Re: Comments on draft-deng-chinese-names-03.txt

[Nori Demizu <[e-mail]>]

Dear Zhen,

Thank you for all your efforts to polish up your helpful document.

See my replies inline.


> From: Zhen Cao <[e-mail]>
> To: Nori Demizu <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Hui Deng <[e-mail]>, Hui Deng <[e-mail]>,
>     [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Comments on draft-deng-chinese-names-03.txt
> Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2016 14:07:33 +0800
> Message-id: <[e-mail]>
>
> Dear Nori,
>
> Thanks again for your efforts in shaping this document to the right direction.
>
> See my resolution inline and in the associated draft update.
> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-deng-chinese-names-04.txt
>
> Regards,
> Zhen
>
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Nori Demizu <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Dear Hui,
> >
> > Thank you for your detailed response.  I'm sorry for my delayed reply.
> >
> >
> >> From: Hui Deng <[e-mail]>
> >> Subject: FW: Comments on draft-deng-chinese-names-03.txt
> >> Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 19:44:44 +0800
> >> Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
> >>
> >> Hello all,
> >>
> >> We got more and more comments on this draft, and were thinking that
> >> we could resolve all of them offline, but later see that more IETF
> >> people are interested in this draft since Chinese is a quite special
> >> one to handle, which is different from Japanese, Korea, other Asian
> >> language adapted to English already.
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear Nori Demizu.
> >>
> >> Thanks a lot for you kind review
> >> Reply inline. with ==>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >>
> >> From: Nori Demizu [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2015 2:00 PM
> >> To: Hui Deng; Zhen Cao; Paul Hoffman
> >> Subject: Comments on draft-deng-chinese-names-03.txt
> >>
> >> Hello, Hui Deng, Zhen Cao, Paul Hoffman,
> >>
> >> I read your I-D <draft-deng-chinese-names-03.txt> and found it is
> >> a very interesting document.  Thank you for providing it!
> >>
> >> Let me introduce myself before writing my comments.  My name is
> >> Noritoshi Demizu (Demizu is my family name).  I am 51 years old
> >> Japanese male.  Though I cannot speak Chinese, I am a big fan of
> >> Chinese pops/music (e.g., Faye Wong, Jacky Cheung, Teresa Teng,
> >> Michael Wong, etc.).  So, I have learned entry level of Chinese.
> >> My comments are based on my understanding of Chinese basics plus
> >> some borrowed knowledge from Wikipedia pages I read these days.
> >> I am sorry if some of my understanding is incorrect.
> >>
> >> And, I am one of the authors of RFC3038.  I launched an internet
> >> drafts archive site at http://www.watersprings.org about 15 years
> >> ago and ran it until 2011.  Now it is run by Warren Kumari, an
> >> active internet researcher/engineer.
> >>
> >> ==> Great Job, thanks
> >>
> >> Below are my comments.  Part 1 proposes some minor corrections.
> >> Part 2 comments on Pinyin and Part 3 comments on Tones.  Then,
> >> Part 4 proposes additional modifications.
> >>
> >>
> >> 1.  Minor Corrections
> >>
> >> 1.1.  In the 1st paragraph in page 8 (the 4th paragraph in Section 3)
> >>
> >>  >   one character).  In this case, Chinese people speaking his name in
> >>  >   informal conversation would normally family name, and just call him
> >>  >   by using his given name, Xiaodong.
> >>
> >> At the middle of the sentence above, the auxiliary verb "would"
> >> does not have a verb.  How about inserting a verb such as "omit"?
> >> (i.e., "would normally *omit* family name")
> >>
> >> ==> Thanks, Randy send me the separate email which also mentioned this,
> >>     so this is accepted.
> >>
> >>
> >> 1.2.  In the 3rd paragraph in page 9 (the 2nd paragraph in Section 7)
> >>
> >>  >   macron (a horizontal bar), rising is with a acute accent, down then
> >>
> >> How about changing "a acute accent" to "an acute accent"?
> >> (i.e., "a" -> "an")
> >>
> >> ==> Thanks, corrected
> >>
> >>
> >> 1.3.  In Acknowledgements in page 10 (Section 9)
> >>
> >>  >   even published.  Some of the people who contributed include: Aaron
> >>  >   Ding Cameron Byrne, Fred Baker, Haibin Song, Ida Leung, Jari Arkko,
> >>
> >> At the head of contributors list, I guess a comma (,) is missing
> >> between Aaron Ding (the first person) and Cameron Byrne (the second
> >> person).
> >>
> >> ==> Thanks, corrected
> >
> > Thank you for all the corrections above.
> >
> >
> >> 2.  Pinyin
> >>
> >> 2.1.  "v" as a replacement of "u" with a dieresis
> >>
> >> According to the Wikipedia pages below, "v" is often used as a
> >> replacement of "u" with a dieresis (also known as an umlaut).
> >> Your I-D uses "v" in the same manner (e.g., "nvshi" and "nv3shi4").
> >>
> >>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinyin
> >>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaeresis_(diacritic)
> >>
> >>   (My dictionaries at hand say "diaeresis" is a British spelling.
> >>    And it is spelled as "dieresis" in American spelling.)
> >>
> >> Though this usage of "v" seems to be a common practice for Chinese
> >> people, it may not be a common knowledge for non-Chinese people.
> >> (For example, I did not know of it until I read your I-D.)
> >>
> >> How about adding a description saying that "v" is often used as a
> >> replacement of "u" with a dieresis because "v" is not used in Pinyin?
> >> If you add it, you can use "v" in Figure 2 "Pronouncing Pinyin Finals"
> >> and in the words "Nvshi" and "Nv3shi4" in Section 8 without concern.
> >>
> >> ==> thank you a lot for writing this, Randy in a separate email also
> >>     discussed, based on the comments, we have updated in ver 4 which
> >>     not yet submitted as below, hope it works for you
> >>
> >> >  v        |  Like the vowel in French "tu" or German "suess",
> >> >           |  produced by placing the tongue as for the "i" vowel
> >> >           |  while rounding the lips as for the "u" vowel.
> >> >           |  More commonly displayed as "&uuml;"
> >> >           |  Since 2012, appears in Chinese passports as "yu"
> >
> > Thank you.  It works for me.
> >
> >
> >> 2.2.  A New Reference to Pinyin
> >>
> >> How about adding the following URL as a reference to Pinyin?
> >>
> >>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinyin
> >>
> >> This page elaborates on Pinyin and the pronunciation tables in this
> >> page have more detailed explanations.  This page would be a great help
> >> to deepen reader's understanding of Pinyin.
> >>
> >> ==> I recalled that we have included this before, There were a
> >>     discussion that this draft is not the purpose of study Chinese,
> >>     so we removed it finally.  do you still think that is a value to
> >>     add this as the reference?
> >
> > Thank you for letting me know why you don't add the above Wikipedia
> > page describing Pinyin in the Informative References in your I-D.  I
> > understand that you chose not to add learning materials but to add a
> > definition of Pinyin.
> >
> > I agree with your principle.  I'd like to withdraw my proposal to add
> > the above Wikipedia page on Pinyin as a reference.
> >
> > By the way, there are other documents related to Pinyin published by
> > standards organizations.  For example;
> >
> >   * ISO 7098:1991 "Romanization of Chinese"
> >
> >     It can be purchased at ISO's following URL.
> >     http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=13683
> >
> >     It is now being revised.  The current status can bee seen at
> >     http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=61420

Just FYI.  I would like to update the information above.  The new
revision of ISO 7098 was published as ISO 7098:2015 in December 2015.
As mentioned in section 2.2 in your I-D, the initial revision (i.e.,
ISO 7098:1982) was published in 1982.  Their statuses can bee seen at
the following URLs.  Only the latest revision can be purchased.

ISO 7098:1982 - http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=13682
ISO 7098:1991 - http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=13683
ISO 7098:2015 - http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=61420


> >   * GB/T 16159-2012 and GB/T 28039-2011
> >
> >     They are published by Ministry of Education of the People's
> >     Republic of China.  They are available at the following URLs.
> >
> >     GB/T 16159-2012 (written in Chinese)
> >     "Basic rules of the Chinese phonetic alphabet orthography"
> >     http://www.moe.edu.cn/ewebeditor/uploadfile/2015/01/13/20150113091717604.pdf
> >
> >     GB/T 28039-2011 (written in Chinese)
> >     "The Chinese phonetic alphabet spelling rules for Chinese names"
> >     http://www.moe.gov.cn/ewebeditor/uploadfile/2012/06/01/20120601104529410.pdf
> >
> >   * ALA-LC Romanization for Chinese
> >
> >     (It is listed in the Informative References in your I-D.)
> >
> >     It is published by ALA-LC (American Library Association -
> >     Library of Congress).  It is available at the following URL.
> >     http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/romanization/chinese.pdf
> >
> > Could you let me know why you chose ALA-LC Romanization for Chinese
> > rather than ISO 7098 or GB/T 16159 & 28039?
>
>
> I changed to the reference to the GB/T 16159-2012.  This is definitely
> better let alone its Chinese only.

It seems that your new I-D (rev.04) does not follow your choise above.
It has references both to GB/T 16159-2012 labeled as [Romanize] and
ALA-LC's Chinese romanization document labeled as [Pinyin].

I'm afraid you unintentionally updated the reference of [Romanize],
while you intended to update the reference of [Pinyin].


> The reason why I used the ALA-LC one was it's in English...

Another reason might be that ALA-LC's document has a section titled
"Correspondence of Wade-Giles to Pinyin."  Note that the paragraph
referring [Pinyin] in section 2.1 in your I-D mentions both Wade-Giles
and Pinyin.  But if you want to focus on Pinyin there, the section is
not valuable for your I-D.


> >> 3.  Tones
> >>
> >> 3.1.  Background: Tone Names
> >>
> >> In Section 12 "Informative References", [FourTones] points to the
> >> following URL.
> >>
> >>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_tones
> >>
> >> According to the page above, tones in Chinese language vary depending
> >> on the place and the era.  It describes Four Tones in Early Middle
> >> Chinese first, then compares them with the tones in modern Chinese
> >> dialects.  According to the page above, the tone names of Four Tones
> >> in Early Middle Chinese are as follows.
> >>
> >>   - level (or even)
> >>   - rising
> >>   - departing (or going)
> >>   - entering (or checked)
> >>   [1: List of the traditional Four Tones names]
> >>
> >> On the other hand, the following Wikipedia page describes the tones
> >> in modern standard Chinese (Standard Mandarin).
> >>
> >>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Chinese_phonology#Tones
> >>
> >> According to the page above, the tones in modern standard Chinese
> >> correspond to Four Tones in Early Middle Chinese as follows; i.e.,
> >> Level (or even) corresponds to two tones (1st tone and 2nd tone).
> >> Rising and departing correspond to 3rd tone and 4th tone,
> >> respectively.  And entering (or checked) disappeared.
> >>
> >>   1st tone: dark level (dark means yin of yin/yang)
> >>   2nd tone: light level (light means yang of yin/yang)
> >>   3rd tone: rising
> >>   4th tone: departing
> >>   [2: The modern standard Chinese tones and traditional Four Tones]
> >>
> >> The Wikipedia page above also uses following words to describe the
> >> modern standard Chinese tones.  Apparently, these words are not based
> >> on the traditional Four Tones names.  (I do not know whether they are
> >> common description among Chinese people.)
> >>
> >>   1st tone: high-level tone
> >>   2nd tone: rising tone (or high-rising tone)
> >>   3rd tone: low tone (or dipping tone)
> >>   4th tone: falling tone (or high-falling tone)
> >>   5th tone: neutral tone (= qing1 sheng1 or light tone)
> >>   [3: The modern standard Chinese tones with simple descriptions]
> >>
> >> By the way, your I-D uses tone names as follows.
> >>
> >>   1st tone: level or even
> >>   2nd tone: rising
> >>   3rd tone: down-then-up (or departing)
> >>   4th tone: falling (or entering)
> >>   [4: The modern standard Chinese tones and tone names in your I-D]
> >>
> >> In this list, the order of tone names are the same with the order of
> >> the traditional Four Tones names (except "down-then-up" for 3rd tone
> >> and "falling" for 4th tone).  But the correspondence between the
> >> modern standard Chinese tones and the traditional Four Tones names
> >> is not correct (Compare with the list [2: The modern standard Chinese
> >> tones and traditional Four Tones]).
> >>
> >> From another point of view, "level" for 1st tone, "rising" for 2nd
> >> tone, "falling" for 4th tone (and probably "down-then-up" for 3rd
> >> tone) might come from the modern practice to distinguish the modern
> >> standard Chinese tones.
> >>
> >> By considering above, I guess that the traditional Four Tones names
> >> and the modern practical tone names are mixed together in your I-D,
> >> while they are incompatible (i.e., "level" and "rising" have different
> >> meanings).
> >>
> >> ==> This is very important point, also why I want to discuss it in
> >>     the IETF mailing list other than offline discussion.  The reason
> >>     we don't use [1,2,3, is because what almost all Chinese
> >>     elementary student learned is [4, other than [1,2,3.  Even = "-"
> >>     = (1), rising = "/" = (2), down-then-up = "\/" = (3), falling =
> >>     "\" = (4) and we explain it to "four tone" which is mostly
> >>     similar to we probably need to add tone number to this four
> >>     tones in the end of section 2.3
> >
> > Thank you for letting me know that all Chinese elementary students
> > learn tones as (1) even, (2) rising, (3) down-then-up, and (4) falling.
> >
> > I would greatly appreciate it if you would add tone numbers in section
> > 2.3.
>
> modified.

Thank you!


> > I also would appreciate it if you would change the term "level" to
> > "even" in the third paragraph in section 2.3, because the first tone
> > is called as "level" in section 2.3 while it is called as "even" in
> > section 7 without any note.
>
> modified.

Thank you!


> >> ==> this is very straightforward, and easily understand, especially
> >>     for foreign people to learn it.  The purpose of this draft is
> >>     also not encourage people to learn Chinese academically, but
> >>     just wanna to help IETF people to speak Chinese name easily in
> >>     a very short time.
> >
> > Thank you for clarifying the purpose of your I-D.  It's great.
> > I second your purpose.
> >
> > By the way, your I-D describes two kinds of four tones systems.
> >
> >   1. The four tones system of modern standard Chinese.
> >
> >      As you told me, there are following four main tones:
> >      (1) even, (2) rising, (3) down-then-up, and (4) falling.
> >
> >   2. The four tones system of Early Middle Chinese.
> >
> >      According to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_tones>,
> >      which is listed in the Informative References of your I-D,
> >      there were level, rising, departing, and entering.
> >      It was used from 5th? to 7th? centuries.
> >
> > (Perhaps, you may not be aware that you mention the latter four
> >  tones system in your I-D.  Both four tones systems are mixed
> >  together in the third paragraph in section 2.3.)
> >
> > Though the number of tones are the same, these two "four tones"
> > systems are not the same, as I wrote in my first e-mail.  That is,
> > the four tones system of Early Middle Chinese is an ancestor of
> > the four tones system of modern standard Chinese.  Some tone in
> > Early Middle Chinese is split into two tones in modern standard
> > Chinese while some tone disappeared.
> >
> > Although the four tones system of Early Middle Chinese often appears
> > in academic documents, I guess it does not appear in textbooks for
> > Chinese elementary students.
> >
> > Needless to say, I think it is essentially important to mention the
> > four tones system of modern standard Chinese.
> >
> > But I still don't think it is necessary to mention the four tones
> > system of Early Middle Chinese, which was used more than a thousand
> > years ago.
> >
> > So, I still would like to propose to remove the four tones of Early
> > Middle Chinese from your I-D.  That is, I would like to propose to
> > remove the term "departing" and "entering" from the third paragraph
> > in section 2.3.
>
> with the removal of 'level', i think this issue never exist.
>
> new section 2.3 is
>         Spoken Chinese also has tones (shifts in pitch) within a syllable.
>         The four main tones of Chinese are first tone (even), second
>         tone (rising),
>         third tone (down then up), and fourth tone (falling).
>         These four tones are used to clarify
>         the meanings of words.

Thank you!


> > Additionally, I still would like to propose to remove the reference
> > [FourTones] referring to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_tones>,
> > because it mainly describes the four tones of Early Middle Chinese.
> >
> >   (Chinese version of the Wikipedia page on "Four Tones (Chinese)" at
> >    <https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%9B%9B%E8%81%B2> has simpler
> >    description than English version.  You will find that it first
> >    describes the four tones of Early Middle Chinese (6th? century),
> >    then compares them with the tones of modern Chinese dialects.
> >    It also describes the differences between the four tones of Early
> >    Middle Chinese and the four tones of modern standard Chinese.
> >    English version describes the same topics in greater detail.
> >    I'm afraid [FourTones] doesn't match your purpose.)
> >
> > I believe my proposals above support your purpose in writing your I-D.
>
>
> It is supportive, and thank you for checking the details.  I have
> removed the reference to the [FourTones].

Thank you!


> >> ==> do you think that we can skip the left 3 proposals, accept 1
> >>     proposal by incorporate into section 2.3 about tone number?
> >
> > I would like to summarize my three proposals related to tones here.
> >
> >   * Proposal 1: Removing the Traditional Four Tones Names
> >
> >     In order to remove academic terminology, I still would like to
> >     propose to remove the terms of the four tones of Early Middle
> >     Chinese (i.e., "departing" and "entering") from the third
> >     paragraph in section 2.3.
> >
> >     I also still would like to propose to remove the reference to
> >     <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_tones>, which mainly
> >     describes the four tones of Early Middle Chinese.
> >
> >    (I'd like to repeat that I do think it is crucially important
> >     to mention the four main tones of modern standard Chinese.)
>
>
> accepted and modified.

Thank you!


> >   * Proposal 2: Using Tone Numbers
> >
> >     I'd like to change this proposal as below.
> >
> >     I would like to propose to use tone numbers in addition to
> >     the names that all Chinese elementary students learn.
>
> already included now.

Thank you!


