Talk:Stroke (CJK character)/Archive 1

The Unicode table may be merged with the "basic strokes" table. I have no idea how the cryptic Unicode character names map to the strokes' actual names, but if anyone does, please merge them. dab (ᛏ) 19:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A XML based "Character Description Language" building characters from 39 basic strokes: http://www.wenlin.com/cdl (Perhaps the future standard)212.202.70.158 23:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm really interesting by this 39 basic strokes but I didn't found the line, can you help me to find the good sentence to read. <PS: sorry for my average English, I'm french> --Yug (talk) 12:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I found it : http://www.wenlin.com/cdl/cdl_strokes_2004_05_23.pdf . I found 38 true stroke (for me "o" is not strickly a stroke, but korean people use it so.... You can be right), in which one seem to be a mistake.

Anyway, I read some of this files and then was really astonished by the work they made. So I expanded the Character Description Language article. :)

--Yug (talk) 12:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid confusion. Exploding Boy 21:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone care to create a sample character with which each stroke is given a number? -- Taku 08:30, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

See commons:Category:CJK stroke order --Yug (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that this page be moved to Stroke (CJK character). The current title doesn't follow the naming policy: it should be singular, and it should be descriptive. Exploding Boy 21:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been renamed from CJK strokes to stroke (CJK character) as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 20:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the Stroke order article be merged into this one, since it appears that a fair amount of the information is duplicated. Exploding Boy 21:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stroke order is a far more common term, so if there is a merge, I think that it should go in the opposite direction. Dekimasuよ! 00:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposition seen. Global opinion : allow an user with amateur understanding of the Stroke order and CJK strokes lead this is a mistake. --Yug (talk) 10:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC) [yug, de facto forbidden to correct mistakes and to lead this issue][reply]

I second to the proposal. The two look alike to me as well. I wonder why this didn't happen before. -- Taku 05:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between CJK and CJK(V) - why does one appear in the article title and the other in bold in the lede? Are they the same thing, could some explanation of the relationship be put in to clarify? sbandrews (t) 10:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the 'see also' there is

• CJK or CJKV

but CJKV is just a redirect to CJK (in fact a double redirect since CJK is itsef a redirect :) sbandrews (t) 10:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CJK characters are Chinese characters use in China, Japan, and Korea.

This is sometimes expand to with Vietnam, because Vietnam had used Chinese characters, but that's disappearing in Vietnam.

So commonly, we write :

• CJK, is the most use to talk of countries using widely Chinese characters ;
• CJKV to talk about ALL countries which use or have used widely Chinese characters ;
• CJK(V) to be perfectly accurate and to show that Vietnam have a lower level that others.

I think that CJK is better and less confusing for the article name, and CJK(V) is more accurate and should be use inside the article.

If you want change something, and be accurate, then I encourage you to rename this article into "Stroke (CJK(V) character)". If you want to be accessible to non-expert, keep "CJK" character.

--Yug (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this sentence - "CJK, is the most use to talk of countries using widely Chinese characters" makes little sense to me, perhaps widely is the wrong word? Is there an internet document you could reference so I could read it for myself? sbandrews (t) 17:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I try to say it again : When we talk about countries using Chinese characters, people commonly use "CJK", by convention, because China-Japan-Korea are the core of the countries using them. Some times, be exhaustive, we use "CJKV", to add Vietnam, who used Chinese characters, but have stopped to do so. A good consensus if find with "CJK(V)", which show the difference.

I haven't link in my mind. Some interesting sentences may be on www.unicode.org , on CJK, but I can't say more right now. --Yug (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thanks for that explanation. sbandrews (t) 04:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though an explanation probably appears elsewhere, it would be worth repeating it here for the uninitiated, why is this page distinct from the Stroke order page? To the untrained eye both seem to be talking about how to write chinese characters. Is this page more general in that it covers a wider *alphabet*? (for want of a better word!), sbandrews (t) 04:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the top, we have CJK Characters. These CJK characters are build using CJK strokes (the components) in the recommanded Stroke order (the "rules").

The CJK strokes are the base of CJK characters like "ABCD" in europe, while "Stroke order" is like orthograph.

In europe, alphabet and orthograph are not the same thing. In CJK countries, CJK Strokes and Stroke order are not the same thing.

CJK strokes have several famous lists (8 strokes of Yong, 16+6 strokes of the Unicode, the 39 strokes recently proposed by the Wenlin institut to the W3C), can change of shape or be merge according to the calligraphic script in use.

The stroke order "orthography" have some rules, history, and variants from country to country that we can talk about. And this is clearly not a part in "CJK strokes".

--Yug (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current section Stroke (CJK character)#Write CJK strokes is misleading because it was writ[tten] for the stroke order article, and then move[d] here. This section will have to be writ[ten] again according to its new plance, in the "CJK strokes" article. --Yug (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear what 'write CJK strokes' means, write is the imperative, it sounds like you are giving an order :) sbandrews (t) 10:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O.o It's not my meaning... Can you correct this, it's more a "How to" --Yug (talk) 08:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see, then you could say either 'How to write CJK strokes' or just 'Writing CJK strokes', the second one sounds slightly more natural to me, sbandrews (t) 10:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, in next cases feel free to correct it, that's simply more efficient. --Yug (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not quite precise enough,

Each single stroke includes all the motions necessary to produce a given part of a character before lifting the writing instrument from the writing surface; thus, a single stroke may produce more than one line.

More than one line makes it sound like the brush has left the paper, yet is says the brush has not left the paper? Could this be explained further? sbandrews (t) 11:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "may produce more than one line" should be understood as "may contain more than one direction", or "may be generated by more that one basic stroke"

In example :

is one stroke, named Shu, and also a basic stroke (one direction)

is one stroke, named ShuZheZhe, the sum of 3 basic strokes but written without "lifting the writing instrument from the writing surface". This stroke have 3 directions, that an editor call "line".

My English is not good enough to be able to correct such sentences myself.

Yug 16:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The Unicode "CJK Strokes" range encodes 16 basic strokes, at codepoints U+31C0–31CF (as of Unicode version 4.1):

This list is not complete for several reasons :

• this list complete the Kangxi radicals in Unicode, then strokes which are also radicals are not include ;
• this list exclude about 15 compound strokes, such ShùZhé, ShùZhéZhé, HéngZhé,...
• Unicode plans to add twenty more CJK strokes, using the codepoints 31D0 through 31E3.

Isn't this Shu zhe shu? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightofairplanes (talk • contribs) 21:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. Yug (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shù Zhé Zhé (竖折折 ) is correct as it stands; you can verify this by viewing the reference links at the bottom of the article, or looking at the Strokes Mandarin Wikipedia article, fourth column number 5.17 (𠃑). Your question perhaps highlights an opportunity for the Formation section to clarify this point. The radical 折 Zhé "break" is a shorthand for a 90 degree change of direction down or right. So for Shù Zhé Zhé the first Z indicates a direction change from vertical to horizontal, and the second Z indicates horizontal to vertical as the writing instrument is moving.

To directly answer your question, Shù Zhé Shù would mean "vertical break vertical" which does not make sense. If Zhé did not exist then it would *in theory* be Shù Héng Shù "vertical horizontal vertical"--but that is not way strokes are described.Missylou2who (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is awesome !!! It should be translated in French - i was maybe needing it since 2002... Magnon86 (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)magnon86 (i was studying Chinese, now i would enjoy Japanese though difficulties ; one day maybe i will need Korean) (cannot translate today. One day maybe.)[reply]

It's essential to add the fond and typeface used --Backinstadiums (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Page 2: 10 basic items.
• Page 2: 9 deformations.
• Page 26: 61 items.

《傳承字形筆畫表》
主編撰：內木一郎
編務協助：陳輝恒、李爾樅、鍾啟堯、佟藍歌
版本：1.26
日期：2018 年 12 月 24 日
修訂日期：2020 年 9 月 17 日
本作品以 共享創意-署名 4.0 授權條款 授權。

Source: "傳承字形筆畫表 / 傳承字形標準開源文件" (PDF). I.字坊編輯部 Editorial Board of I.Font Project. 2018. {{cite web}}: line feed character in |publisher= at position 8 (help) Yug (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cangjie6: hello, I notived you are the author of the Inherited naming scheme. Thank you for that addition :) As I'am cleaning up the List of CJK fonts I bumped into the source above, and now that I bump into your section I wonder if this may be the source of your section. Could you confirm ? Yug (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]