<p>Let me summarize the cases and try to answer your question (TC = Traditional Chinese character set, SC = Simplified Chinese character set).</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Some characters <em>were never simplified</em>. For example, <code>井 U+4E95</code> is in TC and in SC (and for that matter, most characters). In the Unihan database, codepoints like these have <em>neither</em> a <strong>kSimplifiedVariant</strong> <em>nor</em> a <strong>kTranditionalVariant</strong> (both fields are empty).</p>
</li>
<li><p>There is a traditional version of the character, only present in TC. For example, <code>書 U+66F8</code> is in TC (and not in SC).  The <strong>kSimplifiedVariant</strong> of <code>書</code> is <code>书</code>.</p>
</li>
<li><p>The is a simplified version of the character, only present in SC. For example, <code>书 U+4E66</code> is in SC (and not in TC). The <strong>kTraditionalVariant</strong> of <code>书</code> is <code>書</code>.</p>
</li>
<li><p>The character is used in both character sets depending on context. This is a bit of a mess, and I've written <a href="https://chinese.stackexchange.com/a/3225/788">more about it here</a></p>
</li>
</ol>
<h3>The relations should &quot;reflect each other&quot;, but they're not a bijection</h3>
<p>It <em>should</em> be the case that if <em>X.kTraditionalVariant includes Y</em>, then <em>Y.kSimplifiedVariant includes X</em>. When I last checked the data about a year ago, there was at least one bug where that wasn't the case.</p>
<p>This does <strong>not</strong> mean that the relation is one-to-one <em>or</em> onto. There are some cases that are truly bizarre; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambiguities_in_Chinese_character_simplification" rel="nofollow noreferrer">check this out here for all of the weird cases</a></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-22T04:59:48.473Z
As an example from the weird cases page, SC "干" corresponds to four (!) TC characters: "乾干幹榦", with different meanings and different pronunciations. This sometimes creates comical results when SC users translate things via Google, such as translating "干货" into "fuck goods".
congusbongus
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-21T20:10:35.647Z
2013-10-21T20:10:35.647Z
2020-06-17T09:50:11.587Z
Stumpy Joe Pete
<p>It is said many words here <a href="http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr38/#SCTC" rel="nofollow">http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr38/#SCTC</a> about kSimplifiedVariant and kTraditionalVariant field cases (5 cases). But I didn't understand, if these two relations reflect each other? For example if A is simplified version of B, then does it mean that B is traditional version of A?</p>

<simplified-characters><traditional-characters>
Does "simplification" relation reflect "traditionalization" relation in Unihan?
# Does "simplification" relation reflect "traditionalization" relation in Unihan?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2013-10-21)

It is said many words here <http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr38/#SCTC> about kSimplifiedVariant and kTraditionalVariant field cases (5 cases). But I didn't understand, if these two relations reflect each other? For example if A is simplified version of B, then does it mean that B is traditional version of A?

**Tags:** simplified-characters, traditional-characters

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2013-10-21. Score: 5

Let me summarize the cases and try to answer your question (TC = Traditional Chinese character set, SC = Simplified Chinese character set).

1. Some characters *were never simplified*. For example, `井 U+4E95` is in TC and in SC (and for that matter, most characters). In the Unihan database, codepoints like these have *neither* a **kSimplifiedVariant** *nor* a **kTranditionalVariant** (both fields are empty).
2. There is a traditional version of the character, only present in TC. For example, `書 U+66F8` is in TC (and not in SC). The **kSimplifiedVariant** of `書` is `书`.
3. The is a simplified version of the character, only present in SC. For example, `书 U+4E66` is in SC (and not in TC). The **kTraditionalVariant** of `书` is `書`.
4. The character is used in both character sets depending on context. This is a bit of a mess, and I've written [more about it here](https://chinese.stackexchange.com/a/3225/788)

### The relations should "reflect each other", but they're not a bijection

It *should* be the case that if *X.kTraditionalVariant includes Y*, then *Y.kSimplifiedVariant includes X*. When I last checked the data about a year ago, there was at least one bug where that wasn't the case.

This does **not** mean that the relation is one-to-one *or* onto. There are some cases that are truly bizarre; [check this out here for all of the weird cases](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambiguities_in_Chinese_character_simplification)

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: As an example from the weird cases page, SC "干" corresponds to four (!) TC characters: "乾干幹榦", with different meanings and different pronunciations. This sometimes creates comical results when SC users translate things via Google, such as translating "干货" into "fuck goods".  

---