> >   * Proposal 3: A New Reference to the Modern Standard Chinese Tone
> >
> >     I would like to withdraw this proposal because my proposal does
> >     not match your principle on references.
> >
> >
> >> 3.2.  Proposal 1: Removing the Traditional Four Tones Names
> >>
> >> In order to make description on the Chinese tones simple, how about
> >> removing the traditional Four Tones names from your I-D?  That is,
> >> how about removing "even" for 1st tone, "departing" for 3rd tone and
> >> "entering" for 4th tone?
> >>
> >> In addition, in Section 12 "Informative References", how about
> >> removing the following reference to traditional Four Tones?
> >>
> >>  >   [FourTones]
> >>  >              Wikipedia, "Four Tones", August 2013,
> >>  >              <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_tones>.
> >>
> >> Here are the reasons:
> >>
> >>   (1) The correspondence between the traditional Four Tones names and
> >>       the modern standard Chinese tones is a bit complex, as shown in
> >>       the list [2: The modern standard Chinese tones and traditional
> >>       Four Tones] above, especially for beginners like me.
> >>
> >>   (2) The current usage of the traditional Four Tones names in your
> >>       I-D is not correct as discussed in the previous section in this
> >>       comment.
> >>
> >>   (3) Some modern practices to call the modern standard Chinese tones
> >>       seem to be incompatible with the traditional Four Tones names.
> >>
> >>
> >> 3.3.  Proposal 2: Using Tone Numbers
> >>
> >> In order to keep away from the ambiguity of tone names, how about
> >> calling the modern standard Chinese tones by tone numbers instead
> >> of tone names?
> >>
> >> Here are the reasons:
> >>
> >>   (1) The only set of tone names I have found in Wikipedia is based on
> >>       the traditional Four Tones names, which is shown in the list [2:
> >>       The modern standard Chinese tones and traditional Four Tones]
> >>       above.  I think it is a bit complex and inappropriate for
> >>       beginners like me.
> >>
> >>   (2) My Chinese texts at hand call the four main tones of standard
> >>       Chinese by tone numbers.  They do not use tone names.  I think
> >>       most learners of Chinese language are familiar with tone numbers.
> >>
> >> Of course, I think it is important to give a short description for
> >> each tone.
> >>
> >>
> >> 3.4.  Proposal 3: A New Reference to the Modern Standard Chinese Tone
> >>
> >> In Section 12 "Informative References", how about adding a reference
> >> to the following URL, which describes the tones of modern standard
> >> Chinese?
> >>
> >>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Chinese_phonology#Tones
> >>
> >> This page elaborates on the modern standard Chinese tones.  It depicts
> >> the contours of the four main tones by diagrams (and by tone letters
> >> and tone numerals if readers understand them).  It also describes the
> >> detailed rules of the modern standard Chinese tones including neutral
> >> tone.  It would be a great help to deepen reader's understanding of
> >> the tones of modern standard Chinese.
> >>
> >>
> >> 4.  Additional Modifications
> >>
> >> 4.1.  "Han characters" in Section 2.1
> >>
> >> Hanzi is called "Han characters" in section 2.1 and "Chinese characters"
> >> in other sections.  I think many IETF participants understand what "Han"
> >> means, but some might not understand what "Han" means.  How about changing
> >> "Han characters" in section 2.1 to "Chinese characters (Han characters)"?
> >> Or "Chinese characters (Hanzi)" as in Section 2.2?
> >>
> >> ==> Section 2.2 says "Chinese characters (Hanzi)" already?
> >
> > Yes, it says.  But section 2.2 appears after section 2.1.
> >
> > I think it would be easier for readers to understand if they can
> > grasp the meaning of the term "Han characters" where it appears
> > for the first time.
> >
> >
> >> 4.2.  One Syllable for One Chinese Character in Section 2.3
> >>
> >> How about adding a description, something like "There are tens of
> >> thousands of Chinese characters.  Each Chinese character has its
> >> own meanings and is pronounced with one syllable." in Section 2.3?
> >>
> >> The reason is that I guess readers are expected to have this knowledge
> >> (especially, the relationship between a Chinese character, a Chinese
> >> word and a syllable; e.g. each Chinese character represents a word,
> >> and each Chinese character is pronounced by one syllable with a tone),
> >> but non-Chinese people might not know of this.
> >>
