If you need a font for Pinyin graffiti, one possible choice is MarkerScript, which is donationware. The dots over the i’s can resemble tone marks even when they’re not; but with the material best suited to this sort of font there’s probably not much chance that people won’t know just what you mean.
The top 10 destinations for U.S. students studying abroad were unchanged in the 2009–2010 school year compared to the year before. China remained in fifth place, with its numbers up only 1.7% over the previous year.
By far the largest gains of destinations in the top 25 were those by Israel (60.7% — up to 3,146 visiting students) and India (44.4% — up to 3,884). Though not in the top 25, Taiwan also experienced very strong growth at 42.4% (850 students) — far higher than any other country in East Asia.
In second place for growth in East Asia was Japan (6.6%), which will soon replace Costa Rica in the top 10 if trends continue.
For places of origin of international students studying in the United States, China was by far the leader, with 157,558 students, about 50% more than India’s 103,895 students in the States. Third and fourth places were held by South Korea and Canada, respectively. Taiwan was fifth with 24,818 students.
Previous posts on this subject:
Here’s a new book I made for fun: P?ny?n Dòngwùyuán (4.3 MB PDF).
It goes through the letters of the alphabet: A is for ?nchun, B is for b?nm?, C is for chángj?nglù, etc., all the way through Z, which is for zh?ngyú.
But X is not for xióngm?o. I’m sick of pandas. Let’s let some other animals have some time in the spotlight.
Although technically speaking the Pinyin alphabet is the same as that for English, I prefer to go with A–Z, minus V but plus Ü.
O and R were the tricky ones to find animals for.
Perhaps some teachers will print this out and hang it up in their classrooms. Or kids could use it as a coloring book. You have my permission to do just about anything you like with this — other than add Chinese characters. (The world already has plenty of material in Hanzi, but not nearly enough in Pinyin.)
I made sure to include multiples of some common morphemes (e.g., b?nm?, h?im?, and m?; èyú and zh?ngyú; h?im? and h?i’?u; niú, w?niú, and x?niú), which I hope will be useful.
For fonts, I used the Linux Libertine family.
This took me far longer to make than I thought it would, so I hope some people enjoy it or at least find it interesting.
Linux Libertine is perhaps most familiar as the font used in the Wikipedia logo. This surprisingly large font family also works well with Hanyu Pinyin, though a few adjustments need to be made before all of the fonts in this family work as they should with Pinyin texts.
Here’s how those working on Linux Libertine describe it:
We work on a versatile font family. It is designed to give you an alternative for fonts like T*mes New Roman. We’re creating free software and publish our fonts under terms of the GPL and OFL. Please have a look at the paragraph concerning the license.
It is our aim to support the many western languages and provide many special characters. Our fonts cover the codepages of Western Latin, Greek, Cyrillic (with their specific enhancements), Hebrew, IPA and many more. Furthermore, typographical features such as ligatures, small capitals, different number styles, scientific symbols, etc. are implemented in this font. Linux Libertine thus contains more than 2000 characters.
All in all: Not bad.
As of the beginning of this year, the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature no longer compels botanists to write descriptions of new species in Latin. Instead, they can opt for English, though the names of the species themselves will still be given in Latin.
As James S. Miller, dean and vice president for science at the New York Botanical Garden, noted in the New York Times earlier this week:
No longer will botanists have to write sentences like: “Arbor usque ad 6 m alta. Folia decidua; lamina oblanceolata vel elliptica-oblongata, 2-7 cm longa,” as I did in 2009, describing a new species from Mexico. Instead, I could simply write that Bourreria motaguensis was a six-meter-tall tree with deciduous leaves that were 2 to 7 centimeters long.
The change “will help to speed up the race to catalog the world’s plant life,” he added.
Elsewhere, plant biologist Jerrold Davis of Cornell University was quoted as saying that he did not think the permitted switch to English would speed things up. Nevertheless, he called the move an “overdue modernization.”
Mark Watson, of Edinburgh’s Royal Botanic Garden and secretary of the International Botanical Congress’ special committee on electronic publication, expressed the same sentiment, saying of the move away from Latin, “About time too,” adding that translation into Latin is not necessarily an easy task for researchers in countries such as China.
Davis noted, “The removal of the Latin requirement is an acceptance that English has become the language of science, and Latin has become an encumbrance rather than a facilitator of communication” [emphasis added].
Even if it does not accelerate the publishing process, the end of the Latin requirement may allow for greater inclusion of scientists from countries where education rarely includes instruction in classical languages. According to Sandra Knapp, a botanist with the Natural History Museum in London: “In places like Ethiopia, for example, people are finding it very difficult to write in Latin. But in reality everybody’s bad at it.” [emphasis added]
In case you’re wondering why I’m writing about Latin and English on a blog that focuses mainly on Pinyin and Sinitic languages, I’m struck by the parallels between the position of Latin in the West (see Françoise Waquet’s terrific Latin, or, The Empire of a Sign: From the Sixteenth to the Twentieth Centuries) and (1) notions of Literary Sinitic (a.k.a. “classical Chinese”) in the Sinosphere and (2) beliefs in the efficacy of Chinese characters despite extensive problems with their near-exclusive use as a script for Mandarin. I’m pleased that scientists no longer are forced to follow a tradition that many found cumbersome and outdated.
