<p><strong>only if</strong>, you're interested in history, culture; or, you need to read materials dated before 1949; learn traditional chinese.</p>

<p>otherwise, learn simplified chinese first. particularly for anyone who learn "chinese" for bread-and-butter.</p>

<p>it's "easier" to read &amp; write; for foreigners; compare to traditional chinese.</p>

<p>to be fair, well, there's a chinese proverb "物以罕為貴"; it's roughly "when a thing is scarce, it is precious".</p>

<p>have fun :)</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-16T13:20:31.757Z
Simplified characters are already hard enough for foreigners to learn. IMO the government should even try another round of simplification.
Enrico Brasil
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-16T13:44:21.387Z
@enrico brasil: omg, you've such shattering ideas :)
水巷孑蠻
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-16T22:12:59.417Z
@EnricoBrasil They did, and the round failed. See [Second round of Simplified Chinese Characters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_round_of_simplified_Chinese_characters). Nobody likes randomly changing characters, and Simplification was a terrible idea in the first place.
dROOOze
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-17T01:27:36.947Z
It's not, if the government do intend to make the language an international one. Chinese is very unfriendly to foreigners.
Enrico Brasil
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-17T01:56:49.910Z
"chinese is very unfriendly to foreigners" you know it only at this moment? poor soul. well, the language, confucius are very "in-groups". "outsiders" always have difficulty to "break in".
水巷孑蠻
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-12T13:45:25.110Z
2018-10-12T13:45:25.110Z
水巷孑蠻
<p>I must say, the attitude towards learning Chinese is correct when you asked</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Which should I learn first?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>because you need to know both to be fully literate in Chinese. I'm also going to disagree with the other answer which suggests Traditional Chinese has a niche application and that Simplified Chinese is easier to read.</p>

<hr>

<h1>The most important factor is your environment!</h1>

<ul>
<li><p><strong>If you're going to be moving to a Chinese-speaking area:</strong> Simplified Chinese has minimal usage in environments like Hong Kong and Macau and is practically not used at all in Taiwan and most established overseas Chinese communities. The areas that it is concentrated in are (1) Mainland China and (2) certain cities in Malaysia. Maybe you can add Singapore to that list, but their Chinese ability is mediocre at best, so English remains the most useful there.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>If you're just studying as a foreign learner in your current location:</strong> Consider picking up the version which you would get most help from. If your friends or teachers surrounding you are mostly accustomed to Traditional Chinese, then you should go for Traditional Chinese. Ditto for Simplified.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>If you're immersing yourself in Simplified Chinese materials, then pick Simplified Chinese.</strong> Ditto for Traditional Chinese, but the former is more likely - especially if you're planning to study in Mainland China or work as a translator.</p></li>
</ul>

<h1>It takes minimal effort to switch.</h1>

<p>If you are fluent in one script, it takes very little time to switch to the other. Prioritise being fluent in one, rather than worrying about what you should choose first.</p>

<h1>If somehow all other factors are equal, pick Traditional Chinese.</h1>

<ul>
<li><p><strong>Simplified Chinese is <em>not</em> easier to learn than Traditional Chinese.</strong> <a href="https://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=ch&amp;v=39&amp;c=mc&amp;c=tw&amp;c=hk" rel="nofollow noreferrer">See stats by IndexMundi*</a>. Mainland China, the only fully Chinese region using Simplified Chinese, forms the lower bound of the literacy rate trends of the Chinese-using regions, indicating that script reform had minimal impact and economic development was the deciding factor by far.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Simplified Chinese instils a relatively poorer understanding of how the writing system and character components work.</strong> This is due to its overuse of writing abbreviations in its goal of cutting down strokes, meaning you'll be learning many components <em>twice</em> (an abbreviated version and a non-abbreviated version). Prepare for much more rote memorisation instead of exploiting reusable concepts if you choose Simplified Chinese.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>In the wider cultural region of East Asia, Traditional Chinese is more useful.</strong> Historical China has influenced many countries in East Asia, including their vocabulary and writing systems. These influences were in the form of the Traditional Script, meaning you're killing multiple birds with one stone.</p></li>
</ul>

