Mystique wrote:I think besides the stylistic aspect of the fonts, there is absolute no difference between 說 and 説. In handwriting, this word is written as 説 in traditional Chinese and Japanese.
Ah, so you can
type the character both ways. I thought that they were a Han unified glyph and so you can only get one or the other in a particular font (like how you can't get both 漢 and the traditional Chinese version of that character without changing fonts).
two_heads_talking wrote:Personally, I think you are making it more difficult that it needs to be by even worrying about Hanzi(Chinese).. Besides where are you running into Chinese versions of Japanese? Because of all the time I spent in japan, I never had that problem.
I've never run into Chinese versions of Japanese, but we were talking about how to distinguish Japanese and Chinese in a phrase that's only kanji. (Kana is obviously a dead giveaway that it's Japanese, of course, but in the picture that was posted, there are no kana.) I'm not actually worried about hanzi in my studies.
two_heads_talking wrote:Besides after reading all your responses, you have completely come full circle and I really don't know what you are trying to say.. In one paragraph you say it can't be done, then you say you can do it, then you say that you can only do it if you know it already, and finally you say it's hard unless you know both.. All those statements are true, but you seem to be backpedaling in some cases and flipflopping in other cases, depending on who is responding to you..
If you're reading my responses that way, I don't think you're reading them correctly. I'll freely admit to having wishy-washy flip-flopping points of view at times, but this isn't one of them. I have consistently said:
1. If you have studied the radical differences between the languages, obviously, you can tell which is which.
2. If you see the Chinese version used in a word you already know, and the word still makes sense, you can probably conclude they are the same kanji.
3. You can also tell they're the same kanji if someone (or something like a dictionary) flat out tells you they're the same kanji, obviously.
4. Otherwise, there is no way of knowing that they are the same kanji, because you cannot blindly assume that 說 and 説 are the same kanji. The key word here is "blindly": if you just jump to that conclusion, you're basically saying "oh, this looks like that other kanji except for one small difference, so they must be the same", which is exactly the sort of assumption that can get you in all sorts of trouble with kanji. (Compare 土 and 士, for example -- now that's
a small detail!) In this case, you would be right, but only by chance.
And I don't think there's any argument over these points, because the other posters never said anything to the contrary. I was just trying to point out that there's no way for a neophyte to just tell they're the same kanji, and, again, that was beyond my ability even though I can distinguish 2042 kanji. I did say I can tell the two apart, and I believe I said that I could identify 説 as a kanji used in Japan, but I never said that I would be able to tell you that 説 is the Japanese version and 說 is the Chinese version of the same kanji, because I did not in fact know this until this thread appeared. Otherwise, for all I'd have known, 說 is a different kanji -- I can tell 'em apart, but I didn't know they're "the same".
See? No inconsistency at all.