Talk:Chinese dictionary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

K.C. Tang

Thanks for all your recent corrections and improvements. However, don't you think it would be better to start a new article on Chinese vernacular literature and move these six specialized dictionaries there? The first paragraph focuses the scope to "some of the most important" Chinese dictionaries. If you're knowledgeable in vernacular lit, you could begin the article and I'd be glad to help polish it. Another idea would be to add a paragraph on specialized Chinese dictionaries of dialects, biology, Buddhism, etc., which could link to your dictionaries under vernacular literature. Best wishes. Keahapana 21:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed I thought to add a new section on specialised dictionaries, but I didn't want to disrupt the structure of the article then... now if you suggest to do so, pls do it! And yes, it'd be good to have an article about 俗文學, I might do that later. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 02:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Format change?

K.C. Tang

Thanks for correcting my mistakes about rime tables. Before I start adding specialized dictionaries into this article, I wanted to ask your, and anyone else's, opinion. Do you think I should reformat to in-line references, like Japanese dictionaries or your vernacular lit dictionaries, instead of under References? Thanks again. Keahapana 21:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

the format used in "Japanese dictionaries" looks fine (excellent article by the way), which may be followed in this one. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 00:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] On why Shi Zhou (史籀) should not be translated as the historian named Zhou

The traditional interpretation of "zhou" 籀 in the title of this work as the name of a historian has been criticized by some leading scholars in the last century or so. According to a very major and influential scholar, Wang Guowei, zhou simply meant 讀 du2, to read, interpret and explain, which was the basic scope of the historian's work. In fact, du2 and zhou4 had the same pronunciation once. Zhou4 also carries the bamboo semantic atop it for this reason (books were on bamboo slats at the time). I checked with Shuowen as well as the Hanyu Dazidian to confirm the synonymy of these two characters, and talked to a scholar at the Academia Sinica to question Wang Guowei's point, but found nothing but agreement with his position. However, there are also many scholars who do follow the traditional translation. In sum, it is controversial, and the safe route for Wiki is to transliterate (in Pinyin) the title, rather than translating it. We don't need to digress into a full explanation every time the Shi Zhou Pian is mentioned on another page, but should simply give its name as Shi Zhou Pian. References: 1) Wáng Gúowéi (王國維), ‘Commentary on the Shĭ Zhoù Piān’ (史籀篇敘錄) and ‘Preface to a Study of the Shĭ Zhòu Piān’ (史籀篇疏證序), in 《海寧王靜安先生遺書‧觀堂集林》(台北:商務印書館,1979台二版) i.e., in the Collected books of Mr. Wáng Jìng-Ān of Hǎiníng (Guan Tang Ji Lin), Shāngwù Publ., Taipei reprint (pp. 239-295).

2)陳昭容 Chén Zhāoróng (2003) 秦系文字研究 ﹕从漢字史的角度考察 Research on the Qín (Ch'in) Lineage of Writing: An Examination from the Perspective of the History of Chinese Writing. 中央研究院歷史語言研究所專刊 Academia Sinica, Institute of History and Philology Monograph. See Chapter Two 檢視王國維對〈史籀篇〉的重要觀點 (Examination of Wáng Gúowéi’s major views on the Shĭ Zhoù Piān (史籀篇)), page 17, point 1.

I have not written this into the main page because it would be a major digression; it is merely intended to present evidence and references for why I have removed the translation of the title of the book and left it simply "Shi Zhou Pian"; I will probably later incorporate the explanation into the Shi Zhou Pian page. Dragonbones (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC), comments revised Jun 6 2008.