<hr>

<p>*<em>Ultimately sourced from the CIA world factbook.</em></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-12T15:35:33.457Z
If you're from Pakistan, as your profile suggests, and you're learning Chinese as a tool to do dealings with China, then I suggest you learn Simplified Chinese.
dROOOze
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-13T01:29:10.560Z
i like the word "niche", particularly. then, the points in "all other factors are equal" are strong. well done :)
水巷孑蠻
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-13T13:15:06.117Z
I'd say classical Chinese (wenyanwen) is much more useful for understanding other languages and cultures, but is an overkill for beginners. Traditional characters alone really doesn't add that much, as the only other language currently using Chinese characters, Japanese, has their own set of simplification.
user23013
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-13T23:38:37.057Z
@user23013 aside from 文言 and 繁體 being neither comparable nor mutually exclusive, the whole idea is that starting from 繁體 means you get added benefit at no cost. "Japanese has also simplified" is not a position in favour of 簡體, considering that many of their simplifications are different and not mutually recognisable, and their script is still more similar to 繁體; see [this](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/57752/if-you-learn-the-2000-most-common-kanji-how-many-of-the-2000-most-common-hanzi/57755#57755). 簡體 is relatively more impractical and offers basically no advantages.
dROOOze
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-14T01:28:04.490Z
Are you a native speaker? I'm not saying 简体 has advantages. My point is that the advantages of 繁体, if any, would be too small in this perspective, and easily overshadowed by and confused with other techniques a native speaker could use, that it's difficult to believe personal feelings without objective researches. "All other factors being equal" would be a contrived situation, which doesn't prevent someone argue technically it has some differences by some logic, but prevents anything to be objectively verified. Not much point for me to invent some logic having similar problems to counter that.
user23013
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-14T01:35:29.143Z
@user23013 a learner does not have the advantages a native speaker has, so this is really a moot point. You also seem to forget that no matter how small you think the advantage of 繁體 actually is, it comes at no cost.  I have said all the appropriate things that needs to be considered when choosing a script, so if you have something else to add you should post an answer or a question.
dROOOze
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-14T01:38:02.000Z
Well, actually, I'm not here to start an argument. My original comment basically says "don't mistake the benefit of 文言 as the benefit of 繁体", which I feel very likely. And I'll take your response as no, you didn't, and leave everything else in this answer as a matter of opinion.
user23013
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-14T01:43:40.713Z
@user23013 It is not an opinion, you can empirically verify how much cultural artifacts you can appreciate more, how much Korean Hanja, how much Vietnamese Chu Nom you can learn easier with 繁體 as a new learner with no background in Chinese. This has nothing to do with 文言 at all; at most they use vocabulary items, not grammar, from Classical Chinese which you still get from learning Modern Chinese. The only thing that is an opinion is your poorly reasoned statement that my answer is an opinion. 簡體 is an objectively worse choice if you’re not specifically dealing with Mainland China.
dROOOze
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-14T03:58:03.300Z
Sorry, 文言 was inaccurate. I was thinking about the meanings of characters like 走 聞 謝, which generally need learning resources much more than the shapes of the characters. And "opinion" refers to "pick traditional Chinese". It was an opinion because the points aren't sufficiently backed, not that it's wrong. To me, even the least challenged point as I'm aware of, depended on that I believe you are personally confident that the benefits are really from the traditional characters, not their meaning, which I had no way to objectively verify, and didn't expect much improvement.
user23013
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-14T03:58:28.203Z
Also, by "not specifically mainland China", I suppose you meant "may potentially deal with everything including the history of smaller countries while specifically avoiding mainland China". I know that 简体 is worse if all situations that 简体 is slightly better and exactly these situations are excluded from consideration, including potentially dealing with China, and the environmental factors (in this answer, and others such as the internet).
user23013
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-14T03:58:36.853Z
And it objectively is, with absolutely no cost (even not opportunity cost), just like how the speed of light in SI unit is an accurate number while the speed of sound is not. But for some reasons I tend to not assume others are thinking in this way. If you could agree that it's an opinion, I understand that there are always a small number of people in this exact situation, and you don't have to explain why it is likely, and just leave it to anyone seeing this answer.
