Simplified and Traditional

Correct. Thanks!

覆 fù = cover / overturn / upset

There is no simplified form for the character “覆”, which is used both in traditional and in simplified Chinese.

Hi hape

The relationship between “周” and “週” might be the same as that between “台” and “臺” （or “什” and “甚”）. For mainlanders, “週” is the traditional character of “周”, on the other hand, for Taiwanese, “週” is a variant character of “周”, so they use both “週” and “周” in Taiwan.

Hi changye, thx as always for the link. Actually, I think that you are right, “週末” is the considered more proper. Again, nothing too authoritative, but I did just check with a couple of Taiwanese friends, and that was their opinion.

@Hape, its good to see a fellow learner of traditional characters.

Hi tvan

I didn't know that “周末” was used in Taiwan. In Japanese, only “週末” is used. As you said, the character “周” has a very long history, and it dates back more than three thousand years. On the other hand, “週” is a relatively new character, which was created sometime between the 3rd and 6th century.

http://140.111.1.40/yitia/fra/fra00559.htm

Hape, I can't authoritatively answer your question, but it seems like there are many "simplified" characters that have been in use long before there were "official" simplified characters (e.g. 什/甚). Both my Chinese-English and Chinese-Chinese Taiwanese dictionaries list the definition for both 周末 and 週末 as weekend/雙休日. Thus, I think this is probably one of those cases. In the case of 周, it must be a fairly old character. Nothing authoritative, but one of its meanings is the Zhou dynasty, so it stands to reason.

IMO, if you want to see how traditional characters are used in Mandarin, Taiwanese publications are the best source. Dictionaries are OK, but often reflect how some stuffy academic thinks the language should be used, not how it is actually used. Along those lines, the 世界日報, an overseas publication catering to Taiwanese seems to prefer 週末.

够 gòu and 夠 are the 'same' character - it can be written either way.

Trying to look for logic in 'simplification' can be troubling. :-)

When you say that 'the Traditional form is the same as the Simplified form' I wonder what you mean. 80% of characters, say, have not been 'simplified' - so what you maybe think is a simplified form is actually a traditional form that has not been tampered with. That is, where both forms are the same, the traditional form has not been changed. I guess you can call this either 'traditional' or 'simplified', it doesn't matter, but strictly speaking these unaltered characters are in their traditional form.