UN & simplified Chinese- is it really such a big deal?

i'm just wondering what other people think abt UN using simplified Chinese
Personally, I don't really care, because the UN has been using simplified Chinese (and not traditional) since 1973. I think that it's just the reporters that are making a big deal out of this, saying that the UN is stopping the use of traditional when that happened 30 years ago.

Also, I'm wondering why the Chinese man in the UN who brought up this non-issue, did so.

As much as I personally don't like simplified Chinese compared to the more traditional Chinese, I think that as long as mainland China, which uses simplified Chinese, is recognized as the chair of "China's" seat at the U.N., the use of simplified Chinese is only natural. I don't see a big deal about this, either.

i have the difference opinion with you.I think simplified chinese is good.It makes writting easily.

why did the chinese guy in the UN mention it anyways? i heard he even said something about him saying that using only simplified chinese (when the un is already using it) would save paper and money. true, simplified chinese is a bit more economic and "easier to write" for foreigners, but it makes no difference once if you have learned traditional chinese all your life.

i also personally dislike simplified because i am "anti-anything Mao Zedong did". i believe he only simplified the original characters to control the scope of knowledge the people's republic would have. but anyways, that is besides the topic.

a thought - did the chinese guy mention simplified chinese in the UN just to irritate taiwan?

Do you have a link to a news article about this. This is the first I've heard of this incident. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by,

but it makes no difference once if you have learned traditional chinese all your life.

Click to expand...

i think simplified Chinese is easier, but the traditional ones looks better.