 The last time the overarching idea was what information is captured by the structure of the Chinese script itself in terms of phenology, right? And then that led us to, I mean, through this kind of spiral process, let's say, we say, oh, it's the rhyme and the position of articulation of the initials. And then we find cases where we think, we're using the middle Chinese reading to say that's not true. But then we come up with proposals that make it true. So then it is true, yeah. So now the question that I wanted to ask is sort of how do we, I mean, in a sense, one of the disadvantages to non-synologists using Chinese data is that the Chinese characters are inscrutable. So one question that is, how can we kind of transliterate Chinese characters to actually represent what phonetic information is in them? And one way of putting that is like to model the experience of reading on the part of an old Chinese speaker. Yeah, we're an old Chinese reader. So that's my goal is to find a romanization for Chinese characters here. And this is, you know, thank you. You've read potentially an article that I wrote to 2015 about this because I assigned it. And my thinking basically hasn't changed, but I sort of put it aside for a while and then now I'm trying to do it more comprehensively with the intention of then using that from here on out. Yeah, although I think I haven't actually succeeded that so well because it's not working and it doesn't even matter that often. But so we remind ourselves of the Chinese hypothesis. So characters with the synchronetic would rhyme in the charging and have homo-organic initials. And then another way of putting that same observation of, you know, that a Chinese series specifies a rhyme and initial is that it specifies a syllable type. So each shi sheng series should specify a syllable type. So just giving an example, you know, this is a series we've seen before. So looking at the middle Chinese reader, we have yeah, and yeah, and yeah, and yeah. Now, if I take these back to old Chinese and you see what's there, but I should say like this is intended as kind of heuristic for the time being. So I'm just projecting the initials back according to the lecture that I gave yesterday. And then the rhymes you would not have any way of knowing that that final yaw was there. But I thought it was better to put it there than to make you think it wasn't there. But in any case, you know, the shi sheng hypothesis is telling us that everything in this series is somehow pay where I'm using the capital P to mean, you know, under specified manner of articulation, right? So one shi sheng series, one syllable type, and then this is another series we've seen before, where now, you know, I'm reconstructing, let's say the paloals to back to dentals and the red flexes back to then to fall by a meal of life. And then we can say that this series specified a syllable like two, yeah, so there you go. I think I've got a couple more, yeah. So here's another one. You know, we looked at it last time in terms of motivating the reconstruction of voiceless resonance, but now I'm looking at it just to make the point that this become character, this phonetic, specifies the syllable knock, yeah. So now the, so someone online, you haven't muted yourself and we're getting a little bit of feedback, so we can check that if you want. But now I'll point out that it's a little bit more complicated than that and you know this already, that series have sub-series, yeah. So here's some series, okay, right? And a character like this means some more being pronounced like a pay that means something like closing, right? So yeah, sorry, I haven't gotten to sub-series yet. I'm just telling you about where Romanizing, right? So I propose a Romanization that captures these two features. So it's pronounced something like pay, so we write pay, P-A-Y, yeah. And then it means something to be closing, so I would recommend to them in the superscript. Now, some people have questioned my choice of Latin for this, but I think it's perfect for three reasons. One is it's not Chinese, one is that it's not English, and one is that Latin serves a similar purpose in Romanizations of other languages like, I don't know, I should have checked this, Lydian maybe, Pyroglyphic, yeah, Pyroglyphic Lydian, yeah. So if you don't like it, then you can lead your life however you want to, but I think there are certain advantages to Latin here, yeah. So, but I do think that this is too long, right? That if you read a whole document and every time you have this little semantic radical, you saw this as a whole vestimentum, then that would get tiresome. So instead I say just vest to save space, yeah. Now, for you to know all of the different semantic abbreviations that I propose, I would have to share a document with you that 2015 article has like 20 of them, now it's sort of up to 50 or something, but I'm very happy to do that. So now let's look at this series again. So here I have, this is the kind of mother character of the series, so it's specified the syllable type and then the middle Chinese is the reading in the middle Chinese of that specific character, right? Okay, so then we have our friend vestimentum, okay, and then we could have tumulus, okay, and you see the point is I'm writing them all pay, right? Because the character itself isn't telling you the tone or the manner of articulation. So I think as a romanization of the character, we should just write the syllable type and the semantic, yeah, so here's tumulus, okay, and then there's monos, and then I'm assuming, I've tried to choose Latin words that are obvious, like that I think anyone who knows modern European language will know, so I hope that works, right? And then here's pedispe, which doesn't get shortened because pedis is already pretty short, and then lapispe, generally speaking, I at least cut off the case endings because I don't think it's very important for the romanization of Chinese, whether you look up what the gender or something was, or if you get a fancy class of it in Latin, and also the stem is what you'll know from the modern