Please stop to add the "decomposition". It is only the surface, its meaning is little. ―Gliorszio 20:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Hello Gliorszio,
- I disagree with your opinion. In my eyes, the decomposition is important and interesting, as it gives the reader the possibility to understand how the characters are composed. It actually makes sense with a lot of characters, and it helps to memorize Chinese characters as you have to reduce the number of "sub characters" in your mind to a minimum.
- Bye, --Abdull 20:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Here an opinion from another contributor:
Just like English words, as you know, Chinese characters have sophisticated inner structures, and there are already well established methods to handle them. I think in general we should be conscious of those methods and treat the structures carefully and respectfully as far as we can.
Think of following two example decompositions, which are lacking both the carefulness and the respectfulness:
Please imagine how do you feel if you find they are mentioned in their respective English entries, not as bad jokes. It'd be probably safe enough to say that they are English equivalents of some of your decompositions in their validity, and in their usefulness as memory tips for foreign learners.
I'll support what Gliorszio is doing though while the process he took might be problematic. As the one who knows your contributions on stroke numbers of the Chinese characters were thorough and accurate, I hope you realize how other serious contributors consider your decompositions, and this issue will be settled peacefully. --Tohru 18:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for the positive response. Yes, the good part of your attempts were not so bad excepting for several ones. I take up the two of them.
- The left side of 比 should not be explained as 上on their visual resemblance, because the both sides are etymologically from 人. The right side 匕, the derivation of 人, was perfect.
- 京 is a non-separable ideograph representing "a building on a hill", with the radical 亠 just for the classification. Thus 小 is not a part of it, as well as P is not a part of R.
- I feel the logical approach, decomposing kanji into the other unicode characters, was very creative and interesting but with risks of falling into nonsenses especially in those nontrivial cases. Anyway, please be aware: any attempt to explain the scheme of kanji will make sense and be much appreciated, if only it is based on a cohesively applicable, established approach. --Tohru 06:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- No problem ;-) --Abdull 12:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)