Linux - SoftwareThis forum is for Software issues.
Having a problem installing a new program? Want to know which application is best for the job? Post your question in this forum.
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
I run Fedora. I use the Ibus input method. After recent updates, the character 着,zhe = English -ing ending comes out wrong.(See, even here it is wrong, if you have Chinese enabled) Where do I report this? How can I fix this? It was ok before
My students say it is wrong. It was not like that before, is this a revision. I would not write it so by hand. I dont know how it is displaying in your computer. I think there is a mistake in the program.
I attach a little jpg, a hand drawing of zhe. Please tell me if you think the one on the right is zhe, because that's what I'm getting!
Your students are not very bright if they can't tell you the difference
between Traditional and Simplified Chinese.
I asked you before:
Originally Posted by Bruce Hill
It is of course, 简体字 (Simplified Chinese). Are you perhaps looking for the 繁体字
(Traditional Chinese) character instead?
The zhe in your post #1 and the zhe in my post #2 are both Simplified.
The handwritten zhe's in your drawing in post #4 are Simplified on the left,
and Traditional on the right. They are BOTH zhe.
That just goes to show you how incredibly difficult it is to learn Chinese. We
have humble Chinese friends (few and far between) who tell us they've been
studying Chinese for over 20 years and are still studying.
You are in a better position with Fedora than some other distros for CJK.
Because the devels of SCIM work for RedHat; submitted patches to Fedora but
did not include them upstream. So the rest of us got source for scim-1.4.9
and scim-bridge-0.4.15 and scim-bridge-0.4.16 that did not include these
patches. Now they've abandoned development of SCIM and gone to iBus.
Thanks for that. I think you'll find the traditional variant is not the one on the right in my jpg. Leaving that aside: do you know where the database is for ibus? I would like to change the character I am now getting for zhe for the one I used to get.
You could be right about the students though: 他们不是很聪明
After enlarging your hand drawn characters it looks as if the one
on the right is NOT a Chinese character at all. It is close to some,
but not in any of my dictionaries. Sorry for my mistake. Maybe you
can post a screenshot of iBus actually giving you that character.
You should say 他们都不是很聪明 -- the dou indicates all and is used in
Your hand drawn character above does NOT have radical caozitou on the top.
Your hand drawn character has three heng strokes in the kou, not two. What
you drew is NOT a Chinese character. What you displayed in post #10 is the
Simplified zhe on the left, the Traditional zhe on the right.
Look at these three shots:
Simplified zhe; Traditional zhe; Simplified dao:
Notice that your hand drawn character has the same strokes on the top as
dao and the Simplified zhe ... which I believe is na, pie, heng ... you do
not have heng, shu, shu as in the Traditional zhe.
Your hand drawn character also has shu, heng zhe gou, heng, heng, heng. It
has one too many heng strokes. The Traditional zhe has two hengs there.
You either can't draw what iBus outputs, or it's outputting a Traditional
zhe and you don't want to show us a screenshot of that output.
I take that back: you are as hard to convince as I am.
I attach another screenshot from nciku, and one from mdbg. What I want to get, when I write pinyin 'zhe', is what mdbg gives me. nciku shows the 'funny' zhe, with the same meaning. Who changed it and why?
Even niku doesn't draw it like the printed character, they do the same as mdbg
Left is nciku zhe, right is the drawn correct version, from mdbg.
Last edited by Pedroski; 10-21-2010 at 05:50 AM.
You have 2 different fonts of the Simplified character zhe. I don't know which is
your screenshot from which place. You say "What I want to get, when I write pinyin
'zhe', is what mdbg gives me." Which one is that -- left or right? And where are
you inputting zhe and not getting what you've posted? I will say the one on the left
does look like shu going down through the three hungs rather than pie.
It's probably useless to ask again, but give us a screenshot from your computer when
you input zhe and get the wrong Hanzi in an actual app on your computer, not in some
online Chinese dictionary. Like this in OpenOffice.org:
In my previous post, there is a screenshot of nciku, with the funny zhe, on the left. On the right is the drawn zhe from mdbg. mdbg also displays the, in my opinion, correct zhe, a printed version of the above right zhe from mdbg
Attached here is the zhe I get from OO, which I don't like, and my students say is wrong.