Template talk:liushu

phono-semantic compound and ideogrammic compound
Currently, the English Wikipedia page for Chinese character classification translates the as one of the following: This is slightly different from what is displayed by this template, which is also used by Template:Han compound in the "Glyph origin" section: Can we standardize our translations of the, which originally refers to the six methods of classifying Han characters, or shall we just leave it as it is? KevinUp (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Pictograms
 * Simple ideograms
 * Compound ideographs
 * Rebus (phonetic loan) characters
 * Phono-semantic compound characters
 * Derivative cognates
 * Pictograms
 * Ideograms
 * Ideogrammic compounds
 * Phono-semantic compounds
 * I am in favor of standardization, but I don't know what set of translation terms would be best. Thank you so much for your edits！ --Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Here are the translations from the Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press' English translation of the 2002 增补本 of 现代汉语词典 (later known as the 'fourth edition'):
 * 象形 pictographic characters or pictographs p2098
 * 指事 no direct translation given p2469
 * 會意 combined meaning; associative compound p868
 * 假借 phonetic loan characters p933
 * 形聲 pictophonetic characters p2147
 * 轉注 synonymous characters p2521

--Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * apparently called 形聲字 "phonetic compounds" in a 1940 publication (Grammata Serica: Script and Phonetics in Sino-Japanese). This according to in, page 94, paragraph 2 --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems like different scholars have different translations for the term . The following passages are quoted from, page 73:
 * "Such terms as 'phonetic compounds' (Karlgren 1923:16), 'phonograms' (Karlgren 1936:161), 'phonetic complexes' (Wieger 1965:10), 'phonetic indicators' (Gelb 1963:118), and 'phonic indicators' (Yau 1983:198) stress the phonetic aspect in this large group of characters."
 * "The belief that both the semantic and phonetic aspects should be taken into account in the naming of Chinese characters has led to terms like 'phonosemantic' (Pelliot 1936:163; Cohen 1958:52) and 'ideophonographic' (Bunakov 1940; Cohen 1958:45). A similar approach has led Krykov to designate one class of characters as 'phonoideograms' (1980:25 26)."
 * "The terms suggested by Pelliot, Bunakov, Cohen, and Krykov tie in a semantic element with a phonetic element without specifying the nature of either, though Cohen adds a bit more detail to the phonetic aspect by further references to 'syllabograms,' 'syllabo-phonograms,' and 'syllabic phonograms' (1958:49, 53, 55)." KevinUp (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Not asking for any changes, just giving an update on my feelings about the situation here. After months of keeping this issue at the back of my mind (and as a glance at the above content will show), I have come to the conclusion that, especially for xingshengzi, the English translations used today are all hopelessly idiosyncratic. I still think it was a great idea to add the blue link on the word "phono-semantic" in Template:Han compound like KevinUp did it, because we absolutely can't expect non-experts to know what 'phono-semantic' means. Some Chinese people and some Chinese studiers may possibly have seen the concept of xingshengzi in translation in another publication, but it probably was translated in one of about ten or fifteen different ways, and, obvious though it may seem, they may not be immediately able to figure out from context what 'phono-semantic' is talking about. Better to give readers a blue link so that those who are interested can get some clarification than to hang all the readers out to dry. To me, this is a sad situation because the disunified terminology underplays the significance of the concept of xingshengzi in CJKV characters. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)