it's AFAIK just a list - not too long - of > words which > has to > : be replaced when doing a conversion, quite regularly. > > You mean differences like "lift" vs "elevator", "muesli" vs "granola", > "pavement" > vs "sidewalk", etc? I do know that US and UK are two countries > separated by one > language :-) That's close. However, to complete the example, we need some changes to the alphabet. Let's say, for the sake of discussion (or argument, if you like a good argument), that the Brits decide that that German double-s thingy looks pretty cool after all and adopt it, using it wherever two "s"'s (esses?) occur together. Now you have two differences between British and American English - one difference is the words they choose, and the other is the way they write words[1]. To an outside observer (i.e. one who does not speak English), it would be very difficult to distinguish between the words which are spoken differently (or, for that matter, the different idioms), and the words which are spelled differently. This is essentially the problem that we are facing with Chinese. Chinese is basically common in writing. There are differences, but none that truly impede communication[2]. So we have Chinese dialects, in which different words[3] may be used for a concept, and Chinese writing systems, in which different glyphs may be used for a character. Since writing systems tend to remain constant within a dialect, it can be difficult to distinguish these differences if one does not speak Chinese. HTH, /|/|ike [1] - Yes, I'm aware of that color/colour thing, but thought it to be not strong enough an example. [2] - The exception appears to be Cantonese and its dialects. While linguists slice Chinese dialects every which way, Chinese speakers seem to distinguish only between Mandarin and Cantonese. Apparently there are enough differences between the two, and similarities within the two, to prevent communication even in writing, although limited communication is possible. [3] - "Words" here means "character or set of characters which embody a single concept".
RE: A product compatibility question
Mike, > Chinese is basically common in writing. There are differences, but none > that truly impede communication[2]. > > [2] - The exception appears to be Cantonese and its dialects. While > linguists slice Chinese dialects every which way, Chinese speakers seem to > distinguish only between Mandarin and Cantonese. Apparently there are > enough differences between the two, and similarities within the two, to > prevent communication even in writing, although limited communication is > possible. I agree with almost everything you said, but I would shade this one a little differently. Chinese speakers, even Cantonese Chinese speakers are aware of, and distinguish lots of different "dialects" of spoken Chinese. So a Cantonese speaker will be aware of regional variants of the Yue (~Cantonese) language, including many dialects that they find difficult or impossible to understand. They are also aware that other "dialects" (actually languages) of Chinese, such as Minnan (~Taiwanese), Wu (~Shanghainese), and yes, Mandarin, are even *more* distinct, and also find them difficult or impossible to understand. (Except that nearly everybody undersands Mandarin to some extent, since a particular variety of it is the standard national language.) When it comes to the *written* language, however, Cantonese is in a somewhat unique position, since Cantonese writers seem to have a fairly long tradition of writing *Cantonese* explicitly, including the use of many additional characters (most traditional, but some invented explicitly for Cantonese) not used in standard (Mandarin-derived) written Chinese. If you look hard enough, you can find such traditions for other Chinese languages. For example, in Fujian province or Taiwan, it is possible to find dictionaries of Minnan dialect characters, and documents explicitly written in Minnanhua, which Mandarin speakers would find very quaint or difficult to understand in written form, because of the different character usage and grammatical constructions that occasionally occur. [Example: In Taiwanese, there is a very common sentence ending, ...sibo, which means something like "...isn't it?" and the like. Written out, it is U+662F U+5426, Mandarin shi4fou3. Mandarin does use shi4fou3, but it is a kind of hifalutin' classical form, and never in the position Taiwanese does, where Mandarin would instead use something like dui4budui4.] But such written dialect traditions other than Cantonese are very much sub rosa, unlike the mainstream Cantonese literature. --Ken
RE: A product compatibility question
> From: Kenneth Whistler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 12:55 PM > I agree with almost everything you said, but I would shade this > one a little differently. [lots of interesting stuff snipped] Note that my post was slanted pretty much exclusively towards the written form. I don't speak (or more importantly, listen) nearly well enough to comment on the spoken form except as an outside observer. It is interesting to note that Chinese entertainment stores in my area can be separated pretty cleanly into three categories - Mainland, Taiwanese, and Hong Kongnese[1]. The mainlanders (and any Singaporeans about, I would imagine) can read simplified subtitles when the dialect confuses them, the Taiwanese read traditional subtitles, and the Hong Kongnese read Cantonese and/or English (the English fluency rate in Hong Kong being very high). The latest Jackie Chan film will be available in all three stores, each with its preferred subtitling. With music, however, it is quite different. The same album will be available in all three stores. Many artists will, however, print Cantonese and Mandarin versions of the same album, or will have Mandarin and Cantonese releases which overlap heavily. Some artists even put Mandarin and Cantonese versions of songs on the same album. The CDs are clearly separated into four categories in every store I've been in - Mandarin male, Mandarin female, Cantonese male, and Cantonese female. The preferences so obvious in video entertainment do not appear to influence the selection, and the latest Jacky Cheung record will be available in both Mandarin and Cantonese. I'm going to do some more investigation into Chinese mutual intelligibility, but that'll take awhile... /|/|ike [1] - How to refer to the people of Hong Kong is a problem I have never seen solced. I have heard they themselves use the term "Hongkies", but, being an American, I cannot use this term, as it sounds too much like another, very impolite, word.
