1-The term 形声字 is found in 现代汉语规范词典 3rd edition on page 1470. By creating thephono-semantic compound article, I wanted to create the English-language article which corresponded to 形聲字.
2- My broader goal is that all the Chinese-English wiktionary articles which have the words 'Phono-semantic compound' in the Glyph Origin section should have a blue link to thephono-semantic compound article or another similar article. The concept of a 'phono-semantic compound' (or character) is difficult for many people to understand or accept, which makes learning Chinese characters more difficult because those learners don't understand why the right-hand side of the character is there. The written form of Chinese is somewhat inaccessible without understanding this concept, and a blue link invites the readers to find out about it. --Geographyinitiative (talk)19:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
I would tentatively saykeep, per Zcreator alt's comment. Hypothetically, I could imagine可口可樂 (phono-semantic matching) or基佬 (whose first character is a phonetic borrowing from English and whose second character means "guy") being described with a term like "phono-semantic compound", but in fact the term isn't used that way. As far as I know, it's only used for individual characters formed in a very specific way (with a phonetic component and a semantic component). —Granger (talk·contribs)01:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Comment: I'm concerned that this is a neologism created by Geographyinitiative as a translation for the Chinese term, and that it is not currently verifiable. I think it should be sent to RFV to see if it is attestable. If it is attestable, then I think it should be kept as the meaning of the term is not that readily ascertainable from its individual elements. If it is not attestable but it is desirable to create the term for use in Wiktionary, then move it toAppendix:Glossary and indicate clearly that it is a translation of the Chinese term. —SGconlaw (talk)02:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
I agree that if it's not attested or not idiomatic, we can just link to our glossary. A quick check of google books suggests it's not common, but probably meets ATTEST... but the rarity does raise questions about how 'set' the term could be and thus how idiomatic/nonSOP it could really be.Abstain at RFD. (No objection to moving to RFV.)- -sche(discuss)18:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Keep, as the RFV discussion has confirmed that the term is verifiable, and as indicated earlier I'm not convinced the term is readily ascertainable from its component words. —SGconlaw (talk)03:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
@KevinUp I was just reading over my comment from way back in ancient history (May 2018), and I realized that I had forgotten that I wanted to add a blue link in theTemplate:Han compound forphono-semantic compound. Right now, a casual reader of Wiktionary who is looking up a Chinese character's Glyph origin will 九成 be totally unable to decipher the meaning of 'phono-semantic compound'. With a blue link, Han_compound becomes more powerfully informative. Do you know how to add that kind of a blue link into Template:Han compound? Do you think this is a good idea? --Geographyinitiative (talk)04:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
In my opinion, the word "compound" is misleading and "phonosemantically derived character" can also be another translation of形聲字／形声字 (xíngshēngzì). So the question now is, can we find citations of the termphono-semantic compound that predates April 12, 2005?KevinUp (talk)06:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure if it makes a difference whether the term existed before 2005 or not. If it is now verifiable according to our criteria (in particular, it appears in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year), it means the term is now established. But if editors who work on Chinese entries regularly (I don't) reach consensus that "phonosemantically derived character" is a better translation of the Chinese term, then just add it toAppendix:Glossary (noting in particular that it is a translation of the Chinese term) instead of creating an entry for it. —SGconlaw (talk)06:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Weak keep: The term is attested and, admittedly, it could be seen as sum of parts, but not necessarily so, per Granger. If the term is rare, marking it as such to inform our readers about the currency would be an option, and if that tagging were there, it would present added value even if the term were sum of parts. --Dan Polansky (talk)12:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