Another noteworthy modernization in the world of scientific botany is that the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature now also recognizes publication in online academic journals as valid; print publication is no longer required.
Sources and further reading:
- Flora, Now in English, New York Times (op-ed), January 22, 2012
- Revised rules for botanical taxonomy take effect, Nature News Blog, January 9, 2012
- Botanists shred paperwork in taxonomy reforms, Nature, July 20, 2011
- Systema naturæ, by Carl Linnæus
Editions of Latin, or, The empire of a sign, by Françoise Waquet:
- French original: Le latin, ou, L’empire d’un signe: XVIe-XXe siècle
- Latin, or, The Empire of a Sign: From the Sixteenth to the Twentieth Centuries, translated into English by John Howe
- Latino. L’impero di un segno (XVI-XX secolo), translated into Italian by Alessandro Serra
- L?d?ngwén Dìguó (?????), translated into Mandarin by Chén Q?wén (???), M?otóuy?ng Ch?b?nshè (Owl Publishing Co., Taiwan / ??????)
One of the traditions in advance of Chinese New Year is housecleaning — something not among my favorite activities. But I thought I’d do a bit of housecleaning of half-finished posts and get at least one up before the new year (tomorrow). So here it is.
Although I occasionally bemoan the fact that relatively few font families are made such that they can handle Hanyu Pinyin with tone marks (at least not right out of the box), it’s worth noting that some of the commonly found fonts that do cover all of the letters and diacritics really suck at it and should be avoided when writing in Pinyin.
Typically, such fonts were designed mainly with Hanzi in mind.
Here’s one example:
That was Adobe Ming. Yes, Adobe.
I’ll go ahead and point out the obvious problems:
- inconsistent spacing between letters
- inconsistent spacing between words
- inconsistent baseline
- wrong spacing around apostrophes
- wrong style for the letter “a”
And I’m not so sure about the consistency of the x-height either. Those stubby little descenders are puzzling, too, but are not necessarily wrong.
Perhaps the designers intended these letters for use in vertically aligned text — though I don’t think these forms would work well even then. Perhaps there’s some context in which these might make sense, though I’m inclined to doubt this. Perhaps the designers have an irrational hatred of romanization and wanted to make Pinyin look as ugly as possible. Whatever the reason, even though this and the other Unicode-compliant fonts below have all of the letters with diacritics that Pinyin requires, using them for Pinyin texts would be a very bad idea.
Since there is apparently still some confusion about why the “?” form (in contrast to the normal “a” form) is incorrect, see the chart below.
Note how the odd form of the letter a does not appear in regular text or even in double-width forms; instead, it’s seen only when accompanied by a tone mark. In other words, even within individual fonts the ? form is treated not as a normal “a” that happens to look that way but as something specifically for Pinyin, which is flat-out wrong. Other than the addition of diacritics themselves, there is no reason to alter letter shapes in any way for Pinyin.
Let’s get back to the broader issue. Here are some more examples of fonts that render Pinyin in ugly ways. (Click image to view PDF.)
To aid Web searches, here’s a text list of the fonts above, none of which should be used for Hanyu Pinyin:
- Adobe Fangsong Std
- Adobe Heiti Std
- Adobe Kaiti Std
- Adobe Ming Std
- Adobe Song Std
- MS Gothic
- MS Mincho
- MS PGothic
- MS PMincho
- MS UI Gothic
SimSun is probably the least awful of the bunch. But even so, there’s no good reason to use it instead of something else that would do the job much better, such as Gentium:
Generally speaking, if you wouldn’t want to use a font for English, French, Italian, etc., then don’t use it for Hanyu Pinyin.
Say no to making Pinyin ugly!
I wish you all a happy and P?ny?n-rich year of the dragon.
Shì shíhou le
Shì shíhou le, Zh?ngguórén! Shì shíhou le
Gu?ngch?ng shì dàji? de
Ji?o shì zìj? de
Shì shíhou yòng ji?o qù gu?ngch?ng zuòch? xu?nzé
Shì shíhou le, Zh?ngguórén! Shì shíhou le
G?q? shì dàji? de
Hóu[lóng] shì zìj? de
Shì shíhou yòng hóu[lóng] chàngch? x?nd? de g?q?
Shì shíhou le, Zh?ngguórén! Shì shíhou le
Zh?ngguó shì dàji? de
Xu?nzé shì zìj? de
Shì shíhou yòng zìj? xu?nzé wèilái de Zh?ngguó
—Zh? Yúf? (??? / Zhu Yufu), recently arrested in China for just this poem
Thanks to VHM for finding the full text of this poem for me.