Talk:Han-Nom

Tags removed

I have removed two tags that make no sense. One them proposed that this article be merged with Han tu, an article that Wikipedia does not currently have. AFAIK, no one has proposed recreating the Han tu article either. The other one claimed that the word "Han-Nom" is original research. You can see various examples of this term in the reference section. This word is an established usage in the Vietnamese media, and they use it in both Vietnamese-language and English-language articles. So I can easily come up with many more examples. If someone wants to delete the article, they take it to AFD. Kauffner (talk) 08:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

This merge is already being discussed on Talk:Han tu, now renamed. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:08, 21 March 2013

Is there a point to any of this beyond annoying me? Because if there is, I am not seeing it. Kauffner (talk) 12:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

This merge is already being discussed on Talk:Han tu, now renamed. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I have made a report at WP:ANI about the tag removal. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Font for characters

Here are the ten most common Nom characters in various fonts:

羅吧各没固𧵑得𥪝𤄯𠊛 (default, so called "simplified Chinese")

羅吧各没固𧵑得𥪝𤄯𠊛 lang|vi

羅吧各没固𧵑得𥪝𤄯𠊛 vi-nom

羅吧各没固𧵑得𥪝𤄯𠊛 HAN NOM A,HAN NOM B

羅吧各没固𧵑得𥪝𤄯𠊛 Nom Na Tong

羅吧各没固𧵑得𥪝𤄯𠊛 zh-TW (Taiwanese, so called "traditional Chinese")

羅吧各没固𧵑得𥪝𤄯𠊛 MingLiU (also traditional Chinese)

Nom Na Tong is the font used by the Nom Foundation. So it can be considered the standard Nom font, to the extent that such a thing exists. I finally decided to go with this font because it allows me to display the Extension C and non-Unicode characters. Kauffner (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Generally speaking, it is best not to specify a specific font, especially in the case of characters that are covered by multiple fonts as the user may not have the specified font installed or may prefer to use a different installed font. More importantly, you should never include PUA characters or (in this case) reserved Unicode code points for characters not yet encoded in Unicode as different users will see different things depending on what fonts they have installed. For unencoded CJKV characters, it is best to describe them using IDS sequences. BabelStone (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

In general, the solution is that we put in only the country code, in this case vi. Selecting the correct font is up to the software and the tech people. But this is an article about the characters and how they render (or don't render), so I think a more technical approach is appropriate. I guess I can go back to using the image file: . That certainly doesn't look as nice as Nom Na Tong (񣠰). Kauffner (talk) 06:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

If you want to use an image, use an image, just don't use reserved Unicode code points. The correct technical solution is to get the characters encoded, and until they are encoded you should only use IDS sequences or glyph images. Incidentally, it seems that Vietnam has not submitted any new characters for CJK-F (and this character is not scheduled for CJK-E), so it is going to be many years before it is encoded. BabelStone (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I've uploaded a better glyph image for V+63830, and put it in place of the reserved code point. At 20 points it is bigger than the surrounding characters, but could be reduced in size if wanted. BabelStone (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

That certainly works for me. Thanks a lot. How do you know that "407600" is a reserved codepoint? All the codepoints I've seen are four or five digit hex. CJK-F? The characters in extensions C and D are already so obscure no one is bothering to update the fonts for them. Vietnam needs get on the ball. Kauffner (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The Nom Na Tong font uses a Unicode cmap table, and so all characters it defines are per se part of the Unicode code space, and must either be encoded characters or reserved code points. In addition to encoded Unicode characters the Nom Na Tong font contains 5,620 characters between U+60000 and U+638DE (decimal 407600 = U+63830), and these are in the undefined Plane 6 of Unicode. BabelStone (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Well there are some CJK fonts that cover CJK-C and CJK-D, such as HanMin, and the SimSun-ExtB and MingLiU-ExtB fonts in Windows 8 now cover CJK-C and CJK-D. My own BabelStone Han font covers 456 CJK-C characters and all of CJK-D, and I'm currently adding Sawndip characters that will be in CJK-F. Anyway, I've just rechecked, and in fact V+63830 is in CJK-E (along with 1,028 other Vietnam source characters), and is currently scheduled for U+2B86F (although this code point assignment will almost certainly change by the time CJK-E is in Unicode ... probably late next year). BabelStone (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

That's exciting. I can tie up the loose ends of the story now, no missing characters anymore. I wonder why the VSource values on the CJK-E chart are in the form "V04-xxxx." On the previous charts, they give the values as V0-, V1-, V2-, etc. Kauffner (talk) 04:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Character u+2B2D9 (𫋙) rendering: Why HanaMinB font?

