Commons:Hanzi Universalization/Intro

Part of Commons:Hanzi Universalization

Simple concept: Use the principles, style, and wisdom of Chinese characters as the foundation for a new system of ideographs. The first step is basic: migrate the Chinese radical set towards a Universal radical set, representing most the common function words in a graphical way. After that, add most common concepts to the radical set.

Project Hanzi universalization (普字) seeks to use commons.wikimedia.org as a collaborative platform for the graphical and logographic redevelopment of Chinese characters (Hanzi) —to devise glyphs which omit localizing effects and best represent an ideal of optimum universalization and usability.

Hanzi is the morpheme of the Chinese language, to which varied phonetic derivatives are inherently deferential and bound to. The computing paradigm has largely been concerned with rendering Chinese glyphs for the purpose of display, as if they were as codified or fixed as alphabetical elements. The Internet paradigm should instead be concerned with facilitating the same constructive creativity which is intrinsic to the Chinese written language, and allow for the recursive creative input of artists and readers.

While the very tools and processes of character rendering are regarded within Chinese culture as a sacred art, its important to understand how the Chinese character system itself has changed over time, and how this change has been shaped by changing tools. Chisel on bone long ago gave way to brush and ink, but the basic concepts are still the same; semantic elements (concepts) are represented as glyphs, each of which serve the purpose of communicating discrete ideas across mutually unintelligible spoken languages.

Simplified Chinese characters (jiantizi) were born from a modern intellectual desire to shift Hanzi towards a system that is less graphically complex and more facile. The Simplification project could only go so far as to affect certain standard radicals and characters (the Kangxi 214), but not to reorder or redefine them. We believe that the Internet paradigm now makes it possible for new generations to bring the universal and artful elements of Hanzi to transcend even its source cultures, to find a central place in the world's communications.

The concept represents a change both in the usage of Hanzi characters, as well as in their place in the world. For Westerners, Hanzi occupies a mystical place which, on its surface, seems to run against many Western concepts of form and function. In the East, Hanzi are the cherished vehicle for the continuity of a vast and deeply spiritual culture, within which are worlds of divergence and distinction. We believe that this project should represent a middle ground between these disparate requirements of functionality and cultural wisdom. In this regard, we submit that in all ways, changes must be undertaken with the greatest respect, and in the deepest reflection of the highest human principles and ideals of freedom, goodness, and continuity.

Concepts

The central criticism of this general idea is the polysemy of smaller symbol sets, which causes relative ambiguity in translation that cannot be dealt with objectively. Smaller sets require each symbol to be used in multiple ways, while extensible sets allow each concept to be mapped to a unique symbol. Where written language is concerned, the idea of using ideograms solves only the basic problem of sharing a similar sign for a particular concept. On its own, a system of symbols will do nothing to describe how that sign would be used in combinations to be understood as a either a refined particular or a generalized abstract.

Language, regardless of whether one uses signs or syllables, is not infinitely extensible and each language is in essence a system by which outward symbolic notation (again, sign or sound) is compacted. In spoken language, a word's case, declension, tense, and so on are simply sub-systems wherin words are modified in some uniform way to represent a more refined concept. A look at how languages work, however reveal some similar rules (syntax and grammar) among ostensibly different languages, which reveal a common ways by which phrases are constructed and marked, to provide for an understanding of meaning. Much of language rests on inflection, or the usage of some external gesture in combination with signs in order to give a clearer meaning.

For the linguist, language meaning rests on varied cues and symbols which are inextricably entwined and balanced. For the symbolist, language begins with atomic concepts, and when given enough of them in a semantic field, a language will emerge. Regardless if the communication is word or sign, both rest upon the understanding of the concept, and the process of communication is dependent upon the understanding of the mode which is being used. At the core of any language are the shared concepts, which both must have in order to understand their communication: (If the concept is missing, some other process of interrogation ensues, by which party B can get "clear on the concept" that party A is speaking or writing of).

All language depends on certain elementary principles, such that when communicated, words form a string of symbols which need to be received in the same order they were given, in order to make sense. If you read this sentence backwards... sense much make won't words the. So sequence (or order) is the first element of language, and all languages must follow the order of time, beginning and ending its statements with start and finish symbols. (The capital letter and a period for example).

Unfortunately languages are in disagreement about which parts of a statement should come first, in the middle, and last. Languages also disagree about which forms certain clauses should take, which means that a basic sentence like "Tommy kicks the ball" (agent-verb-object ) will have a meaning of "the ball kicks Tommy" if linearily translated to an object-verb-agent language like Guarijio. Fortunately English and Chinese share an AVO typology, and this forms the second largest field after AOV, and the latter is divided among a large and divergent set of languages.

The Roman English alphabet allows great extensibility, and this allows for greater combinatorical usage ($26\times 26\times 26$ combinations for three letter words, reduced of course by how particular sounds can be made and understood for particular languages). The problem isnt a problem, as the idea of encoding primary characters into unitary glyphs doesnt infringe upon the alphabet model nor does it truly conflict with the Chinese model, if enough separation is provided. The point is that with any new mode comes a new mode or system of semiosis, which can differ either drastically or relatively little from natural language patterns. Any new system of symbols will require new language patterns, but their relationship to existing natural language patterns need not be so great.