Talk:Bopomofo/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 1 Archive 2

Requested move (2012) II

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. There's no consensus that the proposed title is preferable.Cúchullain t/c 15:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Bopomofo → Zhuyin fuhao – The reasons for moving are threefold: (1) the official name is zhuyin; (2) bopomofo is a name used within specific, limited circumstances to mean zhuyin, e.g. within ISO standards, and not generally; (3) bopomofo can mean the first-encountered phonetic system within any particular community, so it means different things to different people. zhuyin does not. zhuyin means the same thing to everyone, and is not ambiguous.

  • 1. As is clearly explained in the page, the official name of the system is zhuyin fuhao, or zhuyin for short. Even if there is a preference for a non-official name, bopomofo is not a good choice because it is both ambiguous and colloquial.
  • 2. There are many political reasons why the ISO chose to adopt a colloquial name, including the lack of an acceptable Romanisation for zhuyin fuhao at the time, but the same political pressures do not apply to Wikipedia in 2012. If many people call the City of London the City, should the article be placed at the latter title? Of course not, because that name only makes sense in a certain context. Likewise, "bopomofo" as a reference to Zhuyin only makes sense in a limited set of contexts, and should not be the title of this article. Even as a redirect to this page it should be controversial and would need a couple of "seealso" links at the top.
  • 3. Finally, when one of the key reasons for moving is eseentially "bopomofo means two or more things to different people but zhuyin means one thing to all people", the experience of one editor does not disprove that reason. I am specifically referring to User:Readin's anecdotal evidence in the previous discussion. User:Readin is a user from a specific demographic for whom "bopomofo" means Zhuyin, and it is entirely expected that in his or her anecdotal experience "bopomofo" means Zhuyin. However that does not disprove the key issue that "bopomofo" does not mean Zhuyin to other people. The official name, Zhuyin, means Zhuyin to all people.

The original move to the current title was insufficiently consultative and hastily closed, and should not have happened in the first place. The last move-back request was closed with one vote yes and one vote no (plus an anon vote, which I tend to view as less than persuasive in the ordinary course), it was hardly a survey. Please let this discussion run its course for once. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Everytype, this article was at Zhuyin and was moved to bopomofo with insufficient discussion. I understand that you are approaching this from a computer technical standards standpoint, which is why you know it as "bopomofo". My point above was that this name means different things to different people, and it is not a counter argument to say that you know it as one particular thing - that does not disprove that it means something else to someone else, unless you are claiming omnipotence? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
As for official names in English - Unicode or whatever is not the authority which regulates this system or the arbiter of its English name. Unicode or whatever is the arbiter of the technical computer standard for the script. It does not determine what the script is called, and what it chooses to call the script is merely evidence for what the script might be known as. When that evidence contradicts the actual official documentation for the script, it has less weight than the real world evidence. You must realise there is a wider world out there than the computer technical standards world. Unicode is a reflection of the real world, it does not determine the real world. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I emphasise, this article has not been at "bopomofo" for 11 years, Evertype, it is disingenuous of you to act as if you forget a move discussion in which you yourself participated. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't remember a move (and you give no diff), but it is true that my reading of the earliest version of this article was mistaken. Nevertheless, I stand by my view: the common name is Bopomofo (564,000 hits on Google) and not the arcane "Zhuyin fuyao" (20,300 hits on Google). -- Evertype·✆ 15:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment This same move was requested only three months ago, and failed then. Recommend speedy close. -- Evertype·✆ 20:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment' There is reference text in the article that says
In Chinese, "bo", "po", "mo" and "fo" are the first four of the conventional ordering of available syllables. As a result, the four syllables together have been used to indicate various phonetic systems. For Chinese speakers who were first introduced to the Zhuyin system, "bopomofo" means zhuyin fuhao. For those who first encountered a different system, such as hanyu pinyin, "bopomofo" usually means that system first encountered.
However no citation is provided for this assertion. I wonder how commonly "bopomofo" is used today for systems other than Zhuyin. Of course of more importance is how often "bopomofo" is used in modern English compared to "Zhuyin". I haven't seen any good citations on that either. PalaceGuard is right that one's personal experience isn't the best criteria for deciding what to call the page, but at the moment we don't have much other criteria to use. Unless something is presented to change my mind I'll still be coming out as "opposed". But it wouldn't take a lot to change my mind.
Everytype said "This is the English-language Wikipedia, and Bopomofo has the advantage of actually being pronounceable by English speakers." He's right about the the English-language usability. A typical English person learning Chinese or even just learning about the system is going to remember "bopomofo" more easily than "zhuyin". I find it difficult to believe that most English people who know of the system know of it by the name "zhuyin" rather than "bopomofo". And again, I recognize that speculation isn't the best criteria, but again I point out we don't have much else to go by. Readin (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you Readin, that bopomofo is more pronouncible in English, which is probably one of the reasons why the technical computer standards chose that name. However, just because a nickname is easier to pronounce does not necessarily mean that it is suitable for Wikipedia - Everytype seems to be under that misapprehension. "Zhuyin" is not by any means impossible to pronounce in English - "Joo-in" would be a pretty good approxmination. Furthermore, those who are unable to pronounce "Zhuyin" because of lack of familiarity with pinyin orthography are also likely to mispronounce "bopomofo" - as an English speaker, you would think it is something like "bow-pole-mow-foe", wouldn't you, but it isn't, it's "ball-pall-mall-fall". I am not sure Everytype has thought his point through.--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I most certainly have thought this through. Four syllables of Pinyin mean nothing to anybody except people who speak Chinese. Most English speakers would pronounce this with [ʒ] as in Zhivago, not [dʒ] as in Joo as you suggest. As an English speaker I pronounce it [boʊpoʊˈmoʊfou] and I am not at all bothered by the fact that it might be [bɔpɔmɔfɔ] in Chinese. Note, please, that I have used proper IPA here, not some naïve transcriptions. I am not under any "misapprehensions". I know what I am talking about. Most people who encounter Bopomofo in an English language context will do so via the International Standard
ISO/IEC 10646 or Unicode. The common name for this script in English is Bopomofo. Whatever its name is in Chinese is really unimportant. Moreover, the article has been here for eleven years and failed to attract consensus for moving only three months ago. What are you trying to do? "Zhuyin fuyao" might as well be a menu item in a restaurant for all most English speakers know. This article, and its findability by users of the encyclopaedia, is not improvied by your proposal. -- Evertype·✆
10:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Evertype, you continue to labour under the misapprehension that (1) the world revolves around technical computer standards, (2) that readers of the English wikipedia would not be able to pronounce "zhuyin" simply because "zh" is not a commonly encountered letter combination in English (at least, that's what I think you are arguing), and that (3) ease of pronunciation is somehow a reason for choosing a title in Wikipedia.
I say misapprehension, because all three viewpoints are misguided. One, the world does not revolve around technical computer standards, most ordinary people encounter these characters when they are studying Chinese, and you may be surprsed to learn that people do so from textbooks or teachers or academic articles, not from technical computer standards. Two, as you admit yourself, you don't know how to pronounce "bopomofo" properly, and if your argument is that ordinary readers of Wikipedia also do not know how to pronounce "zhuyin" properly, then it is a a non-argument because (assuming you are representative of ordinary users), the same applies to "bopomofo". Not that it matters either way because Wikipedia's naming conventions are not about what's easy to pronounce, they are about what the subject is actually called. Whether "zhuyin" sounds like a menu item to you or not is irrelevant. And for users like you who know it as "bopomofo", a redirect or a dab page can resolve any issues you may encounter.
Congratulations on being able to type IPA, you are welcome to continue typing IPA in the remainder of the discussion if you wish.
What am I trying to do? I am trying to move this page to the actual, non-ambiguous name of the subject matter, not a nickname that happens to be favoured by the comptuer technical standards community.
You raise consensus. It surprises me that you are so forgetful. If you just scroll up a little you will find that the article was moved to "bopomofo" only in 2008, after a short discussion in which only four users participated, only two of which were "yes" votes, and you were one of the two "yes" votes, followed shortly by several objections, mine included. It is disingenious for you to now claim that that article was always at "bopomofo". Unless my maths have suddenly failed me, it has not been 11 years since 2008.
You keep repeating that "bopomofo" is the common name. There is no strong evidence for that. Go to your local academic library and you will find many textbooks teaching the Chinese language using zhuyin fuhao. This is the official name, and in the absence of proof that "bopomofo" is an unambiguously common name, the official name should be used. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
No English speaker knows what "Zhuyin fuyao" means—unless they have studied Chinese, which most people don't. Anyone who tries to pronounce it will pronounce the zh as [ʒ] as in Zhivago, not [dʒ] as in Joo as you suggest. So not only will they not recognize the word, but they won't pronounce it correctly (and never mind the tones).
I have made a lot of edits since 2008. Why would I remember any particular move? I remember moving
The Hatter
.
You're happy to criticize me for favouring the name used in a ubiquitous technical standard. Anyone who encounters Bopomofo on a computer will, if they try to find the name of any of those characters, find "Bopomofo". Not Zhuyin fuyao. I have no idea what Zhuyin Fuyao means. Phonetic something, I guess. I haven't learnt what fu means, or yao, or what they mean together, and I won't remember it one way or another because I'm not learning Chinese. Sure next you'll be wanting to move
Kuàizi, won't you? The Wikipedia is not a Chinese language course. When "Bopomofo" gets half a million hits on Google and "Zhuyin fuyao" only 4% of that, I'm happy to say that Bopomofo is the more common name. -- Evertype·✆
15:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
No one is asking you to understand what "zhuyin fuhao" means in Chinese. G-hits are notoriously bad indicators of common usage in the real world, and has no value when we have hard sources. Both issues are addressed in more detail below. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no need to go to diffs, see #Requested move (2008) above. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Evertype, if you are willing to step outside of the world of technical computer standards for one minute, please consider a very old piece of evidence that was presented many, many years ago now in the history of this article. The Oxford English Dictionary says this about zhuyin: "zhuyin zimu, n. The national phonetic alphabet of China made up of symbols based on Chinese characters, first adopted in 1918. Also ellipt. as zhuyin." By contrast, it says this about bopomofo: "no search results". The OED is usually regarded as an authoritative arbiter on the meaning of words in English, and it strongly suggests that zhuyin, or zhuyin zimu is an English term that refers to these symbols, but it does not recognise bopomofo as an English term.
If you are willing to accept that evidence raised by both sides to date have not been able to sway the other side into consensus, then I propose to simply follow the OED and nominate "zhuyin zimu" or "zhuyin" as the article title, and offer that solution as a compromise. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I am not, because the Zhuyin zima and Zhuyin are no less foreign terms than Zhuyin fuyao and that is hardly a "compromise". The Chinese National Body supported that name they report directly to the highest authority in China. With regard to the OED, the fact that the 1989 edition didn't have Bopomofo reflects only on the slowness of the editorial policy of the OED (understandable given their scope) but it does not account for 500K hits for "Bopomofo" and 20K hits for "Zhuyin fuyao" or 6K hits for "Zhuyin zimu". I don't know what it is that you ahve against "Bopomofo", but from where I sit there is no consensus to move this article. If' you'd made a case, you wouldn't get push-back. -- Evertype·✆ 15:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
No, I searched the current edition of the OED, which contains updates up to the present. You keep on saying you do not understand the meaning of "zhuyin" or "zhuyin fuhao", yet "zhuyin" at least is clearly regarded as an English word by the OED, whereas your favoured "bopomofo" is not.
It is not an argument against the OED to say you do not know the meaning of "zhuyin" in Chinese. First, as you keep on emphasising, and rightly so, the article is in the English Wikipedia and what matters is the meaning of the term in English, not in Chinese, and the OED is more authoritative than you on that matter, and secondly, it really does not matter for the purpose of naming this article whether you, Evertype, understands the word or not. There are many words on Wikipedia which I do not understand, but that does not justify me going around changing them to, for example, what I privately call them. Are you seriously telling me that you believe your Unicode standards are a more authoritative arbiter of the meaning of English words than the OED?(!)?
"Bopomofo" is used to mean "zhuyin/zhuyin zimu/zhuyin fuhao" in two contexts: colloquially by those who learnt Chinese via zhuyin, and with your Unicode technical standards. It is sufficient therefore to mention this usage in the article, as it already does. It is not appropriate for that ambiguous nickname to usurp the title of the article.
You say I don't know what it is that you ahve against "Bopomofo". My reasons are fairly clearly set out above, if you would only care to read it.
You say If' you'd made a case, you wouldn't get push-back. I submit that I clearly have made a case, you have closed your mind to it -- in fact, you have closed your mind to the OED, and that really is no way to behave in a discussion like this. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh, finally, your G-hit count is deliberately selective and misleading. The issue of G-hits has been done to death in previous discussions, refer to MR(2012)I above. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
You're not being civil, accusing me of beign deliberately selective and misleading. I googled "Zhuyin fuyao" and "Zhuyin zimu" and "Bopomofo" and wrote down the numbers, 500K, 20K, 6K. That's all. It's clear that you want to have your way. So you accuse me of closing my mind, and when anybody opposes per
WP:COMMONNAME you respond because you're not happy with that. Sorry, but it's the most common name. Whether it has been published by the OED yet is hardly relevant, considering 500K hits on Google: whatever you think of them, they are there. -- Evertype·✆
17:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I apologise if I have come across as uncivil, that was not intended. My point about G-hits is this: (i) they were discussed at length in the previous move discussion, and the difference in references to "Zhuyin" vs "Bopomofo" is nowhere near as large as the difference you report. It is disingenuous to search only "Zhuyin fuhao" (note spelling) and "Zhuyin zimu", rather than "zhuyin".
I have nothing against the COMMONNAME policy, my objection is purely because you appear to equate "technical computer standard" with "common name". No evidence has been provided that "Bopomofo" is the more common name in general usage. I fear that I am still not expressing my point to you clearly enough, since you have said repeatedly that you believe people come across these characters via a technical computer standard. Does it help if I emphasise that these symbols are primarily used in education and linguistics to denote Chinese pronunciation? Most people come across them because they study Chinese, not because they study Unicode, even though I appreciate that that may be how you came across them.
Your primary sources of evidence for your assertion about common names seems to be twofold - please correct me if I am wrong here - 1. G-hits, and 2. that "bopomofo" is used in Unicode and ISO standards. My counter-argument as canvassed above is that while both of these are very good sources for evidence of usage in a technical computing context, they are not very good evidence of usage in the English language in the wider world. I raised the OED above, do you not agree that, in the realm of the general meaning of words, the OED is more authoritative as to the meaning of words than the other sources? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
You may have seen my replies to JohnBlackburne below. In the spirit of WP:AGF and all that, could I ask you to cast aside your decided position for a moment and consider doing a few minutes of exploration as to how this page is linked to from other articles on Wikipedia? Take a look at how those articles use "bopomofo" or "zhuyin" (and variants) within the text. I was somewhat surprised at the result myself. Let me know what you find and what you think. Thank you in advance for keeping an open mind. --18:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: bopomofo is ambiguous, and can be compared to the unqualified word, "alphabet" (alpha beta, a b). That sequence of syllables is used to teach Chinese phonics without zhuyin. Most sources that I have read which mention this writing system indicate that Zhuyin fuhao is the formal name, and that bopomofo is a colloquialism, whose acceptance by definition is spotty. The new title would make the page more accessible to readers searching for this information.
    talk
    ) 01:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
There is a difference between "common name" and "colloquialism"; the latter term does not apply particularly well to terminological matters like this. -- Evertype·✆ 08:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Everytype, a colloquialism which is enshrined in some sort of computer technical documentation is nevertheless a colloquialism in the general world - and it is a jargon in the computer technical standards world. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
A colloquialism is a word or phrase that is not formal or literary and is used in ordinary or familiar conversation. Ain't is a colloquialism, as are many metaphors and idioms and most slang. "Bopomofo" is not "informal" or "non-literary", it is just one of the names of this script. You have mis-used the word "colloquialism". -- Evertype·✆ 10:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
"Bopomofo" is a colloquialism in one context and a jargon in another context, as explained above. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral: I withdraw my opposition that I stated in the previous request for rename. I don't have enough information for myself to say I support it, but as I stated earlier my opposition is weak as well. We don't have reliable sources pushing one way or the other. However, if Jiang and PalaceGuard, both of whom have long impressed me with their knowledge of Chinese language and the region even when I disagree with them, and if Shrigley, whom I've seen working on Taiwan related topics recently particularly in relation to the move, all support the move all because they say "bopomofo" is commonly used for something other than Zhuyin , then I'm willing to take their word for it. Readin (talk) 03:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose
    WP:OFFICIALNAME, use the common name instead of the official one. Also "Zhuyin fuhao" has also been used to refer to hanyu pinyin and tongyu pinyin. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk
    ) 05:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Anon user, please show a cite that "zhuyin fuhao" is another name for hanyu pinyin. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Mild preference for move, but not much in it 243 for Zhuyin fuhao vs. 396 for bopomofo in Google Scholar search. But I suspect that simply shows that computer texts outnumber educational texts in Google Scholar's database. "Zhuyin fuhao" is more accessible internationally and outside IT circles. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • oppose per
    Zhuyin Fuhao redirect.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds
    16:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
JohnBlackburne, most of the incoming links link to this page through the template "Types of writing systems", i.e. a single instance repeated across all the articles which use that template, where, in fact, the link is piped to appear as "Zhùyīn fúhào" on the page. They should either be considered as one link, or a reference to "zhuyin fuhao" rather than "bopomofo" but which is piped rather than redirected, presumably for coding parsimony. Would you be willing to reconsider your vote with that consideration in mind? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I had a look and Template:List of writing systems (which I presume you mean) is included in 193 articles: [1]. There are over 1000 links to this page. So it only accounts for a minority of them.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I do not have the technical know-how to quickly analyse all 1000 links, JohnBlackburne, but just taking a quick sample from the first 50 links, apart from many that are linked as described above via
Chinese input methods for computers had two links which both appear as "Zhuyin", and no mention of "bopomofo", and Ruby character
had three links, twice appearing as "zhuyin" and once as "zhuyin fuhao". ("Bopomofo" is mentioned once as an alternative name for "zhuyin", while "zhuyin" is mentioned a totla of seven times).
This seems to suggest that while usage in templates is varied, and "bopomofo" appears in the very frequently used template:Chinese, in actual body text usage "Zhuyin" seems to occur more frequently.
As an aside, as you may have read above, I still believe the most powerful indicator against "bopomofo" is the OED, which mentions "zhuyin zimu" and "zhuyin" as English language names for the writing system, but does not mention "bopomofo" at all. The OED is not an encyclopaedia, and it would not have included these foreign-derived words unless they were established English words.
Would you be willing to reconsider your vote in light of this? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
No. My reason is still
zhuyin fuhao, the suggested move target, there's no indication it is commonly used on WP. And if the OED does not even mention Bopomofo I would dismiss it as a useful guide on this.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds
18:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I do not follow your argument for dismissing the OED. The OED is a comprehensive dictionary of words in the English language, if a word is not recorded in it, then it is evidence (though not conclusive proof) that it is not recognised as a word in the English dictionary. In a discussino about whether "foreign-derived word A" or "foreign-derived word B" is the common English word for something, it must be eminently relevant if "foreign-derived word A" is included in the OED as an English word and "foreign-derived word B" is not. We have quite a good article at Oxford English Dictionary if that is helpful.
I also do not follow why you are looking only at where the link lands, rather than what the text actually says in the article. If this really is an argument about how words are used, I would have thought words on the page was what mattered.
However I can see you have made up your mind and it will be futile to try to sway you further. For the purpose of preserving a record for future move discussions, could you please elaborate on what basis you have decided that "Bopomofo" is the common name? I ask because I am not convinced of such by the evidence raised. Was it the google hits count, or was it the usage in Unicode/ISO standards, or was it something else? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I would like to point out that recognizing that the OED has a certain editorial practice and a doubtless huge backlog is not "dismissing" the OED. Just because they haven't got round to publishing an article on Bopomofo does not mean that it isn't a word, or a valid word. And they'll certainly notice the 500K Google examples when they get round to it. -- Evertype·✆ 19:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I've been asked by the two primary combatants here to chime in. I opposed the move from zhuyin above. To me, saying "bopomofo" is like saying "the ABCs" rather than "the alphabet". It sounds a bit silly. Also, Unicode decisions are not a good reason for a move: there are lots of Unicode names we don't use; they were created for a specific purpose which does not apply in general. However, I can't agree with some of the arguments for move presented here: It doesn't matter if "zhuyin" is official (no more than the Unicode argument), and "bopomofo" is certainly not ambiguous in English, which is the only language that matters for us. Also, my impression is (though this is OR) that it was much more familiar than "zhuyin" before its adoption by Unicode. So, as I see it "zhuyin" is more formal, "bopomofo" more familiar. — kwami (talk) 19:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comments Trying to cut through some of the weeds:
    • OED as mentioned by PalaceGuard above is a
      reliable source
      for English in general. Of everything presented so far, I believe this would be the only one that would stand up to scrutiny under Wikipedia guidelines.
    • Unicode/ISO usage can be presumed to be supportable by reliable sources, but shows a particular usage rather than general usage.
    • Anecdotal evidence is better for showing that something happens but not for showing something never happens. That is based on my experience, I can verify that people I know use "bopomofo" to mean Zhuyin, but I can't verify that no one uses it for other meanings. It sounds like PalaceGuard grew up in China and used "bopomofo" to mean Pinyin. This establishes two different uses for the term, but does nothing to tell us which is more common.
    • While we've established by anecdote that "bopomofo" may mean different things in Chinese, we don't have any reliable evidence one way or the other for English.
    • Most of the other arguments (including my own) have been speculative in nature. Readin (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Perhaps indeed Zhuyin was more prevalent before the advent of the Bopomofo script in Unicode, but then (this might be OR too) almost nobody in the English-speaking world would have encountered it much. Nowadays everybody has fonts in their operating systems which contains the characters (that's verifiable, if the operating system is anywhere near modern), and if they try to get info on them, they'll get the name "Bopomofo".
      • That said, however, while, yes, OED is a "reliable source" it is not the only one, and we are supposed to use our intelligence. Their latest citation for zhuyin is 1979, more than a decade before Unicode, and we are allowed to take the 500K Google hits into account. In fact the OED's entry (zhuyin zimu) is the one that gets the fewest hits! It's clearly not the most familiar name. -- Evertype·✆ 19:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
        • "and we are supposed to use our intelligence" Actually, we're not supposed to use it too much. See
          WP:OR. Can you provide us examples of the other reliable sources? Readin (talk
          ) 20:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. I see no evidence (other than anecdotal evidence) that "bopomofo" is the common name, other than the fact that Wikipedia and ISO uses it, but overly pedantic and ambiguous common names are not supported by policy even if they are common. "Bopomofo" is not the name of the system - it is just the first few symbols in its phonetic ordering. Note: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." "When there is no single obvious term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering the questions indicated above." --Jiang (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

WP:ENGVAR

The spelling has gotten inconsistent. Per WP:ENGVAR and this edit, the usage for this page was established as American English. It should kindly be maintained pending a new consensus to the contrary. — LlywelynII 04:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Article currently refutes its own claim of 1:1 mapping between Pinyin and Zhuyin/Bopomofo

In the Comparison section this claim is made:

Zhuyin and pinyin are based on the same Mandarin pronunciations, hence there is a 1-to-1 correspondence between the two systems. In the table below, the 'Zhuyin' and 'pinyin' columns show equivalency.
(Emphasis added)

Then in the second table below that, under the heading Vowels u, y there is a column that illustrates clearly the very opposite of the claim:

Two sounds are given in IPA as "uɤŋ" and "ʊŋ". Each has a 1:1 mapping with pinyin in "weng" and "ong". But then they both share a single zhuyin/bopomofo 2:1 mapping to "ㄨㄥ".

How should we deal with this internal inconsistency? — Hippietrail (talk) 08:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

It is pinyin "weng" if it is at the beginning of a syllable, and "ong" if there is an initial consonant. The correspondence is 1-1 if you consider complete syllables. Standalone ㄨㄥ is always "weng". —Kusma (t·c) 11:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes I eventually reached the same conclusion. The wording should be amended to say this as the syllable-based correspondence is not intuitive to non-Chinese speakers and the claim or the table just looks wrong on the face of it. — Hippietrail (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Maybe a footnote after 'show equivalency' that says something about weng and -ong could do the trick, but I don't have a perfect suggestion how to do it. —Kusma (t·c) 17:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Old books

Frederick William Baller called Bopomofo as "National Script Symbols" in his coursebook on Mandarin.

An Idiom a Lesson: A Short Course in Elementary Chinese By Frederick William Baller

http://books.google.com/books?id=ALRDAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Kuoyü and Phonetic Bible

https://archive.org/details/rosettaproject_cmn_gen-

https://archive.org/details/rosettaproject_cmn_gen-3

http://www.language-archives.org/item/oai:rosettaproject.org:rosettaproject_cmn_gen-3

talk
) 16:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

https://archive.org/details/rosettaproject_cmn_gen-1

https://archive.org/details/rosettaproject_cmn_gen-2

https://archive.org/details/rosettaproject_cmn_gen-1_audio-1

Bopomofo?

Okay seriously, who changed Zhuyin to this? It's true Bopomofo could be alternatively called Zhuyin. But it should not replace the name of this title. I looked up, the "concensus" for the move actually consists of only a few "agrees". I can't believe the administrator would move such an important page into a incorrect name over just a few invalid "opinions"

So here are the reasons why it should not be called Bopomofo:

1. As the above says, Bopomofo could also refer to Pinyin. By saying Zhuyin = Pinyin is a totally inaccurate. That actually also explains why if you do a google search you get more for Bopomofo not Zhuyin.

2. Bopomofo is not the official name. Since I was a Taiwanese student, the textbooks, dictionaries or national exams refer it as Zhuyin Fuhao not Bopomofo. Bopomofo is like a slang. So if you don't understand this, think of ABC as alphabets. The official name for it is "Latin Alphabets", you don't call it as "ABCD".

So same as Zhuyin, you call it "Zhuyin Fuhao" not "Bopomofo" just like how you should not call "Latin Alphabets" as "ABCD".

3. Goggle search produce more Bopomofo results not Zhuyin? Again, Bopomofo could refer to Pinyin and we all know how many people there are in China that use Pinyin system. This is not an accurate indicator. If you just type in "ABC" rather than "Lain Alphabets" I bet you get more searches from "ABC". What kind of logic is this?

Someone has to change this back. This is such a joke.

talk
) 13:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times before and each time the decision has been to use the current name. Consensus can change, and editors can be are often are persuaded by good arguments and evidence, so there is nothing to stop you starting another requested move discussion. But you should first review the previous discussions to see if your points have already been considered, as if you just make the same arguments again without new evidence it it likely the move request will fail.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I did, and as I said the opposing opinions are not valid and I addressed why it's invalid with my 3 points. If these 3 points have already been addressed but ignored, that is unfortunate and there's no point to start a request then. I'm just surprised that wikipedia would move a page through just a few flawed opinions.
talk
) 18:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
The issue is that there is a group of very vocal users who are approaching the issue from their computer-centric perspective, in which they value the "official" name used by computer standard-setting organisations above actual usage in the real world. For those of us who oppose that view on the basis of real world usage, there seems to be no way out because the voting is a game of numbers - if your opponents cannot see the real world arguments because they do not value the real world, then tough luck.
I believe the tide of time is on our side, because Wikipedia users will over time become composed more of normal people than computer specialists, so over time the argument that real world usage trumps computer standards should become more convincing. In the mean time the only thing we can do is ensure that the article's content is accurate. Wikipedia, afterall, is meant to be an encyclopaedia about the real world, not just about computers.
Or, we could just petition the ISO to change the ridiculous name they have decided to use! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Lead

Remember that we should not include the mess of transcriptions and translations in the lead since we already have all of them available to the curious in the {{

WP:MOS-ZH
and take it up there if you strongly disagree with the policy.

Also, there's apparently disagreement with where this page should be located. I'm not on one side or the other (I see Bopomofo and Zhuyin both used and can let someone else figure out which is the overall ENGLISH COMMONNAME) but we should start the lead sentence with whichever is being used. — LlywelynII 02:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

One (zhuyin fuhao) is the official name, the other (Bopomofo) is a colloquial name. The article is at the latter because a view has been taken that the latter is the "common name", but (I think) it is not disputed that the former is the official name. Accordingly, it makes sense to address both in the lead like other articles that deal with things with both an official and a different common name. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Writing

Unlike Hanyu Pinyin, Zhuyin aligns well with the hanzi characters in books whose texts are printed vertically, making Zhuyin better suited for annotating the pronunciation of vertically oriented Chinese text.

That's biased. The author was clearly against the "communist" Pinyin. Why would anyone use vertical Pinyin (Latin letters) in a text? If you have a vertical Chinese text you could still put the Pinyin above the characters. You don't need to put it next to them. Yes, if you really want the transliteration next to the characters, Zhuyin looks better, but that doesn't mean that vertical text also requires vertical transliteration. --2.245.206.58 (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed - makes no sense. The proper way to print pinyin in vertical text is to print it sideways, the same way that Roman alphabet text is usually printed in such contexts. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Etymology of ㄘ

In the etymology section the origin of ㄘ is explained as:

  • "Variant of 七 qī, dialectically ciī. Compare semi-cursive form and seal-script ."

Now instead of using a graphic for a semi-cursive form I would prefer using the non-cursive character 𠀁 (cf. the corresponding entry in the Unihan database where it is defined as "the original form for 七"). Any objections? Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bopomofo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Etymology of ㄊ

The bopomofo character ㄊ is used to spell the sound /tʰ/. The page here says:

From 𠫓 tū, upside-down form of 子 zǐ ( and in seal script)

Meanwhile, Wiktionary's entry says:

Derived from

Mandarin
: tū).

The Wikipedia derivation is purportedly from the Wenlin Software for learning Chinese. However, the phonetic basis for this derivation seems shaky at best. Meanwhile, although the Wiktionary entry currently has no references (i.e. cites), the Chinese Wikipedia article for ㄊ seems to corroborate Wiktionary's information more than the English Wikipedia's.

Does anyone have any further information about the etymology of this ㄊ glyph? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

They're not conflicting, but Wiktionary's explanation makes it clearer. The glyph 𠫓, according to
Shuowen, originates as the upside down form of 子. That does not mean 𠫓 is etymologically related to 子. Justinrleung (talk
) 23:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Character for the Neutral tone dot

I notice that there has been disagreement between Weijibaaike and LiliCharlie as to what the correct Unicode character is for use as the dot marking the neutral tone ([2], [3]). The Unicode Standard ch. 18 Table 18-8 clearly indicates that the character to use is U+02D9 DOT ABOVE, which is a spacing character. There is no doubt in my mind that U+02D9 is the correct character to use in horizontal layout, and Katakana Middle Dot used by Weijibaaike is definitely wrong. For vertical layout the Unicode Standard is not so helpful, but using <br> plus Katakana Middle Dot is certainly not a good idea; it would be better to use U+0307 COMBINING DOT ABOVE as that should be displayed above the Bopomofo letter, even in vertical layout. BabelStone (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi BabelStone, I think the problem is not which unicode is correct. And unicode itself is the problem. It is better to replace the "misleading" example with the images from the official website. --Weijibaaike (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

letter "ㄧ"

The letter "ㄧ" is written in different styles both horizontally and vertically. "丨" is used horizontally, while vertically "ㄧ" appears more. In mainland China, the style "丨" is more commonly used; therefore, it is officially adopted in Chinese dictionary. Aaron Zhu (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

For more details concerning this matter, and a proposed Unicode encoding using standardized variation sequences, see Eiso Chan and Selena Wei (2018): Proposal to define Standardized Variation Sequences for BOPOMOFO LETTER I. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Bopomofo

  • It is also known as Bopomofo (ㄅㄆㄇㄈ) for the first four syllables in the Mandarin Phonetic symbols.
  • The first four symbols in the system are bo, po, mo, fo, hence Zhuyin is also known as bopomofo to some westerners.

The above two sentences are basically the same, so I deleted the second sentence. Menchi 06:58 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

No big deal.... it's like QWERTY keyboard Shencypeter (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Origins

What's the rationale behind ht echaracter shapes? Are they simplifications of something? Arbitrary? -- Error

Not all are arbitrary. Many have visible traces: ㄅ (b) ← 白 (bai), ㄆ (p) ← 波 (po). Can you see the "bones"?
But the creators (including Woo Tsin-hang) actually never published the origin I believe. And the "theories" I've read are post hoc.
--Menchi 03:34 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Added the origins of those symbols without dispute @ #Symbol origins. --Menchi 02:20, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)
The Chinese version of this article has a good chart detailing the origins of all the symbols. I believe that is my source. --OneTopJob6 00:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


In the origins chart, some of the symbols were blank boxes, and some of the items didn’t make sense, so I plan to clean it up a bit. I rely on the authoritative 漢語大字典 Hànyǔ Dàzìdiǎn, and extensive reading of ancient through archaic graphical forms through various etymological works. I show here the earlier versions plus my planned imminent changes for your convenient comparison, to facilitate any discussion required. This is a big project so I am first posting some of the planned changes (worded as if already changed, so I don't need to alter every verb when I implement this) and the rationale, and once I've filled in all the items I will make all the changes if there are no well-informed objections.


original
ㄝ (e) ← 也 (yě); cp. ancient Seal form
new
ㄝ (e) ← 也 (yě)
Reason for deletion: The zhuyin symbol ‘’much’’ more closely resembles the modern 也 (just without the downward hook on the first, horizontal stroke) than it does the ancient seal form , so the inclusion of the "cp." reference isn't very useful to the average reader, even though the zhuyin symbol could in theory be distilled from either one. It also resembles, btw, this 信陽楚簡 bamboo graph from the Warring States period more closely than the seal form:


old
ㄞ (ai) ←[empty box was here] (hài); ancient form of 亥
new
ㄞ (ai) ← (hài); ancient form of 亥
The graph was missing. I have added the closest of the ancient forms I could find: from a middle Zhou dynasty bronze vessel, the 號季子白盤 Hào Jì Zĭ Bái Pán; it’s almost identical to ㄞ except for an extra stroke atop it. If anyone locates a closer form, please replace this of course.


old ㄟ (ei) ← 乁 (yí) [not 飞 (fēi)]
new ㄟ (ei) ← 乁 (yí, an obsolete graph meaning 移 yí, to move) [not 飞 (fēi)]
乁 (yí) is obsolete, and not a graph the layman will be familiar with, which is why many may jump to an assocation with the more familiar飞 (fēi). 漢語大字典 Hànyǔ Dàzìdiǎn p.20c confirms yí, an obsolete graph from Shuōwén, synonymous and homophonous with 移 yí, to move. I believe that adding a brief explanation as above will help clarify.


ㄉ (d) ← 刀 (dāo)
No changes; I merely note out of interest: the minor stylistic difference at the upper left is archaistic. Cf. OB and bamboo forms.


ㄌ (l) ← 力 (lì)
No changes; I merely note that the stylistic difference at the upper left is common in calligraphy, in case anyone was wondering.


old ㄘ (c) ← [graph missing] (cī, now pronounced qī); ancient form of 七; '7'
new ㄘ (c) ← (cī, now pronounced qī); seal and semicursive forms of 七; '7'
Yes, the seal and semi cursive forms have the final, downward flick which the modern 七 lacks. The semicursive is not exactly ‘ancient’, either, btw.


old ㄅ (b) ← 勹 (bāo); ancient form of 包
new ㄅ (b) ← 勹 (bāo); top portion of 包
No, 勹 (in this graphic form) is emphatically not the ancient form of 包. It is, rather, quite clearly the ‘’extraction’’ of the ‘’modern top portion’’ of the ‘’modern’’ character 包. (The ‘’ancient’’ top portion was , not 勹. The former is the seal version of the latter, but they are not the ‘’same’’. Furthermore, is not the historical 包 graph, but rather the graphic extraction of its ‘package’ component by 許慎 Xŭ Shèn in 說文解字 Shuōwén Jiézì so that he could use it as a 部首 bùshǒu (section header). Forgive me if I split hairs, but philology demands precision.
To clarify on the seal forms, Shuōwén lists two graphs, and . The former corresponds to (i.e., is the seal form of the artificial graphic extraction or component) 勹 while the latter corresponds to 包. We cannot say that the obviously ‘’modern’’ 勹 is the ancient form of its complete character 包, which is what the original Wiki entry said. Nor is it ‘’safe’’ to say that is the ancient form of 包 because the former doesn’t appear, AFAIK, anywhere except in Shuōwén, and I strongly suspect that this was merely one of the many ‘graphic extractions’ by Xŭ Shèn for the purposes of building his section headers (部首 bùshǒu (classifiers)), rather than an actual character in use (please feel free to identify any actual example in use, outside of dictionaries quoting each other, if you disagree). The full character 包 was, rather, .
In sum, it only makes sense to refer to the modern zhuyin symbol of ㄅ as being equivalent to 勹 (bāo), which is the (modern) top portion of 包. Adding the seal form of 勹 does not help explicate the symbol ㄅ, nor is it meaningful to confound the whole seal form with its 部首 bùshǒu graphic extraction.


ㄨ (u) ← ㄨ (wǔ); ancient form of 五
Yes, I can confirm this. The ㄨ form, found on items as early as 二里頭 Èrlĭtóu and 小屯 Xiǎotún pottery, as well as on the oracle bones at 安陽 Ānyáng, is thought to be earlier* than the X form with bars top and bottom. It was also used as late as the Warring States period in the eastern regions, as evidenced by its inclusion as the inappropriately named 古文 in Shuōwén. * source: 趙誠 Zhào Chéng (1988) 甲骨文簡明詞典 – 卜辭分類讀本
ISBN 7-101-00254-4
/H•22.


old ㄓ (zh) ← [graph missing] (zhī); ancient form of 之
new ㄓ (zh) ← (zhī); seal form of 之
Graph added. Yes, this form is based on some OB, stone, seal and bronze forms. The seal form adequately represents the ancient forms in this case.


old ㄋ (n) ←乃 (nǎi)
new ㄋ (n) ← and File:Nai3 chu silk form.png; archaic forms (here seal and Warring States Chu silk manuscript) of 乃 (nǎi)
Graphs added. This is not so much an extraction from 乃 (nǎi) as the original Wiki entry implies. Rather, through much of its history, 乃 was written in a manner similar to ㄋ. I have selected the two most similar here, but the archaic form extends to the beginning, as illustrated in the oracle bone form .


old ㄒ (x) ← 丅 (xià); ancient form of 下
new ㄒ (x) ← 丅 (xià); a seal form of 下
More specifically one of the two seal forms given in Shuōwén. I write “a” seal form as it is not the only one. Another has a crooked tail, and a small horizontal stroke resembling the modern dot.


