恪別𡧲版𢯢𢷮𧵑「成員:SaigonSarang/note」

直觀碼威其

番版𣅶12:59、𣈜19𣎃12𢆥2013

Hello!

Nom need to be discussed

gửi

cũng

lựa

cần

để

đóng góp^{đóng góp}

Should simplified components be adopted in Standard Chunom?

1. ALL simplified Chunom components (usually a Chuhan or a part of a Chuhan) should be adopted in Standard Chunom. 【e.g. sông (滝瀧)→滝; giữa (𠁵𠁹)→𠁵; môn (鍆钔)→钔 ...】

2. SOME frequently used simplified Chunom components with reasonable simplification should be adopted as part of a Standard Chunom. 【e.g. sông (滝瀧)→滝; giữa (𠁵𠁹)→𠁹; môn (鍆钔)→鍆 ...】

3. Simplified Chunom components should NEVER be adopted in Standard Chunom. 【e.g. sông (滝瀧)→瀧; giữa (𠁵𠁹)→𠁹; môn (鍆钔)→鍆 ...】

Why Standardization

Wang XM: I'd like to kindly remind you of the title of this group, and the vision of many of its associated groups. This group is not about keeping Nom limited to a dead writing system studied "simply out of scholarly curiosity". It is about eventually restoring Nom's former status, at least as a serious, modern, legitimate alternative writing system for the Vietnamese language. A writing system cannot seriously gain official status unless it is standardised; no modern country with its own national language has gone without spelling reform.

I'd also disagree with your view of 'richness'. Certainly, the English language did not diminish in richness since Shakespeare's time, despite the fact that English spelling variants were very common back then. In fact, it was one of the contributors to mass literacy of English, and increased the frequency of literary compositions in the English language, allowing more wonderful additions to the existing body of literature. The more minds that can read and write in Nom, the more chance that you'll procure a literary genius, and it is the work of these geniuses that contribute to the diversity of the language, wouldn't you agree? November 13 at 12:49pm [1]

@@ 𣳔22： / 𣳔22： @@
 . Simplified Chunom components should NEVER be adopted in Standard Chunom. 【e.g. sông (滝 瀧)→瀧; giữa (𠁵 𠁹)→𠁹; môn (鍆 钔)→鍆 ...】
+==Why Standardization==
+'''[https://www.facebook.com/xiaomingw Wang XM]''': I'd like to kindly remind you of the title of this group, and the vision of many of its associated groups. This group is not about keeping Nom limited to a dead writing system studied "simply out of scholarly curiosity". It is about eventually restoring Nom's former status, at least as a serious, modern, legitimate alternative writing system for the Vietnamese language. A writing system cannot seriously gain official status unless it is standardised; no modern country with its own national language has gone without spelling reform.
+I'd also disagree with your view of 'richness'. Certainly, the English language did not diminish in richness since Shakespeare's time, despite the fact that English spelling variants were very common back then. In fact, it was one of the contributors to mass literacy of English, and increased the frequency of literary compositions in the English language, allowing more wonderful additions to the existing body of literature. The more minds that can read and write in Nom, the more chance that you'll procure a literary genius, and it is the work of these geniuses that contribute to the diversity of the language, wouldn't you agree?
+November 13 at 12:49pm [https://www.facebook.com/groups/227657444504/permalink/10152204607564505/]