European language, right? So this is my proposal of it, you can tell me whether you think it's nice or not, yeah? So now we can do the same with this one. So we have your core, q, and then we have granun, q, and then gema, q, and serpen, q, yeah. If there's, I mean, I don't know, if anyone wants me to say more, like to point out that gema means gem or something, then I can do that, but otherwise, assuming that some of you know the Chinese characters, some of you know the Latin and the semantics aren't why we're here anyhow, yeah? Okay, and then yeah, so last of the examples, just to be systematic about it, so this one's not, right? So then we have pico, not, and bangus, not, and not orbs, and now why have I moved it over here? It's because it's on the right, yeah? So I'm also telling you the sort of structure of the character with this realization in a similar way that we do when we won't nice marry, right? Okay, and then here's femina, not, and then that's what, you know, this series would look like romanized, yeah? Okay, so now I move on to sub-series, and this is, I don't know, I think being able to capture this kind of structure is one reason why I like to romanize them, you know, to remind ourselves that the Shesham series aren't flat, and this romanization can capture the kind of nested structure of the Shesham series. Okay, so this, we looked at before, right? This is, so we've seen this in the context of reminding ourselves, or I'm reminding you now that we've seen this Shesham series in the context of me describing the fact that there isn't a B distinction, right? So these characters are A characters, and those characters are B characters, and then these are the Middle Chinese readings that we've seen before, yeah? So now we try, we can romanize them. So the first one is Q-A-Y, yeah? But then all of the characters on the right here are type B syllables, yeah? So then I think we can actually, you know, again, sort of inspired by Sumerian in terms of convention, we can say that the K-Magnum, yeah? is equal to K with superscript B, where the superscript B is telling you that this phonetic is specifying that it's a type B syllable, yeah? So when an old Chinese person was reading, we can, you know, presume that if they saw this character, they knew, oh, it's syllable type K, and for A, right? And it's a type B syllable, whatever that was for them, okay? That information is built into the structure of the characters, okay? So now I'm looking at this series, which we've seen before, it's the knock series, right? So now it has this kind of graph, this network diagram, and it has this sub-series. Now we look at the romanization, not the romanization, sorry, the middle Chinese readings of these characters. And over here, we have nia, knock, nia, chiak, nia, chiak, chiak, nia, chiak, okay? So they're almost all type B, but this one's type A, so actually, it's not telling you anything about type A and B, but it is telling you that the syllable is somehow not, yeah, coming off of, that's, you know, you have to be explicit about it. If a character like this one is built from this, as it's phonetic, all it's telling us is it's syllable type is not, right? Whereas we go over here, and we have nick, and we have peck, and we have nick, nick, yeah? And then these are different vowels, yeah? Now, you can't know yet what those middle Chinese vowels go back to, but the answer is a schwa, yeah? So these are our sort of provisional reconstructions where, you know, we should say they're not necessarily back in our character constructions, they're heuristic reconstructions for this slide, right? But so we have b-knock, a-knock, b-knock, b-knock, yeah? But then over here, we have this schwa, yeah? So in a sense, we have a violation of the Sheshen hypothesis. If, you know, you're going from like this character to this character, you'd say, oh no, this is a problem because the rhyme here is not, the rhyme here is, sorry, the rhyme here is a-knock, and then the rhyme here is a-knock, right? But, you know, I'm going to propose it sort of historically speaking, the first time, or I mean, this is a sort of a fantasy, you know, we don't know the person who did it, but we're seeing evidence of it, right? The first time someone had to write this little knuck with the schwa, there already existed some character for knuck, and so they said, oh, well, you know, I guess I should use the wrong vowel, right? But added some, you know, indication of the phonetic in order to specify the morpheme in question, and then that becomes a new, you know, sub-series in this case that specifies the different vowel, right? So if we're going to romanize it, then we say that this phonetic character is knuck, and then this one, which seeing an ass, this is what I want to capture, is that these sub-series are kind of genius-faced, right? They look back to their own mother character, in which case it's knuck with latter, now which is like the kidding or something like that. But then as a phonetic in its own right, it's specifying that the vowel is schwa, and one thing I think that this captures, which is an important thing methodologically, but I just think that's also true, which is a Chinese character can always be uniquely analyzed as having two components, one phonetic and one semantic. So there's a, you'll hear about if you read around, oh, this character has two semantics, or this character has two phonetics, and actually Shuxiang wrote the show in J2, he talks like that sometimes. But I'm proposing that we should only have recourse to that in extremists, right? That if it's possible, if you look at a character like this, you may say, oh, it has, oh, sorry, if you look at a character developed from this one, let me say, we go back and say, like if you look at this character, you might say, oh, this in the middle is a phonetic, and then there are two semantics, or you might see it as having three parts somehow, yeah? And I'm saying don't ever do that, right? Always decide this character has two parts unless it's one of the basic characters like this one. There are either a character, is