This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
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.)
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)reply
"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)reply
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:
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply