Appendix talk:Unicode/Ideographic Description Characters

"Ideographic Description Characters"

The term "Ideographic Description Characters" is just about the most ridiculous term that could have been made for these characters. This is terminology might as well have been invented by Ezra Pound himself. Not all CJKV characters are ideograms (wake up people), and not all of the components of CJKV characters are ideograms. Phonetic-semantic characters, which are not necessarily ideograms nor are they composed solely of ideograms, can be described with these so-called, "Ideographic Description Characters", not to mention straight up pictographs in the CJKV character set.

"Component Orientation Description Characters" would have been a way better name- just my suggestion. It may seem obvious or silly, but can we add some kind of usage note saying that non-ideograms can be described with "Ideographic Description Characters" too? It's a very useful character set, but poor English naming- 6/10 to Unicode --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative Yes, it's a misnomer, but it's what Unicode calls them. Unicode admits that it's not the best name in the literal sense. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's the admission that you seem to be referring to: "The term “Han ideographic characters” is used within the Unicode Standard as a common term traditionally used in Western texts, although “sinogram” is preferred by professional linguists. Taken literally, the word “ideograph” applies only to some of the ancient original character forms, which indeed arose as ideographic depictions. The vast majority of Han characters were developed later via composition, borrowing, and other non-ideographic principles, but the term “Han ideographs” remains in English usage as a conventional cover term for the script as a whole." (from page 694 of the link quoted above)

I am of the firm opinion that calling all CJKV characters ideograms is a bad thing because it can cause people to think most Chinese characters have no components that are connected to their pronunciation. The truth is that most Chinese characters actually DO have components that are connected to their pronunciation. 'Sinograms' or 'CJKVgrams' would be a way better name here. It may not be appropriate to bring up this problem with the naming of 'Ideographic Description Characters' on this on this page, but when I wrote the above screed, I was simply flabbergasted that Unicode could stoop so low as to choose this kind of vulgar name which ignores the fact that 80% of Chinese characters are phono-semantic characters. Phono-semantic characters aren't ideographs (although there can be some overlap). Sad. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

"The term "ideographic" has been used not only by those who espouse its basic meaning but also by others who do not necessarily accept the concept but use the term out of mere force of habit as an established popular designation for Chinese characters. I find, to my chagrin, that in my previous publications I have been guilty of precisely this concession to popular usage without being aware of the damage it can cause. As a repentant sinner I pledge to swear off this hallucinogen. I hope others will join in consigning the term to the Museum of Mythological Memorabilia along with unicorn horns and phoenix feathers." (John DeFrancis, The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy, page 148.