Talk:Chinese characters

Diction

@Imaginatorium I'll reraise here:

−

In addition, each invented characters for local use. These languages function differently from Chinese, which has contributed to the replacement of characters with alphabets designed to write Korean and Vietnamese, leaving Japanese as the only major non-Chinese language still written with characters.

+

In addition, each invented characters for local use. These languages have structures and characteristics that differ from Chinese, which has contributed to the replacement of characters with alphabets designed to write Korean and Vietnamese, leaving Japanese as the only major non-Chinese language still written (in significant part) with characters.

• structures and characteristics is weirdly muddy and imprecise: what exactly is a "structure" versus a "characteristic" here? There's also a somewhat unpleasant implied-but-absent chunk here: I know it means These languages have structures and characteristics that differ from [those in] Chinese, but some may have to pause and fill in the gap.
• (in significant part) is a parenthetical in parentheses, which occurs nowhere else in the entire article.
• More importantly, the above is an unnecessary qualifier: characters are obligatory in written Japanese, while they are essentially optional or absent in written Korean, say. Just saying "in significant part" without further elucidation is just confuses the plain fact for the reader that Japanese is written using Chinese characters, especially as characters being removed entirely from other written languages was just mentioned.

Remsense诉 04:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I would dispute the content rather than the expression. Korean and Japanese are typologically similar. So are Chinese and Vietnamese, but very different from K&J. The reasons each of these languages (including Chinese) kept or abandoned characters are mostly extra-linguistic. Kanguole 21:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Aye—I realized over the course of writing and rewriting the lead that I can't adequately communicate a four-way relationship, so I went for the most general possible statement that was still held water. It's certainly crossed my mind repeatedly that the causes were extralinguistic in no small part or even mostly—I simply did not know how to adequately describe that in the context of the lead. Remsense诉 21:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh! And while I've dragged your attention back toward this millstone of mine: does anything strike you as concerns a FAC? I think I've bridged all lot of the gap between broad and comprehensive coverage, but i'd appreciate your insight greatly Remsense诉 21:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

If the view underlying the current text is that historical and/or social reasons were the major or primary factors leading Korean and Vietnamese to no longer use characters, perhaps something like the following would reflect this underlying view more accurately: "Historical and/or social factors have contributed to the replacement of characters in Korean and Vietnamese with alphabets designed to write those languages, leaving Japanese as the only major non-Chinese language still written with characters (which are used in Japanese alongside hiragana and katakana)." 216.15.56.15 (talk) 02:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, I see some personal opinion:

• structures and characteristics is weirdly muddy and imprecise: what exactly is a "structure" versus a "characteristic" here? There's also a somewhat unpleasant implied-but-absent chunk here: I know it means These languages have structures and characteristics that differ from [those in] Chinese, but some may have to pause and fill in the gap.

I find "function" muddily weird and imprecise. How could two languages "function" differently? I might think of something like the difference between the vernacular, in which people just talk to each other, and court documents, in which long and flowery phrases convey erudition but little meaning. The Chinese and Japanese (or Korean) languages are totally unrelated at the syntactic level. One Wikiapproach therefore would be a hard-to-read sentence mentioning "syntax"; a better one would be simpler, like the "structure and characteristics" expression (which I didn't write). I think possibly just saying "different characteristics" might be neater, but both are clearly better than the "function" idea.

• (in significant part) is a parenthetical in parentheses, which occurs nowhere else in the entire article.

I didn't realise that "parentheticals in parentheses" [sic] were only allowed if what, the precise parenthetical expression appears somewhere else? The body ought somewhere to convey the fact that in Japanese kanji are present to a large extent, whereas in both K and V they are marginal.

• More importantly, the above is an unnecessary qualifier: characters are obligatory in written Japanese, while they are essentially optional or absent in written Korean, say. Just saying "in significant part" without further elucidation is just confuses the plain fact for the reader that Japanese is written using Chinese characters, especially as characters being removed entirely from other written languages was just mentioned.

