Talk:phono-semantic compound

RFV discussion: December 2018
Requesting verification of this entry. There is a RFD discussion of the entry on the basis that it may be SoP, but we'd like to determine if it is attestable or whether it is a neologism. If it is not attestable, it may be moved to "Appendix:Glossary". — SGconlaw (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ,, . --Lambiam 19:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I found one cite on Usenet. Khemehekis (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * cited Kiwima (talk) 03:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed. Back to RFD. Kiwima (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

RFD discussion: May 2018–January 2019
Looks SoP. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 23:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think a "compound" does not necessery mean a character.--Zcreator alt (talk) 08:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 1-The term 形声字 is found in 现代汉语规范词典 3rd edition on page 1470. By creating the phono-semantic compound article, I wanted to create the English-language article which corresponded to 形聲字.
 * 2- My broader goal is that all the Chinese-English wiktionary articles which have the words 'Phono-semantic compound' in the Glyph Origin section should have a blue link to the phono-semantic compound article or another similar article. The concept of a 'phono-semantic compound' (or character) is difficult for many people to understand or accept, which makes learning Chinese characters more difficult because those learners don't understand why the right-hand side of the character is there. The written form of Chinese is somewhat inaccessible without understanding this concept, and a blue link invites the readers to find out about it. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, SOP. Per utramque cavernam 11:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Abstain. Per utramque cavernam 00:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I would tentatively say keep, per Zcreator alt's comment. Hypothetically, I could imagine 可口可樂 (phono-semantic matching) or 基佬 (whose first character is a phonetic borrowing from English and whose second character means "guy") being described with a term like "phono-semantic compound", but in fact the term isn't used that way. As far as I know, it's only used for individual characters formed in a very specific way (with a phonetic component and a semantic component). —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm concerned that this is a neologism created by Geographyinitiative as a translation for the Chinese term, and that it is not currently verifiable. I think it should be sent to RFV to see if it is attestable. If it is attestable, then I think it should be kept as the meaning of the term is not that readily ascertainable from its individual elements. If it is not attestable but it is desirable to create the term for use in Wiktionary, then move it to Appendix:Glossary and indicate clearly that it is a translation of the Chinese term. — SGconlaw (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that if it's not attested or not idiomatic, we can just link to our glossary. A quick check of google books suggests it's not common, but probably meets ATTEST... but the rarity does raise questions about how 'set' the term could be and thus how idiomatic/nonSOP it could really be. Abstain at RFD. (No objection to moving to RFV.) - -sche (discuss) 18:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've listed it for verification at RFV. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, as the RFV discussion has confirmed that the term is verifiable, and as indicated earlier I'm not convinced the term is readily ascertainable from its component words. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I would like to mention that did not create this English-language term; I learned it from Template:Han compound. There are many different ways to translate 形聲 and 形聲字, and this is one of those ways. I am not emotionally invested in retaining this page; it should be handled according to Wiktionary policy. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I was just reading over my comment from way back in ancient history (May 2018), and I realized that I had forgotten that I wanted to add a blue link in the Template:Han compound for phono-semantic compound. Right now, a casual reader of Wiktionary who is looking up a Chinese character's Glyph origin will 九成 be totally unable to decipher the meaning of 'phono-semantic compound'. With a blue link, Han_compound becomes more powerfully informative. Do you know how to add that kind of a blue link into Template:Han compound? Do you think this is a good idea? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Such a blue link doesn't have to be linked to the phono-semantic compound page itself; it could be linked to an entry in Appendix:Glossary or to the 形聲字 page outright. I have no experience in these matters and don't want to cause even more trouble. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I've added a blue link to which explains the term adequately. KevinUp (talk) 06:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: I am concerned that this term first came into existence around April 12, 2005, when the Wikipedia page Chinese character classification was first created by User:Diderot (User:Diderot~enwiktionary), translated apparently from French Wikipedia's Étymologie des caractères chinois of that time , which had the following sentence: "majorité de composés nommés idéo-phonogrammes".
 * In my opinion, the word "compound" is misleading and "phonosemantically derived character" can also be another translation of . So the question now is, can we find citations of the term that predates April 12, 2005? KevinUp (talk) 06:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it makes a difference whether the term existed before 2005 or not. If it is now verifiable according to our criteria (in particular, it appears in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year), it means the term is now established. But if editors who work on Chinese entries regularly (I don't) reach consensus that "phonosemantically derived character" is a better translation of the Chinese term, then just add it to Appendix:Glossary (noting in particular that it is a translation of the Chinese term) instead of creating an entry for it. — SGconlaw (talk) 06:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Since the term is well-established by our standards, I think this entry can be kept. See also Template talk:liushu for further discussion. KevinUp (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: The term is attested and, admittedly, it could be seen as sum of parts, but not necessarily so, per Granger. If the term is rare, marking it as such to inform our readers about the currency would be an option, and if that tagging were there, it would present added value even if the term were sum of parts. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 14:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)