RE: A product compatibility question
> If it does not, > can someone kindly suggest a publishing application solution > that does > support this capability? (i.e., Pagemaker, Quark, etc.) I'm not sure about FrameMaker, but I just ran a test in which I successfully inserted Japanese, Simplified Chinese, and Traditional Chinese text boxes into Microsoft Publisher 2000. Probably not the solution you were looking for however... Suzanne Topping BizWonk Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: A product compatibility question
I gave up trying anything else than MS Office products when I have to use many different fonts with Unicode - Publisher 2000 works great for creating printable (.pub) and browser viewable (html) documents, plus I can make presentations in PowerPoint 2000 - all from one original document set, mixing any languages, all on international Win2000. Other software companies have a lot to learn to offer that support, I tried them all. The purpose is to create multilingual catalogs with graphics etc with same look and feel online and offline in a global scenario. David Possin International QA Engineer (i18n & l10n) i2 Technologies > If it does not, > can someone kindly suggest a publishing application solution > that does > support this capability? (i.e., Pagemaker, Quark, etc.) I'm not sure about FrameMaker, but I just ran a test in which I successfully inserted Japanese, Simplified Chinese, and Traditional Chinese text boxes into Microsoft Publisher 2000. Probably not the solution you were looking for however... Suzanne Topping BizWonk Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T-->S, S-->T conversions (was RE: A product compatibility question)
Berthold Frommann wrote > Sent: Thu, October 18, 2001 9:15 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: A product compatibility question > > > Hello, > > > Incorrect. Again, they are *not* separate languages, but two > > orthographic renditions of the same *written* language. > ... yet there are a few differences in the vocabulary which > actually require > entirely different characters - and I don't just mean the > traditional and > the simplified version of a particular character. Take e.g. > the word for "bicycle". > But after all, it's AFAIK just a list - not too long - of > words which has to > be replaced when doing a conversion, quite regularly. Jack Halpern of the CJK Dictionary Institute explains these issues at http://www.cjk.org/cjk/c2c/c2centry.htm. Traditional to Simplified and Simplified to Traditional conversions are more complicated than simple dictionary lookup. In particular, the conversion is often context-dependent. His company offers "Chinese to Chinese" conversion software, among other products. > As John Jenkins already pointed out on May 5, > > Partial data to interconvert between simplified and traditional > > characters is available through the Unihan database. However, the > > problem is not a simple one, as there are frequently multiple > > traditional forms that correspond to a single simplified form. > > Moreover, the vocabulary used in the PRC with simplified characters > > differs on occasion from the vocabulary used in Taiwan and elsewhere > > for traditional ones (e.g., the names of the chemical elements, until > > recently the word for "computer"). It really isn't possible to > > convert between simplified and traditional characters without doing a > > lexical analysis. And, as it turns out, contextual analysis also. > There are some solutions around, AFAIR it's also possible in current > versions of MS Office. That's just character conversion. It doesn't even handle vocabulary differences, much less context. > Regards, > Berthold > Japanese Studies, Free University Berlin Edward Cherlin Generalist "A knot! Oh, do let me help to undo it." Alice in Wonderland
Re: T-->S, S-->T conversions (was RE: A product compatibility question)
Edward Cherlin writes: > Jack Halpern of the CJK Dictionary Institute explains these issues at > http://www.cjk.org/cjk/c2c/c2centry.htm. Traditional to Simplified and > Simplified to Traditional conversions are more complicated than simple > dictionary lookup. In particular, the conversion is often > context-dependent. His company offers "Chinese to Chinese" conversion > software, among other products. Do be more specific, the software was developed by Basis Technology in coordination with Jack's organization, which supplied the data. -tree -- Tom Emerson Basis Technology Corp. Sr. Computational Linguist http://www.basistech.com "Beware the lollipop of mediocrity: lick it once and you suck forever"
Re: T-->S, S-->T conversions (was RE: A product compatibility question)
Greetings In message "Re: T-->S, S-->T conversions (was RE: A product compatibility question)", Tom Emerson wrote... >Edward Cherlin writes: >> Jack Halpern of the CJK Dictionary Institute explains these issues at >> http://www.cjk.org/cjk/c2c/c2centry.htm. Traditional to Simplified and >> Simplified to Traditional conversions are more complicated than simple >> dictionary lookup. In particular, the conversion is often >> context-dependent. His company offers "Chinese to Chinese" conversion >> software, among other products. > >Do be more specific, the software was developed by Basis Technology in >coordination with Jack's organization, which supplied the data. Yes, that is correct. Actually, we do not develop products (software applications) as Edward mentions, but specialize in compiling large-scale CJK lexical databases. Regards, Jack Halpern President, The CJK Dictionary Institute, Inc. http://www.cjk.org Phone: +81-48-473-3508
