Talk:Japanese: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
There is no evidence that new Kanji words, invented in Japan, have been "exported back to China." Modern Mandarin Chinese does not use any Hanzi created in Japan. The first line of this article should be edited to reflect this. |
There is no evidence that new Kanji words, invented in Japan, have been "exported back to China." Modern Mandarin Chinese does not use any Hanzi created in Japan. The first line of this article should be edited to reflect this. |
||
During WWII, the Japanese forced the Chinese to use many Japanese Kanji, but after 1945, these were all expunged from Chinese texts, dictionaries, and encyclopedias. To make the claim that the Chinese somehow "borrowed" these characters demonstrates ignorance of history and possibly an intent to sanitize Japanese actions, by making it seem as if a normal, Chinese based, linguistic borrowing were responsible for the forced introduction of Japanese |
During WWII, the Japanese forced the Chinese to use many Japanese Kanji, but after 1945, these were all expunged from Chinese texts, dictionaries, and encyclopedias. To make the claim that the Chinese somehow "borrowed" these characters demonstrates ignorance of history and possibly an intent to sanitize Japanese actions, by making it seem as if a normal, Chinese based, linguistic borrowing were responsible for the forced introduction of Japanese Kanji into Chinese society. |
||
Revision as of 16:29, 1 January 2007
The claim that Unicode round-trip conversion doesn't work is strongly contested by those who work in Unicode. Whoever made this claim needs to give or point to an example of failure.
There is no evidence that new Kanji words, invented in Japan, have been "exported back to China." Modern Mandarin Chinese does not use any Hanzi created in Japan. The first line of this article should be edited to reflect this.
During WWII, the Japanese forced the Chinese to use many Japanese Kanji, but after 1945, these were all expunged from Chinese texts, dictionaries, and encyclopedias. To make the claim that the Chinese somehow "borrowed" these characters demonstrates ignorance of history and possibly an intent to sanitize Japanese actions, by making it seem as if a normal, Chinese based, linguistic borrowing were responsible for the forced introduction of Japanese Kanji into Chinese society.