UTF-16

Posted Mar 25, 2010 19:24 UTC (Thu) by atai (subscriber, #10977)
In reply to: UTF-16 by tialaramex
Parent article: Resetting PHP 6

As a Chinese, I can tell you that the Chinese characters are not going anywhere. The Chinese characters will stay and be used for Chinese writings, for the next 2000 years just as in the previous 2000 years.

The ideas that China is backwards because of the language and written characters should now go bankrupt.

UTF-16

Posted Mar 25, 2010 22:26 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (3 responses)

Well, after the singular invention of alphabetic writing systems by some
nameless Phoenicians, Mesopotamians and Egyptians 2500-odd years ago,
*everyone* else was backwards. It's an awesome piece of technology. (btw,
the Chinese characters have had numerous major revisions, simplifications
and complexifications over the last two millennia, the most recent being
the traditional/simplified split: any claim that the characters are
unchanged is laughable. They have certainly changed much more than the
Roman alphabet.)

UTF-16

Posted Mar 25, 2010 23:21 UTC (Thu) by atai (subscriber, #10977) [Link] (1 responses)

I don't know if alphabetic writing is forwards or backwards.

But if you say Chinese characters changed more than the Latin alphabet, then you are clearly wrong; the "traditional" Chinese characters certainly stayed mostly the same since 105 BC (What happened in Korea, Japan or Vietnam do not apply because these are not Chinese).

I can read Chinese writings from the 1st Century; can you use today's English spellings or words to read English writings from the 13th Century?

UTF-16

Posted Mar 26, 2010 11:16 UTC (Fri) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link]

I can read Chinese writings from the 1st Century; can you use today's English spellings or words to read English writings from the 13th Century?

13th Century English (i.e. what linguists call "Middle English") should be readable-for-meaning by an educated speaker of Modern English with a few marginal glosses. Reading-for-sound is almost as easy (95% of it is covered by "Don't silence the silent-in-Modern-English consonants. Pronounce the vowels like Latin / Italian / Spanish instead of like Modern English").

My understanding is that the Greek of 2000 years ago is similarly readable to fluent Modern Greek users. (The phonological issues are a bit trickier in that case.)

In both cases - and, I'm sure, in the case of classical Chinese - it would take more than just knowing the words and grammar to receive the full meaning of the text. Metaphors and cultural assumptions are tricky things.

McLuhan

Posted Apr 15, 2010 9:27 UTC (Thu) by qu1j0t3 (guest, #25786) [Link]

Anyone who wants to explore the topic of comparative alphabets further may find McLuhan's works, such as The Gutenberg Galaxy, rewarding.