FWIW, (Chinese) characters are not "obligatory" in Japanese. The sentence is also immensely confusing because you are using "characters" to mean Sinographs or whatever we want to call them, while the rest of Japanese is also (obviously) written in (other sorts of) characters.

I find the whole thesis unconvincing. Not to mention lacking evidence (for the real world) or "sources" for the W-world. There must be extralinguistic influences, but also one obvious linguistic difference is phonetics: Korean has a vastly larger range of phonemes, and can survive without the all-pervading homonym problem in Japanese (57 different meanings for kōkō or whatever). From personal experience, it is simply much easier to read Japanese when written with kanji; for example, words to choral works are typically written in kana only, and (as a non-native reader) I find I go through and write the kanji underneath because I can read ahead much more easily. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

How could two languages "function" differently?

By being typologically different, but we don't have the luxury of introducing that jargon here. I suppose "have different characteristics" is also fine.

I didn't realise that "parentheticals in parentheses" [sic]

It's syntax that doesn't appear anywhere else in the article, so it would be stylistically odd for it to appear only once, as opposed to the other ways one can write parentheticals, e.g. being offset with commas or dashes.

(I'm not sure anyone was worried about you mechanically failing to transcribe what I wrote, so it is unclear what the [sic] is for.)

The sentence is also immensely confusing because you are using "characters" to mean Sinographs or whatever we want to call them, while the rest of Japanese is also (obviously) written in (other sorts of) characters.

It's not at all confusing in context, as the article is about Chinese characters, and so is the entirety of the surrounding prose. Like you said, it's obvious what is meant. We call them "Chinese characters" or the localized equivalent consistently throughout, and not sinograms et al.—which is not my personal preference, but a simple requirement of WP:COMMONNAME. Sometimes for purposes of diction, this is shortened to "characters"—this is not my invention, and occurs in the literature.

FWIW, (Chinese) characters are not "obligatory" in Japanese.

Would "all-but-obligatory" suffice to better specify what I meant, given your (much-appreciated) elucidation?

More concretely, the concern seems to lie with the partial connection made between the typological differences between Chinese and other languages, and the alphabetization of writing systems for the latter. I agree it's not the sole or even the primary reason—I intentionally did not explicate that it was—but I do not know how one could remove its mention entirely without creating a total non-sequitur in the prose, or inadequately explaining complex history in the lead of a very broad article. If anyone has an idea of how to do this, I'd really appreciate it. Remsense诉 17:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I've tried to do so in what seems like the most straightforward way. Thoughts? Remsense诉 00:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I think your reply is almost entirely illogical, but I am not going to waste my time going through point by point. (OK, I'm still wondering what an unparenthesised parenthetical looks like.) Imaginatorium (talk) 04:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Here's a parenthetical statement that doesn't use parentheses, purely for your edification. Once again, I didn't invent this phraseology—it's literally in Strunk's Elements of Style—but I suppose you're free to treat it with the level of cheek you feel is appropriate:

I agree it's not the sole or even the primary reason—I intentionally did not explicate that it was—but I do not know how one could remove its mention entirely without creating a total non-sequitur in the prose.

Remsense诉 04:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Disyllables in the Classical Chinese lexicon

In § Literary and vernacular Chinese we state An estimated 25–30% of the vocabulary used in Classical Chinese texts consists of two-character words, citing Wilkinson 2012 pp. 22–3. I was curious which corpora were examined in arriving at this statistic, and found Wilkinson's whole paragraph cited to "Cheng Xiangqing 1992, 45–113". I wasn't able to locate this source in Wilkinson's massive book, although he's usually really good about providing annotated bibliographic details of his sources everywhere.

Cheng Xiangqing (程湘清) edited a number of 1992 publications on the study of polysyllables in different periods, from pre-Qin to at least Ming. It's not clear from Wilkinson which one of these he is citing, but the paragraph of his that we cite does appear at the end of section 1.1.1, "Old Chinese", and further paragraphs on polysyllables follow in later sections, without providing statistics.