> >> ==> I will check Cao Zhen, come back to you later, thanks for your waiting.
> >>
> >>
> >> 4.3.  Unaspirated/Aspirated vs. Voiced/Unvoiced in Section 2.3.1
> >>
> >> How about adding a description, something like "English language
> >> distinguishes some consonants by whether they are voiced or unvoiced
> >> (e.g., between b, d, g and p, t, k), while Chinese language
> >> distinguishes them by whether they are unaspirated or aspirated."
> >> in Section 2.3.1?
> >>
> >> The reason is that some entries in Figure 1 "Pronouncing Pinyin
> >> Initials" seem to assume readers have this knowledge, but
> >> non-Chinese people might not know of this.
> >>
> >> In addition, how about adding a description, something like
> >> "For most English speakers, unaspirated and aspirated consonants
> >> in Chinese would sound like voiced and unvoiced, respectively."
> >> in Section 2.3.1, if this is true?  (It is true for Japanese)
> >>
> >> ==> I think that is not all the same, you can tell from wiki, some
> >>     of them are not explained by unaspirated or aspirated.
> >
> > Thank you.  O.K.  I'd like to withdraw this proposal.
> >
> >
> >> 4.4.  "Inflection" in Section 2.3
> >>
> >> (I am sorry the description below is a bit complex.
> >>  Fortunately, the resulting proposal is simple.)
> >>
> >> Section 2.3 uses the word "inflection" in the explanation of tone.
> >> According to the Wikipedia page below, "inflection" is a term in
> >> grammar.
> >>
> >>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflection
> >>
> >> The page above says that "In grammar, inflection or inflexion is the
> >> modification of a word to express different grammatical categories
> >> such as tense, mood, voice, aspect, person, number, gender and case."
> >> (e.g., dog -> dogs, call -> called, write -> wrote -> written)
> >>
> >> Hence, some of readers whose mother tongue has inflection could
> >> misunderstand the concept of the Chinese tone.
> >>
> >> By the way, according to the Wikipedia page below, "tone" is a term in
> >> linguistics.
> >>
> >>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_(linguistics)
> >>
> >> The page above says that "Tone is the use of pitch in language to
> >> distinguish lexical or grammatical meaning."  And there are following
> >> two types of tone systems.
> >>
> >>   * Contour tone systems (Chinese uses this)
> >>       The distinguishing feature of tones is
> >>       "their shifts in pitch (that is, the pitch is a contour),
> >>        such as rising, falling, dipping, or level."
> >>
> >>   * Register tone systems
> >>       The distinguishing feature of tones is
> >>       "the relative difference between the pitches,
> >>        such as high, mid, or low, rather than their shapes."
> >>
> >> Hence, it can be said that the Chinese tones are distinguished by
> >> "shifts in pitch" or "pitch pattern" within a syllable.
> >>
> >> So, how about explaining the Chinese tones by something like
> >> "Spoken Chinese also has tones (shifts in pitch) within a syllable.
> >> The four main tones of Chinese are first tone (high-level), second
> >> tone (rising), third tone (down then up), and fourth tone (falling)." ?
> >>
> >> ==> This part I also need to discuss with Cao Zhen, this part is
> >>     written mainly by him.thanks a lot for your waiting.
> >>
> >> Anyhow, very insight review, we appreciate your comment to better
> >> shape the document
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> DENG Hui
> >>
> >> Thank you for reading my comments.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Nori Demizu
> >
> > Thank you for reading my reply.
>
> More than welcome. Thank you again for all comments that shape this
> document towards our initial intention better.

I'm so happy if some of my comments are useful in editing your document.


By the way, in the 2nd paragraph in Section 6 "Inferring Gender from
Names" of your new I-D (rev.04), you wrote:

 >   Several facts shape the above statement.  First of all, every Chinese
 >   character can be used in names.  Secondly, some characters have been
 >   used more frequently in girl's name, and some characters have more
 >   frequent presence in girl's name.  But generally they are mixed.

In the description of the second fact, I guess you intended to
contrast girl's name and boy's name.  But the description above
mentions only girl's name.  If my guess is correct, I would like
to propose to change one of two "girl's name" to "boy's name."


Thanks again!

Regards,
DEMIZU Nori (CHU1SHUI3 Fa3jun4)


> Regards,
> Zhen
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > DEMIZU Nori