I see that face="HanaMinB" has been used twice in an attempt to force a certain display of character u+2B2D9 (𫋙) on the user. I really can’t see any good reason to do so. Few readers will have several fonts installed that contain this character, and in that case modern browsers will resort to this one font anyway. If several are installed, the user should have a choice which one shall be used. Many might prefer the Hong Kong style MingLiu_HKSCS-ExtB (version 7.01 that ships with Windows 8) to HanaMinB, or mainland Chinese style SunExt-B. HanaMinB’s little brother HanaMin also contains a glyph for this character, and I’m sure more fonts that cover u+2B2D9 exist. So why prescribe this one Japanese style font instead of relying on the browser settings? LiliCharlie 04:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiliCharlie (talk • contribs)

There is one more aspect I forgot to mention. If certain fonts are suggested for the display of Nôm text, they should be added to the list that is part of the {{vi-nom}} template so changes can be made at one place instead of looking for all instances of certain characters in the articles. Just use the {{vi-nom}} template, and if you think it isn’t sufficient, change it or request a change. LiliCharlie 05:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with both points made by LiliCharlie. I don't like the idea of a particular font being forced on all readers just because a particular editor finds it works for them. I'm also not that happy with using a glyph image for an encoded character (as is currently the case for U+2B2D9 on this page and on Wiktionary), as that makes the character unfindable for search engines and when editing the page. I would rather use the encoded character rather than a glyph image, and if some users only see a square box then at least they have the IDS sequence to fall back on as a description of what the character should look like. BabelStone (talk) 10:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've got Windows 7 and I've installed all the fonts that have been mentioned. But I can view this character only in Firefox, not in Internet Explorer or Chrome. So the chance that the naked character is visible to the average reader is close to nil. Kauffner (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not true as Windows 8 fonts support CJK-C and CJK-D, so any reader who is browsing on a Windows 8 machine should be able to see U+2B2D9 correctly without a particular font being specified (I can't confirm this as I don't have W8). Hard-coding a specific font to use just because it works for you is not a good reason to do that because different users with different operating systems and browsers and with different fonts installed will have different experiences, and you should not try customize display so it works for you, a single editor. BabelStone (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Merge tag removed again, restored again

BabelStone's merge tag was removed again counter Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive790#Merge_tag_removed_by_article_creator discussion on ANI 21 March 2013 the last time it was removed. There is a merge discussion at Talk:Chữ Hán where 4 participants have agreement that this new article Han-Nom is largely duplication of longstanding Chữ Hán and Chữ nôm articles and should be merged. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Btw the edit summary "(add text; rm font specifications except as require for display, per talk)" isn't really sufficient when something has been to ANI. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

If you want to delete the article, this certainly isn't proper procedure. You can go to AFD. Kauffner (talk) 06:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to delete the article. Babelstone proposed merging it, and a merge has been supported by Kanguole, Judith and myself. Please see Wikipedia:Merging for explanation of what a merge is and why and how it is done. If you disagree with a merge and believe that there is a justifiable case for Wikipedia:Content forking then you are welcome to make your case at Talk:Chữ Hán. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• There are various things, including the proper names of people and places, that are not easily classified as either Han or Nom. For this reason, the expression "Han-Nom" appears in numerous articles within the Vietnam project. When this expression is first used in an article, it should of course link to a page that explains at the very beginning what Han is, what Nom is, and what Han-Nom is. Ideally, every Vietnamese subject with pre-1918 notability should have a "Vietnamese name" language box with the name in Han-Nom, and therefore a link to this article. Kauffner (talk) 11:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

As above, if you disagree with a merge and believe that there is a justifiable case for Wikipedia:Content forking then you are welcome to make your case at Talk:Chữ Hán. Can you please copy paste above into the discussion? (If you don't make your case where the discussion is happening not everyone will see it.) In ictu oculi (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Meaning of giàu character

The Nom Foundation romanizes 񣠰/朝 as giàu.[1] This translates as "wealthy", as you can see here. The meaning of the character is explained in Vietnamese here. I showed this to two Vietnamese speakers, and they both assured me that the character means "wealthy," nothing to do with dynasty or morning. Kauffner (talk) 07:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

No, the Nom Foundation doesn’t give the same readings and meanings for and 朝, compare. this and this.

