Property talk:P5425
Documentation
Han character(s) this lexeme consists of
Represents | sinogram (Q17300291) | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Data type | Item | |||||||||
Example | no label (L625294) → 有 (Q54875281) 難 (Q54918642) | |||||||||
See also | Revised Mandarin Chinese Dictionary ID (P11056), Hanyu Pinyin transliteration (P1721), CJKV variant character (P5475) | |||||||||
Lists |
| |||||||||
Proposal discussion | Proposal discussion | |||||||||
Current uses |
| |||||||||
Search for values |
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P5425#Value type Q15100640, Q53764782, Q17300291, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P5425#Entity types
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P5425#language
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P5425#Scope, SPARQL
|
Labels renaming
editHi,
Should this property be labeled "CJK character in this lexeme" instead of "Han character in this lexeme" (same for other languages). Both are synonyms but CJK feels more right as it seems more common, more international ("Han" tends to be understood as "Chinese", which is not totally untrue but a bit confusing) and more correct (see this FAQ page by Unicode).
@Okkn, Higa4, Loominade, Shisma, Nikki: as user of this property, what do you think?
Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- VIGNERON: Support--Loominade (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Old proposal but I support this. There exist non-Chinese-origin CJKV ideograph (Q11420697). So I think it's not always "Han" character. Laftp0 (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- @VIGNERON @Loominade @Laftp0 I would like to revisit this and suggest “sinogram for this lexeme”. This property can be used on Tangut lexemes, although Tangut characters are technically not Han/CJK characters. They are part of a large family of Sinitic logogram-based scripts عُثمان (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
transliteration qualifier
edit@Deryck Chan, ArthurPSmith, Pintoch, Okkn:
I would like to use this property to display japanese lexemes with ruby annotations in my application. For instance
朝ご飯/あさごはん (L308507) should be transliterated with this markup:
<ruby>朝<rp>(</rp><rt>あさ</rt><rp>)</rp></ruby>ご<ruby>飯<rp>(</rp><rt>はん</rt><rp>)</rp></ruby>
to be displayed like this:
朝ご飯
For this, I think I need a qualifier holding the transliteration: transliteration or transcription (P2440). For japanese revised Hepburn romanization (P2125) might also apply. But i was confused there was no special Kana transliteration property 🤷
Do you think this is a good idea? Should we have a different property for this?
This would be all I need if there will never be a lexeme that has a han character twice with a differing transliteration.
Notified participants of WikiProject Japan does such a lexeme exist? I'm thinking of phrases. If it does, I would also need a series ordinal (P1545) to specify which han character should hold which transliteration.
I made a mockup here: 朝ご飯
We would need to allow transliteration or transcription (P2440) as a qualifier for this property. Do you have any thoughts on this? --Shisma (talk) 10:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm a fifth(!?)-language Japanese speaker and not familiar with Ruby so I'm not the best expert to consult here. My only comment is: please understand how en:wikt:Template:ja-r works and make your implementation compatible with it, such that it will be possible to perform automatic import from Wiktionary to WD Lexemes and automatic Lua generation from WD Lexemes back to Wiktionary. Deryck Chan (talk) 09:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Ping User:Shisma. Deryck Chan (talk) 09:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- interesting. so it if this is possible without additional data I withdraw my proposal-- Shisma (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Ping User:Shisma. Deryck Chan (talk) 09:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- If that format is considered useful, in theory could add it as an additional variant to forms [1], but a distinct (new) property seems preferable. --- Jura 09:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- there is no one single ruby anotation that makes sense for every form and in every use case. For instance You can also write 朝ご飯 to make the word readable for Latin readers. ah, and this is totally unrelated to Ruby (Q161053) 😅 -- Shisma (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)