user23013
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-14T04:21:24.110Z
@user23013 really, you make Mainland Chinese sound as if they're illiterate in Traditional Chinese. "Not specifically mainland China" means that Traditional Chinese works quite well there as well, because of the spread of media from Taiwan and Hong Kong. There is no reason to go for Simplified Chinese unless you're completely stuck in the Mainland and have no interest with communicating outside of that bubble. Simplified Chinese is an impediment to communication outside of the Mainland, and even the Government Mouthpiece [人民日報](https://twitter.com/pdchinese) knows this.
dROOOze
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-16T14:12:57.380Z
@droooze Your arguments for "if all the other factors are equal, pick TC" may be true ONLY if you are a native Chinese. I am Brazilian and a Chinese teacher for over 10 years (and a student myself) and I can tell you that TC is WAY MORE DIFFICULT to any foreigner than SC. So, your 1st point is wrong. 2nd one: it's true that TC is etymologically closer to the origins of the characters, but, even so, many of them are just random, and students actually give a sh*t for that. They just want to learn the language.
Enrico Brasil
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-16T14:17:03.787Z
3rd one: again, the student is willing to learn Chinese, which is already difficult enough. He doesn't care if Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Martian, Plutonian, etc. have anything to do with the ("former") language script. I'm so against TC and I think the government should consider simplifying it even more if they want the Chinese language to reach an international language status as English has nowadays.
Enrico Brasil
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-16T20:23:37.830Z
@EnricoBrasil If you think Simplified Chinese is easier than Traditional Chinese, then I’m sorry to say, you don’t understand character structure very well, and you are teaching or learning them the wrong way. They are not “random”, and if you think they are, that’s your own problematic understanding that contributes to the difficulty. Literacy rate statistics cannot be “wrong” either - the notion doesn’t make any sense.
dROOOze
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-17T01:23:10.267Z
@droooze You didn't understand my concept of "random" at all. What makes a 為 better than a 为? 為 came from the drawing of a hand guiding an elephant through labour, meaning "to do", which we can no longer see at all (neither the hand nor the elephant). The way it changed is just "random", the same way 为 is just a "random" simplification based on cursive handwritting. 为 at least is a lot easier to remember and to write with its 4 strokes instead of 9 strokes from 為. You're just probably Taiwanese and that's why you think TC is better, otherwise no reasonable thinking would support it.
Enrico Brasil
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-17T01:24:33.227Z
Literacy rate statistics measure NATIVE speakers literacy. That's not the case of the guy who asked the question at all.
Enrico Brasil
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-17T01:42:36.260Z
@EnricoBrasil Firstly, I'm from mainland China. Secondly, I'd never advocate using「為」, which is a Simplification;「爲」is a far better choice, because of the presence of the hand on top. Thirdly, you may cherry pick all the examples that you want, but you would easily know that they're relatively rare exceptions unless you actually don't know the writing system that well. No person "reasonable thinking" would support Simplified Chinese, unless they learned Chinese through some insane method like memorising characters stroke-by-stroke.
dROOOze
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-12T14:41:17.603Z
2018-10-12T14:41:17.603Z
dROOOze
<p>In which sequence should I learn Chinese. What are simplified characters and important traditional characters which should I learn first and why those are necessary to learn first?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-11T14:48:51.603Z
Wikipedia is your Good friend
炸鱼薯条德里克
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-11T14:51:04.990Z
A little context is needed here. What are you goals? To listen and speak fluently? To read fluently? All three? Where are you at already? Anyone could give you an opinionated response, but who would that be helpful for without any sort of direction?
Mou某
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-11T14:58:06.243Z
Also guys @RashkRizwan is new here. Let's hold off on the down votes for the time being, if we can.
Mou某
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-11T15:21:52.570Z
iam a beginer so thats why i ask all this and thanks for suggestio
RashkRizwan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-11T21:50:49.883Z
@RashkRizwan Are you moving to a place where Chinese is the official language, or you're simply looking to learn a new language?
Alex
<traditional-characters>
What are simplified characters and traditional characters? Which should I learn first?
# What are simplified characters and traditional characters? Which should I learn first?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-10-11)