Please also note that your table is about the computer encoding of characters. The Unicode glyph ⿰朝乙 for the cited VSource V0-405E is given on page 5 of this PDF document. It looks different from the Nom Foundation character V+63830 ⿰朝⿹月⺄. Are you 100% sure that these two are unified characters, or is there a chance that they might be different characters? If you are not really sure, the image needs an update. Thank you for updating the image. --LiliCharlie 12:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

VNPF gives numerous readings for 朝, but I assume that giàu is the relevant one here. If you look up giàu in the dictionary link I gave above, it gives the corresponding Nom character as 𢀭 or 朝. 񣠰 is presumably a misspelling of 朝 that's about to be enshrined with its own codepoint. Kauffner (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The Nôm Foundation gives only dynasty; morning as the meaning of this character. The reading giàu is only given by one of its ten sources and only seems to apply to the expressions giàu có and giàu sụ (which actually do refer to wealth), not necessarily to the character itself in isolation. Actually my guess is that at the time the character ⿰朝乙 was created 朝 was the character for dynasty; morning, and only later was it sometimes used as a mis‘spelling’ or an abbreviation for ⿰朝乙. There are similar cases in Chinese, but mere guesses don’t make an encyclopedia. — As this is only about a gloss for a character component I think we’re on the safe side if we adopt the character’s meaning given by the Foundation. --LiliCharlie 16:35, 7 April

The reason the 朝 entry says "dynasty; morning" is because this is the Chinese-language meaning of the character. There is no such thing as a Nom-to-English dictionary. The translations must have been taken from Chinese-to-English dictionary. The pinyin is cháo, which sounds similar to Vietnamese giàu/wealth. If you look up giàu here, you can see that 朝 was the common way to write giàu. So neither the meaning nor the pronunciation of 񣠰 is based on the 乙 radical, at least not if we accept that both these characters were read as giàu. The version of the character with the extra radical is way non-standard, and not something you'll find in the published Nom dictionaries. I interpret it as basically a typo that someone found on a manuscript somewhere.

The entry in question has dozens of words in Vietnamese and only two in English. So not everything has been translated. To say that the two English-language words are the only meanings given implies that the Vietnam-language material is superfluous. Only three sources are given (not 10): Han Nom Institute (vhn), Bảng tra chữ Nôm (btcn), and Trần Văn Kiệm (gdhn).

It is a common practice for dictionaries to have usage examples, which is how I interpret the phrases given in the 朝 entry. VNPF also gives the example giầu sang, so giàu có and giàu sụ are obviously not the only two contexts in which 朝 is read as giàu. Kauffner (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that 朝 is referred to as a base form but we don’t know how 朝 was used at the time the character ⿰朝乙 was formed. Probably the best thing to do is either give no gloss at all or write something like “..., which may be used in the same sense, ...”, in which phrase present tense and an expression pointing to further usages of 朝, such as may be used or is also used, are crucial. --LiliCharlie 20:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I took a trip to the library and got some new information. Nguyễn Quang Hồng's Nom dictionary gives 𢀭 as the character for the giàu/wealth. (This is the only character he gives for this reading.) This is the same base form, but with the radical as 工 (48) instead of 乙 (5). Hồng explains this character as triều + cự. This suggests that triều (dynasty) is the correct reading of the base form in this context. The 𢀭 character has an illustrious history, with citations to Nguyen Trai and other classic authors. As for the unencoded variant on the chart, the Nom Foundation cites Trần Văn Kiệm. I checked Kiệm's dictionary, but I did not find this character. Perhaps the citation is mistaken. A lot of these obscure variants were extracted from manuscripts by the Han-Nom Institute. I looked under both radical 5 and and under giàu. For giàu, he gives only 朝 and 𢀭. The full Han-Nom coded character set has five giàu characters, although I don't think any dictionary has more than two. Kauffner (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Teaching Nôm at schools

I believe that the sentence “With nearly 20,000 characters, Nom was too complex to teach in a school system.” is not tenable and even misleading. Compare this with the sentences “With over 40,000 characters, Classical Chinese was too complex to teach in a school system.” and “With over 1,000,000 words, English is too complex to teach in a school system.” The numbers are right, yet Classical Chinese used to be, and English still is, a frequently taught subject. LiliCharlie 10:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

This [the observation that it is misleading] is a good comment, and the sentence should be among unsourced statements removed this weekend when the "Han-Nom" (what is "Han-Nom"?) duplicate content is merged back into Talk:chữ Nôm content. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the mini-list of Chinese texts per Kanguole's comment on the implementation of merge at Talk:chữ Nôm. A link to Chinese-language literature of Vietnam will achieve the same purpose. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit-warring at infobox template

Unfortunately after edit-warring to recreate the merged article edit warring on pipelinking to non-existent article Han-Nom, on template. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 August 2016

Please edit this page to redirect directly to Chữ Nôm, to avoid the double redirect. Thank you! —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Wrong redirection

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: This page title (alias for Hán Nôm) should redirect to History of writing in Vietnam#Terminology rather than Chữ Nôm.

For consistency, please refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hán_Nôm&redirect=no.

Vietnamese Wikipedia and has its own page for Hán Nôm while Simple English Wikipedia also has its own page for Hán Nôm (simple:Sino-Vietnamese characters). KevinUp (talk) 03:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Added an edit request since you don't need me specifically for such a change. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Done. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)