Talk:A Book from the Sky

Radicals

The article says "characters resembling real Chinese characters, all devoid of semantic content". Does this mean:

• Each hanzi in his text is built entirely out of normal hanzi radicals (and in normal stacking structures etc)— but just that Chinese never happened have a word that used that combination as its hanzi?
• Or, that the text is freer than that, by having elemental brushstroke/curves somewhat outside the repertory of normal hanzi radicals and characters? (...As is the case, for example, with brushstrokes in hangul and katakana— each system involved dropping some kinds of elemental brushstrokes, and changing and adding others— on top of having abandoned the actual radicals that the brushstrokes combine into.)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sburke (talk • contribs) 00:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Meaningless symbol?

Isn't this just his New English Calligraphy? I'm pretty sure the example character on the page says "wiki" in English. Airrodanthefirst (talk) 06:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The example Character is for a different work by the same artist. As explained in the article it does say 'wiki' Rincewind42 (talk) 08:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Name?

Wouldn't "A Book from Heaven" be a more appropriate translation for Tian Shu? 99.225.224.73 (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It could be translated such but it isn't. See WP:NC. Wikipedia uses the name used commonly by sources on the subject, which in this case gives 'sky' not 'heaven'. Rincewind42 (talk) 08:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

"English" letters

"Later versions of these characters incorporated English letters into square word-shapes, which he called Square Word Calligraphy." Should this not be changed to either Latin letters or English words? The letters aren't English. 84.107.138.62 (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Tianshu title.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

討厭

The article references John Cayley's book, which translates this word (Pg 17) as "boring". Uh... except that the word is far more usually means "annoying" or something more strongly negative. Not sure what to do about this. Fangz (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like something that needs correcting. One doesn't need to provide every plausible gloss of terms in another language, only the one that is relevant. I'll assume Cayley knew what he was doing by translating it how he did. Remsense诉 12:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

From the context it was used in Cayley's book, I think Cayley was making a somewhat flowery comparison to the tedious process of making the book itself instead of trying to establish the creators true meaning. I'll edit to clarify this. Fangz (talk) 11:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)