I think it possible that the 25–30% statistic does indeed apply to the totality of the Classical Chinese corpus, not just the pre-Qin language, and based on my reading of Wilkinson, any greater specificity would constitute OR.

Cheng's studies were later compiled into a conspectus, 《漢語史專書複音詞研究》 《汉语史专书复音词研究》 (2003), which seems popular enough that there might be a pdf floating around somewhere (I had no luck, but someone with the right app might fare better).

I don't think this is immediately actionable, and composed this research note as I went. Posting anyway for the record. Folly Mox (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Picking nits for FA prep

Smol thing first: at § Regular script, the first image is captioned A page from a Song-era publication printed using a regular script typeface. I think "typeface" is an inaccuracy here. The term typically applies to moveable type, and although that had been invented by the Song, it wasn't really in use. Song-era publications were printed by carving the whole page into a woodblock, not individual characters. Although the scribes had extremely consistent graphic skills, identical characters were not produced identically. You can tell from the image that the witness depicted was printed in this fashion: the graphical differences are most obvious between the instances of 書 in columns 4, 8, and 9; but even the consecutive 姓 in the first column have subtle differences. Also all the words are the same size and weight, so technically if this were moveable type it would be considered a font rather than a typeface. A page from a Song-era publication printed using regular script would probably suffice.

The less smol thing is that it's not really clear what is the organising principle behind § Primary sources. I can see calling Legge's translations of the Laozi and the Changes primary sources, and the databases for sure are. Some of the Primary sources seem to be Image sources: Maspero, the abovementioned 姓解, and Morrison & Montucci's 1817 Urh-chih-tsze-tëen-se-yin-pe-keáou. And it's not clear why 《常用詞辭典》 and 《客語辭典》 are under § Primary sources while 《古壯字字典》 is listed in the § Works cited subheading.

Anyway Remsense this is really excellent work. I'm pretty positive I could never produce something so well organised using my own brain. If you do take it to FAC, I'd be happy to do source verification to the extent of my access. Best, Folly Mox (talk) 13:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh also I've just noticed that in the citation for the Xici, you've got fanti in |script-title=易經 and jianti for |script-chapter=系辞下. Recommend not mixing, but I'm not going to choose for you. 🫶🏽 Folly Mox (talk) 13:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh, good catch! Remsense诉 22:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the careful look! I will be taking into account/addressing points ASAP. Please thank @Kusma a considerable amount, as it would be criminal for me to take all the credit for this—I suppose one could say it's a case study in two minds being better than one! Remsense诉 22:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh geez sorry I must not have been paying close enough attention to the revision history! Also I guess there was that entire season I missed. Is it possible to co-nom an FAC? Anyway thanks Kusma, whom I'll not ping in duplicate of the above! Folly Mox (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Re: primary sources—this may seem backwards but it makes a lot of sense to me, I've characterized every source used for a claim "unto itself" (e.g. citing the I Ching for what the I Ching itself says) as primary. Does that make sense? Remsense诉 01:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

That does make sense! Sorry I must have missed this a month ago. I have another brief suggestion about § Input methods: for the third paragraph, beginning Contextual constraints, it might be a better example to choose only homophones that are written identically in 簡體 and 繁體, which might make the "context" more clearly lexical rather than script-type, and avoid the construction [three words] are both. Folly Mox (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I think I tried for a bit to find the maximally elegant pair of homopinyinic words for this but failed—did you have an example you liked? Remsense ‥ 论 23:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I tried both when I wrote the previous comment and again just now by inputting arbitrary disyllables into my pinyin keyboard, and I'm not remembering enough of 簡體字 to be certain on what was and wasn't Simplified, with a secondary problem of being unable to differentiate between modern terms and archaicisms 🙃 So, I'll keep trying later when I have more focus and alertness. Folly Mox (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)