ㄙ (s) ← 厶 (sī); ancient form of 私
Yes, the compound 私 sī meaning ‘grain’ was borrowed phonetically as a variant way to write its phonetic element 厶 sī, which meant ‘private, personal’ etc.. Eventually the variant form 私 supplanted 厶 and lost its meaning of ‘grain’. For the meaning ‘private’ of厶, I present the following evidence: 1) Xu Shen quotes the 韓非子 Hánfēizĭ as saying 自營爲厶, i.e., 厶 means 自營 zì yíng ‘self-profiting, selfish’. 2) In his SW commentary under ㄙ sī, 段育裁 Duàn Yùcái notes 公私字本如此, i.e., 私 meaning ‘private; selfish’ was originally written thusly, i.e., as ㄙ. ㄙ also appears contrasted with 公 in《藝文類聚》卷五十一引三國 吳環濟 《帝王要略》：爵有五等, 公者,無ㄙ也。 Dragonbones (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm really sorry to have to say this, but isn't this original research?
Does the "漢語大字典 Hànyǔ Dàzìdiǎn...and various etymological works" contain anything specifically about the origin of zhuyin symbols? Is this your own conclusions based on the "漢語大字典 Hànyǔ Dàzìdiǎn, and extensive reading of ancient through archaic graphical forms through various etymological works", or is it based on already published research regarding the origin of zhuyin symbols? LDHan (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Good question. I would answer as follows: For the most part, I'm merely adding illustrations to support the origins of zhuyin symbols as already present on the Wiki page. These are drawn from published works; the graphs are faithfully reproduced by hand and overlaid in Photoshop to ensure no significant variance, in order to produce copyright free images. When Wiki says 'ancient form of x graph', I merely go find the a relevant illustration based on a published work which I've cited. For the most part, I'm not concluding anything about the origins of zhuyin symbols not already present on the Wiki page. Furthermore:
a) I refer to the Hanyu Dazidian and Shuowen for the fact of the existence of two seal forms of 丅 (xià); a seal form of 下 (and not for the fact of this being the origin of the bopomofo symbol, which is already stated on the existing Wiki page). The suggestion to add "a" is editorial clarification. That does not constitute original research.
b) I refer to the Hanyu Dazidian for the definition of 乁 (yí, an obsolete graph meaning 移 yí, to move). The suggestion to add its definition isn't original research; it's editorial clarification, as is the more specific identification of it as the seal rather than just any old ancient form. Looking up info in an established, authoritative text isn't original research.
c) Removing the reference to the seal form in "::ㄝ (e) ← 也 (yě); cp. ancient Seal form " is editorial change for clarity, as the consulting of the established textual authority demonstrates that it bears little resemblance to the zhuyin symbol. The addition of "cp. ancient Seal form" will only confuse. This is not original research.
d) Filling in the missing graphs, when the kind of graph is already stated on the existing Wiki page, isn't exactly original research either. When it says "[graph missing] ancient form of 亥", one can refer to a spread of ancient forms in an etymological dictionary, and see the corresponding form or a variety of corresponding forms from different periods. Adding an illustration of the already stated fact isn't original research any more than adding a picture of a lawnmower is, in an article thereupon. If I were to state that no, ㄝ is based not upon 也 but upon 乜 mie1, THAT would be original research. If we can find a published article specifically stating that the creators were looking at the bronze form on a particular vessel, of course, that is better than me picking the closest version I can find. But me picking the closest version I can find, by way of illustration, is not original research establishing the fact of the ㄞ graph being based on 亥, which is the crux of the matter. My "extensive reading of ancient through archaic graphical forms through various etymological works" is not being used to support changes to the proposed origins of the zhuyin symbols; it is, rather, helpful to me in knowing what published sources to go to and how to read them. Perhaps I should have omitted that statement. Anyway, this is my interpretation of the rule, and I of course welcome discussion and disagreement. Perhaps in the 亥 case, rather than "::ㄞ (ai) ← (hài); ancient form of 亥", it would be safer to write "::ㄞ (ai) ← ancient form of 亥 (hài); cf. mid-Zhou bronze graph " ?? This way the illustration is by way of comparison rather than definitively from this particular example. Are others more comfortable with this approach? In the case of ㄘ, providing the two illustrations is a bit safer, since they do exactly match the zhuyin graph, and again, they are merely illustrative of the fact already stated on the page, rather than my own establishment of that fact.
e) In the case of "old ㄅ (b) ← 勹 (bāo); ancient form of 包" and "new ㄅ (b) ← 勹 (bāo); top portion of 包", I rely on the established published authorities of Hanyu Dazidian and Shuowen to show what the ancient form of 包 looks like. It doesn't take a genius to see that (the ancient form of 包 according to both books) does not equal 勹, which is a modern kaishu-styled bushou element. So, using published, authoritative works, it is easy to show this. That is not original research. Now, whether or not is the original form of would be problematic, if that were relevant to the change being proposed, as my original research leads me to believe that it is not the original, and merely a graphic extraction. However, I have stated this merely as an interesting aside to readers of the commentary page. I.e., even if one accepts that is the original form of based on Xu Shen's assertion to this effect (and two other minor works that parrot the assertion, with no supporting textual evidence in sight), the published fact is not that "勹 (bāo) is the ancient form of 包" but that is the original form of . No one would dispute that 勹 is the modern structural and stylistic rendering of . Clearly then, "new ㄅ (b) ← 勹 (bāo); top portion of 包" is unobjectionable.
f)The remainder of my comments above are either confirmation of the existing wiki page, in which case whether or not they are original research isn't very relevant, since no changes are being proposed, or they are similar identification of appropriate illustrations based on established, published sources. In the instance of ::old ㄋ (n) ←乃 (nǎi), I merely add the historical version(s) of nai3 which obviously correspond to the zhuyin symbol. I don't see how that's objectionable.
If there are any specific instances not already addressed here re: whether or not original research is involved I'd be happy to discuss it further. Dragonbones (talk) 09:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
A lot of the alleged "Seal Script" forms in the article are anything but. kwami (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi folks, I found this information on the origins back 2000 in the book Mandarin Phonology 國音學 published by NTNU 國立臺灣師範大學. 國音敎材編輯委員會. At that time I emailed this info to the Kenyon Chinese Listserv, and from there Jeffery Hayden reorganized the data and shared it both in his classes and the email list again. A year or two later, I believe, the info found its way onto Wikipedia without citation. I have just corrected that, adding citation from the 8th edition published in 2008. However, a few of the current explanations do not match the Mandarin Phonology 國音學 explanation, so I believe some further edits are required to update. Thanks! Gurujii (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Syllabic nasals

What about ㄯ (n), ㆬ (m), and ㆭ (ng)? Shouldn't these be also included in the mandarin Zhuyin list? Apparently they are used for transliteration of characters such as 咹, 呣, and 㕶. Those are special cases where there is no rhyme, so initial nasals become syllabic. I didn't see anywhere written that they are obsolete. Unicode doesn't say anything about that either (but for ㄮ, for example, does). In fact, ㄯ was encoded only for that purpose, while ㆬ and ㆭ also have other purposes. [4] Here is an appearance of them, but the dictionary is from 1937. Possible appearances of these characters are very rare, as they can be useful for transliteration of only a handful of characters.

On most common sites (also on Wiktionary) they are written as ㄋ, ㄇ, and ㄫ respectively, but it is almost generally accepted that ㄫ is an obsolete character. I don't think syllabic consonants should be written the same way as initial consonants, because they are obviously different, and besides, why use them when characters encoded specifically for this purpose exist? Transliteration as initial consonants appears to be a simplification, because you cannot easily write syllabic nasals with most Zhuyin keyboards, and ㄫ followed the trend. With the help of Google Translate, I have read some Chinese Wikipedia articles, but they don't seem to know the answer either.

I know this is really not a big issue, but I want everything well-defined and so it bothers me that these special characters exist, but the 'correct' way is to just use initial consonants. Are these characters historic, and I have overlooked that, or are they just so rarely used that they are almost forgotten? Garygo golob (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Erhua

A recent edit by @MwGamera: removed the word Erhua from a section but left that word in the section heading. The word doesn't appear anywhere in the article now, except in the heading. That seems odd to me. DRMcCreedy (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I was more concerned about this sentence referring to the letters as syllables before. I additionally removed the phrase "erhua-ed words", because it clearly is not a good English. Erhua can't be easily used as a verb. I replaced it with rhotacization, which should refer to the same thing in this context, and left it linked to the article about erhua. I supposed it should read better this way. But you might be right and I tried to reintroduce the term now. Is that better? – MwGamera (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes. This addresses my concern. Thanks. DRMcCreedy (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

What is that preview?

While reading through Tsai Ing-wen's page, and looking through the versions of her name and hovering over the Bopomofo, it showed surgery. What is that and how is it related? Cash713 (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bopomofo/Archive_2&oldid=1216158710"