Talk:Chinese family of scripts/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comments

this page is under construction.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hanja = obsolete?

Although Hanja isn't used very often in common language, I wouldn't go so far as to call it obsolete. It's still used alot in academic literature. 125.238.23.58 (talk) 11:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Derivation Of Katakana Characters Pictures

Hi,

From the original:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Katakana_origine.png

to

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Katakana_origine.svg

I noticed a few mistakes:

The last (bottom) stroke in the top radical in the kana for "sa" in the svg is highlighted red. That is incorrect

"te" also has a problem: the length of the descending left stroke between the horizontal strokes are highlighted red. This is also incorrect. Can you amend the svg, upload, replace, delete the links to the files in the corresponding articles (wikipedia and anywhere else), and copypasta? Thanks.174.3.103.39 (talk) 05:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

remove simplified from image

The title image on the right hand side which shows the words "漢子" in traditional and simplified should be rid of the simplified. Simplified Chinese is only used in the PRC. In Japan, another variant again is used for "漢" (I can't type it here, but the top right part is different), and as Japanese Kanji are just as much Chinese characters as any other, if the Simplified Chinese variant is included in the image, by that logic so should the Japanese variant. However, it would be much more logical to just include the orthodox form of the character in the image, as this is the parent form which is used for some purposes in all of the CJK countries. However the Simplified Chinese and Japanese Shinjitai variants are not, they are only used in their respective jurisdictions. Either way, include all three major standard variants if you are including any at all, or just do the simple thing and only use the traditional character from the parent system which has some use everywhere Chinese Characters are written. As it is now though, it does not fit with logic no matter how you look at it. I would keep the current image for the articles on "simplified chinese" and "traditional chinese" as this is where it is really relevant, to demonstrate the difference between the parent system of orthodox chinese characters and one of the its child systems currently in use in a particular jurisdiction. Saruman-the-white (talk) 10:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hangul and other peripheral scripts

@LiliCharlie: You reverted the deletion of Hangul saying "Sure Hangeul is a featural alphabet", but the reason given for the deletion was "Hangul doesn't descend from Chinese characters". And surely that is true: the syllabic blocks were obviously designed to fit with Chinese characters, but the letters do not descend in any meaningful sense from the characters.

Similarly, the scripts listed under "Scripts influenced by Chinese" are not descended from the Chinese script, and cannot be considered part of its family. Kanguole 10:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

We could remove all scripts that are not "genetically" descended from the Chinese script though they partly follow Chinese patterns (Han character strokes, one syllable per square block etc.). However the question remains whether scripts that form part of a writing system (in the Unicode sense) using Han characters deserve being included. It could be argued that the traditional Korean writing system (ISO 15924: Kore=Hani+Hang) is an extension (or even an advancement) of the Chinese script. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'm arguing that we should remove all such scripts, as that is what "family" implies. We shouldn't include scripts just because they are used together with Han characters in a composite writing system – no-one would suggest including romaji or Arabic numerals. (Unlike kana, where each symbol is derived from a particular character.) Kanguole 11:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

All right, let's remove them. — Article Romance languages states that "[s]ome other languages, such as Modern English, are sometimes thought of as creoles of semi-Romance ancestry" but there is no such thing as a script of semi-Chinese ancestry, is there? Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 11:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

From following that link, that claim seems particularly ill-supported. Back here, there are composite writing systems, but it makes sense to distinguish those from their component scripts (as the Unicode definition does). Kanguole 15:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Of course. I didn't mean to introduce an unsourced category of "semi-Chinese" scripts. — I feel that Bopomofo and Nüshu deserve at least one full sentence each. — You are probably aware that we have a rather detailed "Origin of zhuyin symbols" chart. Upon request I could turn this into an SVG similar to the two illustrations of kana origins used in this article; it was me who gave File:Katakana origine.svg its current appearance. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Counterfactual statement

Re hiragana and classical works like The Tale of Genji, the article says:

• “Such classic works as Lady Murasaki's The Tale of Genji were written in hiragana, the only system permitted to women of the time.” (my emphasis)
  

This is counterfactual on at least two points:

1. Hiragana was not "the only system permitted to women of the time": it was the system they customarily used, but there was no prohibition on their use of any other system, and in fact many did: the cited author, Lady Murasaki, was—if I recall correctly—known for her skill in writing kanbun, at the time called men's hand (writing in hiragana was known as women's hand at the time).
2. If I recall correctly, The Tale of Genji was not written exclusively in hiragana anyway. It was mostly in (technically, the forerunner of) hiragana but also contained not negligibly few kanji as well.

I suggest the following change:

• “Such classic works as Lady Murasaki's The Tale of Genji were written mostly in hiragana, the script customarily used by women of the time.”
  

I haven't just changed it because the current version is sourced and I can't tell whether the source makes the "only permitted" assertion; if it does, my contention is that the source is wrong, but it's wrong in a way that is difficult to substantiate in the sense that you can't prove a negative! --Jim_Lockhart (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 22 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Per recognisability and precision concerns raised. (non-admin closure) Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Chinese family of scripts → Chinese scripts – All articles about families of scripts use the titling format "___ scripts", none of them use the titling format "___ family of scripts". Here are some examples:

• Brahmic scripts
• Old Italic scripts
• Ulu scripts
• Nepalese scripts
• South Semitic scripts

There are more examples, but I don't have the time to list all of them and it would be redundant as you probably get my point by now. Per WP:CONSISTENT. – Treetoes023 (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm concerned that "Chinese scripts" would sound like it means "scripts that are used to write Chinese". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current title seems clearer to me. Srnec (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose the anticipated topic for the suggested title is Chinese script styles, where the expected results appear, such as block script, seal script, grass script, etc -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 04:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.