RE: The translation of 漢字 (Was: English editing)

Hi all, 

+1 to Hanzi if we already have a related national standard stating that.
To make it more clear for a broader community, maybe we should add a paragraph of rational on what do we mean by Hanzi. 

Best,

Angel 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Ishida [mailto:ishida@w3.org]
> Sent: 2015年4月1日 13:28
> To: chen-zhuang
> Cc: Yijun Chen; Xiaoqian Cindy Wu; 'Bobby Tung'; 慶 劉; public-zhreq
> Subject: Re: The translation of 漢字 (Was: English editing)
> 
> The Japanese word 'kanji' is nowadays used regularly in English for Han
> characters used in Japanese, although this usage is usually to contrast with
> hiragana/katakana. However, the Chinese word 'hanzi' is unlikely to be
> known by most people, and it's English equivalent is generally Han characters,
> or ideographic characters.
> 
> The Unicode Standard is a good place to look for definitions and common
> usage in English. It says:
> 
> "Terminology. Several standard romanizations of the term used to refer to
> East Asian ideographic characters are commonly used. They include hànzì
> (Chinese), kanzi (Japanese), kanji (colloquial Japanese), hanja (Korean), and
> Chữhán (Vietnamese). The standard English translations for these terms are
> interchangeable: Han character, Han ideographic character, East Asian
> ideographic character, or CJK ideographic character. For clarity, the Unicode
> Standard uses some subset of the English terms when referring to these
> characters."
> 
> Note how the paragraph distinguishes between romanizations (ie.
> non-English words) and English translations.
> 
> The Unicode standard uses 'Han character' mostly and sometimes Han
> ideographic character.
> 
> hope that helps,
> ri
> 
> On 01/04/2015 02:43, chen-zhuang wrote:
> > I prefered to Hanzi at begining because the terminology Hanzi was
> > already defined in a national standard (GB XXXX-19XX, I do not
> > remember the detail number), but I may change my mind after reading
> > message from Ishida san.
> > FYI:
> > The ISO/IEC 10646 Universal Coded Character Set uses:
> > Hanzi for whole China
> > Kanji for Japan
> > Hanja for N. and S. Korea
> > ChuNom for Vietnam
> > Chen Zhuang
> > China Electronics Standardization Institute
> > 在2015年03月31 20时45分, "Richard Ishida"<ishida@w3.org>写道:
> >
> >     On 31/03/2015 13:38, Yijun Chen wrote:
> >      >> Yes, i'm glad you brought this up, since i wondered about that
> >     too. I
> >      >> left the translation as Hanzi for now, but that's really not a
> >      >> translation, it's more of a transliteration of the Chinese (and
> >     should
> >      >> probably have a lowercase H). I would prefer to change it.
> >      >
> >      > The reason I used Hanzi was because the term ‘Kanji’ shows up
> several
> >      > times in JLReq. There are a lot of Japanese transliterations in the
> >      > document as well, such as hanmen (版面), etc.
> >
> >     Yes, but kanji *is* the english translation for the japanese term
> >     and is
> >     used widely in english.  Hanzi is not widely used in english. It's a
> >     translation oddity ;-)
> >
> >     And i think there was no real equivalent in english for hanmen.
> >
> >     This is not to say that the Japanese doc is perfect. Probably far from
> >     it.  But i think we can account for those terms as I describe.
> >
> >      >> The standard uses Han character and Han ideographic character
> >     most of
> >      >> the time.
> >      >>
> >      >> I'm inclined to use 'Han character'.  There may be instances
> where
> >      >> what is meant is full-width character, if punctuation are to be
> >      >> included. I haven't checked for those instances yet.
> >      >
> >      > I would prefer Han character now. Usually, when we say 漢字
> orally or
> >      > literally, it does not include punctuation, only the characters
> >     themselves.
> >
> >     Ok. So who else do we need to check this with before replacing 'hanzi'
> >     with 'han character' throughout?
> >
> >     ri
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2015 06:12:06 UTC