In which sequence should I learn Chinese. What are simplified characters and important traditional characters which should I learn first and why those are necessary to learn first?

**Tags:** traditional-characters

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Wikipedia is your Good friend  
> **username_2**: A little context is needed here. What are you goals? To listen and speak fluently? To read fluently? All three? Where are you at already? Anyone could give you an opinionated response, but who would that be helpful for without any sort of direction?  
> **username_2**: Also guys @username_0 is new here. Let's hold off on the down votes for the time being, if we can.  
> **username_0**: iam a beginer so thats why i ask all this and thanks for suggestio  
> **username_3**: @username_0 Are you moving to a place where Chinese is the official language, or you're simply looking to learn a new language?  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2018-10-12. Score: 3

**only if**, you're interested in history, culture; or, you need to read materials dated before 1949; learn traditional chinese.

otherwise, learn simplified chinese first. particularly for anyone who learn "chinese" for bread-and-butter.

it's "easier" to read & write; for foreigners; compare to traditional chinese.

to be fair, well, there's a chinese proverb "物以罕為貴"; it's roughly "when a thing is scarce, it is precious".

have fun :)

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: Simplified characters are already hard enough for foreigners to learn. IMO the government should even try another round of simplification.  
> **username_4**: @username_5 username_5: omg, you've such shattering ideas :)  
> **username_6**: @username_5 They did, and the round failed. See [Second round of Simplified Chinese Characters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_round_of_simplified_Chinese_characters). Nobody likes randomly changing characters, and Simplification was a terrible idea in the first place.  
> **username_5**: It's not, if the government do intend to make the language an international one. Chinese is very unfriendly to foreigners.  
> **username_4**: "chinese is very unfriendly to foreigners" you know it only at this moment? poor soul. well, the language, confucius are very "in-groups". "outsiders" always have difficulty to "break in".  

---

### Answer by username_6 on 2018-10-12. Score: 2

I must say, the attitude towards learning Chinese is correct when you asked

> Which should I learn first?

because you need to know both to be fully literate in Chinese. I'm also going to disagree with the other answer which suggests Traditional Chinese has a niche application and that Simplified Chinese is easier to read.

---

# The most important factor is your environment!

* **If you're going to be moving to a Chinese-speaking area:** Simplified Chinese has minimal usage in environments like Hong Kong and Macau and is practically not used at all in Taiwan and most established overseas Chinese communities. The areas that it is concentrated in are (1) Mainland China and (2) certain cities in Malaysia. Maybe you can add Singapore to that list, but their Chinese ability is mediocre at best, so English remains the most useful there.
* **If you're just studying as a foreign learner in your current location:** Consider picking up the version which you would get most help from. If your friends or teachers surrounding you are mostly accustomed to Traditional Chinese, then you should go for Traditional Chinese. Ditto for Simplified.
* **If you're immersing yourself in Simplified Chinese materials, then pick Simplified Chinese.** Ditto for Traditional Chinese, but the former is more likely - especially if you're planning to study in Mainland China or work as a translator.

