Talk:回覆

Simplified form of 覆 is 复?

 * LNDDYL has been changing the simplified forms of some entries with 覆 to forms with 复. The 覆-复 problem is a tricky situation that I've been wanting to put off for years, but it seems like we reached a point where we need to address the elephant in the room. In these words, simplified Chinese tends to use 复, but traditional Chinese uses 覆. In Mandarin, there is no problem treating these as the same since the pronunciation is fù either way, but in Cantonese, fuk1 (so 覆) is always used for these words. The tricky part is that dictionaries like Xiandai Hanyu Guifan Cidian say that “复”不是“覆”的简化字. What's the best way to deal with this? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 22:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, disclaimer first: My native speech is a dialect of Mandarin. As for 回覆, 答覆 and their derived terms, I think these forms are not unlike “計畫/计画”. I remember that in my high school Chinese text book, which is written by Renmin Jiaoyu Chubanshe, in which 's original orthography 回覆 and 计画 (of course 计 and 画 themselves are (re)written in simplified Chinese) remain untouched, although in simplified Chinese, the overwhelmingly only way are 回复 and 计划. I think there's a problem of the definition of "simplified Chinese" - does it refer to the laws and policies of Chinese characters made by PRC, or the way people actually use Chinese characters in Mainland China? Dokurrat (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * How about something like this? Dokurrat (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I think it should be with a note on   (old standard; chiefly in literary contexts). Wyang (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)