Re: Kanji reading

On Sat, 5 Sep 2009, NARUSE, Yui wrote:
>
> 3.3 Ruby and Emphasis Dots
> http://www.w3.org/TR/jlreq/#en-subheading2_3
> 
> This will help you.

It didn't really help, unfortunately. (It didn't answer my question, or 
indicate what was wrong with the spec.)


On Fri, 4 Sep 2009, Gareth Rees wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
> > > Section 4.6.20, "The ruby element", says:
> > > > In this example, each ideograph in the Japanese text 漢字 is annotated
> > > > with its kanji reading
> > > 
> > > The parallelism with "bopomofo reading" and "pinyin reading" in the
> > > second and third examples in this section implies that "kanji reading"
> > > is being used to mean "reading written in kanji". But in fact, the
> > > reading is written in hiragana.
> > 
> > What should the example say? "hiragana reading"? I know nothing about
> > this, so I've no idea what the right label should be.
> 
> I suggest "reading in hiragana".
>
> "Hiragana reading" implies that there are several types of reading, and 
> a hiragana reading is one of them. But really there is only one reading 
> (i.e. way to pronounce the word), but several different ways to write 
> it. (Google backs me up on this: search results for "reading in 
> hiragana" match this use, whereas search results for "hiragana reading" 
> do not.)

Ok.

How would you describe the image? Currently it is described as:

   The two main ideographs, each with its kanji annotation rendered in a 
   smaller font above it.

Should this be changed also? I've changed it to:

   The two main ideographs, each with its hiragana annotation rendered in 
   a smaller font above it.

Is that right?

How about the comment in the source? Right now it says:

   <!-- this is the kanji for the word "kanji" ("chinese character") in japanese -->
   <!-- in japanese, ruby-like typography is called "furigana" -->

Is this wrong also? Should it be changed? What to? I've changed it to:

   <!-- this is the hiragana for the word "kanji" ("chinese character") in japanese -->
   <!-- in japanese, ruby-like typography is called "furigana" -->

Is this right?


> > Should the word "kanji" appear anywhere in the description?
> 
> I think not.

Ok.


On Sat, 5 Sep 2009, NARUSE, Yui wrote:
>
> We Japanese call them "furigana".
> "furi" means assign or attach.
> "gana" means hira"gana" and kata"kana".
> So "furigana" means attaching kanas to Kanji
> (or some string need furigana).

Yes, the typography is called furigana, but what is the actual reading in 
the example called? Is that also furigana, not hiragana?


On Mon, 7 Sep 2009, David Bailey wrote:
> 
> Wikipedia offers some assistance here:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanji#Pronunciation%20assistance
> 
> "Because of the ambiguities involved, kanji sometimes have their 
> pronunciation for the given context spelled out in ruby characters known 
> as furigana, (small kana written above or to the right of the character) 
> or kumimoji (small kana written in-line after the character). This is 
> especially true in texts for children or foreign learners and manga 
> (comics). It is also used in newspapers for rare or unusual readings and 
> for characters not included in the officially recognized set of 
> essential kanji."

I'm not sure how to apply this.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'