# It takes minimal effort to switch.

If you are fluent in one script, it takes very little time to switch to the other. Prioritise being fluent in one, rather than worrying about what you should choose first.

# If somehow all other factors are equal, pick Traditional Chinese.

* **Simplified Chinese is *not* easier to learn than Traditional Chinese.** [See stats by IndexMundi\*](https://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=ch&v=39&c=mc&c=tw&c=hk). Mainland China, the only fully Chinese region using Simplified Chinese, forms the lower bound of the literacy rate trends of the Chinese-using regions, indicating that script reform had minimal impact and economic development was the deciding factor by far.
* **Simplified Chinese instils a relatively poorer understanding of how the writing system and character components work.** This is due to its overuse of writing abbreviations in its goal of cutting down strokes, meaning you'll be learning many components *twice* (an abbreviated version and a non-abbreviated version). Prepare for much more rote memorisation instead of exploiting reusable concepts if you choose Simplified Chinese.
* **In the wider cultural region of East Asia, Traditional Chinese is more useful.** Historical China has influenced many countries in East Asia, including their vocabulary and writing systems. These influences were in the form of the Traditional Script, meaning you're killing multiple birds with one stone.

---

\**Ultimately sourced from the CIA world factbook.*

> **Comments:**
> **username_6**: If you're from Pakistan, as your profile suggests, and you're learning Chinese as a tool to do dealings with China, then I suggest you learn Simplified Chinese.  
> **username_4**: i like the word "niche", particularly. then, the points in "all other factors are equal" are strong. well done :)  
> **username_7**: I'd say classical Chinese (wenyanwen) is much more useful for understanding other languages and cultures, but is an overkill for beginners. Traditional characters alone really doesn't add that much, as the only other language currently using Chinese characters, Japanese, has their own set of simplification.  
> **username_6**: @username_7 aside from 文言 and 繁體 being neither comparable nor mutually exclusive, the whole idea is that starting from 繁體 means you get added benefit at no cost. "Japanese has also simplified" is not a position in favour of 簡體, considering that many of their simplifications are different and not mutually recognisable, and their script is still more similar to 繁體; see [this](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/57752/if-you-learn-the-2000-most-common-kanji-how-many-of-the-2000-most-common-hanzi/57755#57755). 簡體 is relatively more impractical and offers basically no advantages.  
> **username_7**: Are you a native speaker? I'm not saying 简体 has advantages. My point is that the advantages of 繁体, if any, would be too small in this perspective, and easily overshadowed by and confused with other techniques a native speaker could use, that it's difficult to believe personal feelings without objective researches. "All other factors being equal" would be a contrived situation, which doesn't prevent someone argue technically it has some differences by some logic, but prevents anything to be objectively verified. Not much point for me to invent some logic having similar problems to counter that.  
> **username_6**: @username_7 a learner does not have the advantages a native speaker has, so this is really a moot point. You also seem to forget that no matter how small you think the advantage of 繁體 actually is, it comes at no cost.  I have said all the appropriate things that needs to be considered when choosing a script, so if you have something else to add you should post an answer or a question.  
> **username_7**: Well, actually, I'm not here to start an argument. My original comment basically says "don't mistake the benefit of 文言 as the benefit of 繁体", which I feel very likely. And I'll take your response as no, you didn't, and leave everything else in this answer as a matter of opinion.  
> **username_6**: @username_7 It is not an opinion, you can empirically verify how much cultural artifacts you can appreciate more, how much Korean Hanja, how much Vietnamese Chu Nom you can learn easier with 繁體 as a new learner with no background in Chinese. This has nothing to do with 文言 at all; at most they use vocabulary items, not grammar, from Classical Chinese which you still get from learning Modern Chinese. The only thing that is an opinion is your poorly reasoned statement that my answer is an opinion. 簡體 is an objectively worse choice if you’re not specifically dealing with Mainland China.  
> **username_7**: Sorry, 文言 was inaccurate. I was thinking about the meanings of characters like 走 聞 謝, which generally need learning resources much more than the shapes of the characters. And "opinion" refers to "pick traditional Chinese". It was an opinion because the points aren't sufficiently backed, not that it's wrong. To me, even the least challenged point as I'm aware of, depended on that I believe you are personally confident that the benefits are really from the traditional characters, not their meaning, which I had no way to objectively verify, and didn't expect much improvement.  
> **username_7**: Also, by "not specifically mainland China", I suppose you meant "may potentially deal with everything including the history of smaller countries while specifically avoiding mainland China". I know that 简体 is worse if all situations that 简体 is slightly better and exactly these situations are excluded from consideration, including potentially dealing with China, and the environmental factors (in this answer, and others such as the internet).  
> **username_7**: And it objectively is, with absolutely no cost (even not opportunity cost), just like how the speed of light in SI unit is an accurate number while the speed of sound is not. But for some reasons I tend to not assume others are thinking in this way. If you could agree that it's an opinion, I understand that there are always a small number of people in this exact situation, and you don't have to explain why it is likely, and just leave it to anyone seeing this answer.  
> **username_6**: @username_7 really, you make Mainland Chinese sound as if they're illiterate in Traditional Chinese. "Not specifically mainland China" means that Traditional Chinese works quite well there as well, because of the spread of media from Taiwan and Hong Kong. There is no reason to go for Simplified Chinese unless you're completely stuck in the Mainland and have no interest with communicating outside of that bubble. Simplified Chinese is an impediment to communication outside of the Mainland, and even the Government Mouthpiece [人民日報](https://twitter.com/pdchinese) knows this.  
> **username_5**: @username_6 Your arguments for "if all the other factors are equal, pick TC" may be true ONLY if you are a native Chinese. I am Brazilian and a Chinese teacher for over 10 years (and a student myself) and I can tell you that TC is WAY MORE DIFFICULT to any foreigner than SC. So, your 1st point is wrong. 2nd one: it's true that TC is etymologically closer to the origins of the characters, but, even so, many of them are just random, and students actually give a sh*t for that. They just want to learn the language.  
> **username_5**: 3rd one: again, the student is willing to learn Chinese, which is already difficult enough. He doesn't care if Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Martian, Plutonian, etc. have anything to do with the ("former") language script. I'm so against TC and I think the government should consider simplifying it even more if they want the Chinese language to reach an international language status as English has nowadays.  
> **username_6**: @username_5 If you think Simplified Chinese is easier than Traditional Chinese, then I’m sorry to say, you don’t understand character structure very well, and you are teaching or learning them the wrong way. They are not “random”, and if you think they are, that’s your own problematic understanding that contributes to the difficulty. Literacy rate statistics cannot be “wrong” either - the notion doesn’t make any sense.  
> **username_5**: @username_6 You didn't understand my concept of "random" at all. What makes a 為 better than a 为? 為 came from the drawing of a hand guiding an elephant through labour, meaning "to do", which we can no longer see at all (neither the hand nor the elephant). The way it changed is just "random", the same way 为 is just a "random" simplification based on cursive handwritting. 为 at least is a lot easier to remember and to write with its 4 strokes instead of 9 strokes from 為. You're just probably Taiwanese and that's why you think TC is better, otherwise no reasonable thinking would support it.  
> **username_5**: Literacy rate statistics measure NATIVE speakers literacy. That's not the case of the guy who asked the question at all.  
> **username_6**: @username_5 Firstly, I'm from mainland China. Secondly, I'd never advocate using「為」, which is a Simplification;「爲」is a far better choice, because of the presence of the hand on top. Thirdly, you may cherry pick all the examples that you want, but you would easily know that they're relatively rare exceptions unless you actually don't know the writing system that well. No person "reasonable thinking" would support Simplified Chinese, unless they learned Chinese through some insane method like memorising characters stroke-by-stroke.  

---

