Last modified on 14 June 2014, at 17:32

Talk:与

  • Discussion
Return to "与" page.

Also traditional?Edit

Can this version of this character also be traditional Chinese? If not, why does this character show up at the Vietnamese Nom Foundation database? 24.29.228.33 23:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you can see it was in the Kang Xi cidian in the 'references' section, http://www.kangxizidian.com/kangxi/0077.gif, meaning the same as . Pistachio 23:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; can this entry be added to, making clear to our users that this character may also be a traditional character? At this moment, there's no information provided indicating this. 24.29.228.33 23:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It was a variant in the past, I don't think it's in use now as a traditional character, as far as I know. If that is confirmed by someone else then it can be updated, yes. Pistachio 23:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I think Pistachio accurately captured the essentials. Many of the characters in simplified Chinese date back thousands of years (many of the modern simplified characters derive from character forms that were used in cursive handwritting, but not in printed materials). However, that does not necessarily mean those characters are recognized as an official standard in countries that use traditional characters (Taiwan, Hong Kong etc.). These characters would be considered non-standard variants by users of traditional characters. One interesting example of this is , and . is regarded as the standard traditional character, is considered to be the standard simplified character, but is often used in handwriting by users of traditional chinese characters. It is a non-standard variant, but how would you describe it? Is it a non-standard simplified character or a variant traditional character (I have not personally seen users of simplified characters use in their handwriting, but that is obviously a subjective observation). Hopefully, this doesn't read too much like a non-answer answer. — A-cai 00:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; if there is a citation, can we just add a sentence stating that it was used as a traditional variant of character X in the past, but is not used as a traditional character today? (And also at other character entries when a similar situation occurs)? This would eliminate the confusion of why some of these are found in the Vietnamese Han character databases. 24.29.228.33 00:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be great if this could be addressed. 24.29.228.33 10:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I’ve added a usage note to this effect – “a traditional variant, not used in modern (standardized) traditional Chinese”. Hope this helps!
—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Mandarin readingsEdit

Can it be added in which contexts the three different Mandarin readings are used? 66.61.86.88 05:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)