<p>From what I understand, 証 is a variant of 證 which means they essentially mean the same thing (see <a href="http://dict2.variants.moe.edu.tw/variants/rbt/word_attribute.rbt" rel="nofollow">here</a> or <a href="http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/cgi-bin/newDict/dict.sh?cond=%B5%FD&amp;pieceLen=50&amp;fld=1&amp;cat=&amp;ukey=421790014&amp;serial=1&amp;recNo=0&amp;op=f&amp;imgFont=1" rel="nofollow">here</a>). However, it seems like the usage of the two characters isn't identical. I can find no cases where 証 is accepted but 證 is not, but there are lots of cases where the opposite is true. All examples in the Ministry of Education dictionary are using 證, which wouldn't be the case if both versions were considered correct. Thus, I think it's safe to always use 證, even if both characters seem to be in use.</p>

<p>According to <a href="http://www.kwuntung.net/check/" rel="nofollow">this</a> site, it is acceptable to use 証 in most cases. A look at the etymology doesn't help much either. 証 seems to have had the meaning "admonish, criticise" originally, but I don't think this is relevant since 保証, 証物, 簽証 etc. all seem to be acceptable.</p>

<p>My conclusion: They are identical in modern usage. 証 is a variant of 證 and they can be used interchangeably.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-10-07T03:00:34.920Z
+1 for the 東東錯別字詞典 link, yet IMHO the few examples you've mentioned are wrong **not because of** the 証 in them, but other unacceptable character replacements, so you can be confident in your original conclusion -- 証 can be used interchangeably with 證 in all modern usage cases.
Nihil
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-10-07T03:08:43.613Z
Yes, that makes more sense. Seems extremely obvious now that you mention it. :)
Olle Linge
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-10-07T00:42:29.473Z
2012-10-07T05:58:16.227Z
2012-10-07T05:58:16.227Z
Olle Linge
<p>In 繁體字 證 and 証 are two different characters. As stated in <a href="http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/">教育部重編國語辭典修訂本</a> of Taiwan,</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>證</strong></p>
  
  <p><em>verb</em>
  <strong>1</strong> 告發。說文解字：「證，告也。」論語˙子路：「其父攘羊，而子證之。」
  <strong>2</strong> 用憑據、事實來表明或斷定。如：「證明」、「證實」。莊子˙秋水：「證曏今故，故遙而不悶﹑掇而不跂，知時無止。」</p>
  
  <p><em>noun</em>
  <strong>1</strong> 憑據。如：「人證」、「停車證」、「借書證」。
  <strong>2</strong> 病症、症候。如：「三焦辨證」、「血分證」。列子˙周穆王：「遇老聃，因告其子之證。」</p>
</blockquote>

<p>and</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>証</strong></p>
  
  <p><em>verb</em>
  諫正。如：「証諫」。戰國策˙齊策一：「士尉以証靖郭君，靖郭君不聽。」</p>
  
  <p>=>「證」的異體字（07937)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So if you are using 証 for <strong>its only rarely-used meaning</strong> of <code>admonish, remonstrate</code>, then it <strong>cannot be replaced</strong> by 證.</p>

<p>In other cases 証 is used as an 異體字 <code>(informal) variant</code> of 證, <strong>acceptable but less preferable</strong>.</p>

<p>However, <a href="http://www.twowin.com.tw/teacher/china_word.php?menu1=25">this post</a> from Taiwan maintains that 証 is an erroneous form of 證 out of the reason of orthodoxy (despite the fact this variant is widely accepted).</p>

<p><a href="http://bbs.cantonese.asia/viewthread.php?tid=10542&amp;rpid=85046&amp;ordertype=0&amp;page=1#pid85046">Another post</a> from HK gives more references. (It's written in Cantonese, though.)</p>

<p>In 簡體字 there is no such trouble since both of them are simplified to 证 (according to 新华字典).</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-10-07T02:53:32.200Z
2012-10-07T02:53:32.200Z
Nihil
<p>I realized 证 could be 証 and 證. Is there any difference between them?</p>

<word-choice>
What's the difference between 証 and 證?
# What's the difference between 証 and 證?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2012-10-06)

I realized 证 could be 証 and 證. Is there any difference between them?

**Tags:** word-choice

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2012-10-07. Score: 6 | Accepted answer

In 繁體字 證 and 証 are two different characters. As stated in [教育部重編國語辭典修訂本](http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/) of Taiwan,

> **證**
>
> *verb*
> **1** 告發。說文解字：「證，告也。」論語˙子路：「其父攘羊，而子證之。」
> **2** 用憑據、事實來表明或斷定。如：「證明」、「證實」。莊子˙秋水：「證曏今故，故遙而不悶﹑掇而不跂，知時無止。」
>
> *noun*
> **1** 憑據。如：「人證」、「停車證」、「借書證」。
> **2** 病症、症候。如：「三焦辨證」、「血分證」。列子˙周穆王：「遇老聃，因告其子之證。」

and

> **証**
>
> *verb*
> 諫正。如：「証諫」。戰國策˙齊策一：「士尉以証靖郭君，靖郭君不聽。」
>
> =>「證」的異體字（07937)

So if you are using 証 for **its only rarely-used meaning** of `admonish, remonstrate`, then it **cannot be replaced** by 證.

In other cases 証 is used as an 異體字 `(informal) variant` of 證, **acceptable but less preferable**.

However, [this post](http://www.twowin.com.tw/teacher/china_word.php?menu1=25) from Taiwan maintains that 証 is an erroneous form of 證 out of the reason of orthodoxy (despite the fact this variant is widely accepted).

[Another post](http://bbs.cantonese.asia/viewthread.php?tid=10542&rpid=85046&ordertype=0&page=1#pid85046) from HK gives more references. (It's written in Cantonese, though.)

In 簡體字 there is no such trouble since both of them are simplified to 证 (according to 新华字典).


---

### Answer by username_1 on 2012-10-07. Score: 3

From what I understand, 証 is a variant of 證 which means they essentially mean the same thing (see [here](http://dict2.variants.moe.edu.tw/variants/rbt/word_attribute.rbt) or [here](http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/cgi-bin/newDict/dict.sh?cond=%B5%FD&pieceLen=50&fld=1&cat=&ukey=421790014&serial=1&recNo=0&op=f&imgFont=1)). However, it seems like the usage of the two characters isn't identical. I can find no cases where 証 is accepted but 證 is not, but there are lots of cases where the opposite is true. All examples in the Ministry of Education dictionary are using 證, which wouldn't be the case if both versions were considered correct. Thus, I think it's safe to always use 證, even if both characters seem to be in use.

According to [this](http://www.kwuntung.net/check/) site, it is acceptable to use 証 in most cases. A look at the etymology doesn't help much either. 証 seems to have had the meaning "admonish, criticise" originally, but I don't think this is relevant since 保証, 証物, 簽証 etc. all seem to be acceptable.

My conclusion: They are identical in modern usage. 証 is a variant of 證 and they can be used interchangeably.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: +1 for the 東東錯別字詞典 link, yet IMHO the few examples you've mentioned are wrong **not because of** the 証 in them, but other unacceptable character replacements, so you can be confident in your original conclusion -- 証 can be used interchangeably with 證 in all modern usage cases.  
> **username_1**: Yes, that makes more sense. Seems extremely obvious now that you mention it. :)  

---