the kind of mother of a whole series, or it's composed of two parts. Those are the only two options. But sorry, some point, is it like the map also like composed of two parts because it has like grass on top of it, so would it be also possible to divide it? Okay, it'll like be like paste by paste, paste it, yes, right? But then, you know, you don't need, so this is grass on top of a stone, right? So your options are these grass, the bed, and stone, the cemented, where stone, the bed, and grass, the cemented, and I'm not an expert in geography, but my understanding of this character cannot be analyzed in that way. So instead, you should see it as grass on top of a stone. Yeah, and then if someone knows what it actually means, this means like similar or something, right? Is that, it's wool, yeah? Is it like longer than I use? Yeah. Yeah, it's wool. Yeah, which means that it's similar. Yeah. Yeah, so I don't remember, you know, generally speaking, the kind of mothers of phonetic series actually go back to Oracle scriptions and can be seen as iconic, right? Which is to say like, actually, this is kind of what my evening lecture was sort of about two years ago at the summer school, is if you have like, gosh, what's a nice example. The question is sort of, the moment you use the Rivas principle, which is this principle of, you know, like writing the English word I, first person pronoun, if I write it with a picture of an eyeball, right? That's the Rivas principle, right? And all phonetic, what do I even call it? All phonetics, all semantic determiners are applications of the Rivas principle, right? So the moment you use the Rivas principle, you're not in the realm of the iconic anymore, right? But if you're in the realm of the iconic, it's not correct to analyze things as having some components. Let me make an example. Maybe there's a, is there a, no, I can't draw, okay? So no, here's something, yeah? So let's say I have this, and it represents the morphine in English, vowels, yeah, okay. And then I have another character, what's called a character, and this one, maybe we will say it represents door, yeah? I don't know anybody English vowels, so. Forgive me. That's star. Anyone, okay. I'm going to the house again. So the point I'm making is to analyze this, so we're in Oracle bone land, right? To analyze this when it's still iconic, as like somehow composed of the simple house is a mistake. It's not, it's a drawing of the door, right? Okay, yeah, I can think of this. Yeah. It's just like a grass on top of a stone, and lots like grass and stone. Yeah, yeah, if you like, we should say, I'm almost saying, you know, you play, you know what you've come to my party, you play by my rules, right? And my rules are the only way to split a Chinese character is you have to end up with one half that's a semantic and one half that's a phonetic. So if you can't do that, you're not allowed to split the character, regardless of what you're tempted to do, you know, in your fantasy life, right? And here too, it doesn't work pretty smoothly, but you're saying well, it's just one little difference, so. Oh, this is, no, like, so you're asking about this violating the traditional hypothesis. Yeah, you're right. This violates the traditional hypothesis. So, so now the question is, if we were a Popperian, we would have to say we have falsified the hypothesis. It turns out that doing Chinese historical phonology is impossible. Yeah. Okay, goodbye. Right. Well, this is just like, extension of your thought that some characters are not opposite. But you could also say that this, the blue group is not wrong. Oh, yeah, you can, like, like you could, yeah. So, I mean, if you do it there, if you do it in the left, you could also do it in the right. Yeah, I see what you're saying. And this is how I would say is, is a, you could say this character has an arbitrary relationship with this character. This one is the mother of the not family. And this one is the mother of the not family. And they have nothing problem otherwise, right? That would be fine with me. And actually, I would say that in a sense, this is that we have, you know, like, like in other realms of linguistics, people have two inclinations. There's the lumpers and there's the splitters, right? So if you're a lumper, generally speaking, you would say this is all one shesham series now. And if you're a splitter, you'll say, this is one shesham series. And this is another shesham series. And I'm sort of trying to say, I think we can have our take needed to, by recognizing that shesham series are structured. Yeah. And then, now we still have the problem that this series violates the shesham hypothesis. But I think we can kind of at least, how can I say like circumscribe the parameters of violation, which is that the only edge that's actually violating the shesham hypothesis is this one. Does that make sense? It's because, because like, like this and this, like the same wrong. This and this have the same one. This and this have the same one. This and this have the same one. This and this have the same one. This and this have the same one. So it's only here. It's only this connection where we're, where we're violating the shesham hypothesis. And then I think that, you know, the explanation ultimately is historical, which is like somebody wanted to write enough. And they only have not available to them because, you know, because the, the paleography of Chinese character was not born full grown out of the head of Zeus, right? It needed to kind of, feel from stone to stone. To use a Chinese saying. And that means that we sort of expect there to be some moments where they had to violate the rules in a sense, right? But partly actually, this is my, let's say, this is my attempt, if you like, to sublimate the shesham hypothesis, right? Which is say like the shesham hypothesis allows us to get this far. And then we see what is actually the relationship between members of a shesham series. And that sometimes it specifies more than home organic initial and rhyme, like we saw with the AB distinction. Yeah. And sometimes it, in a sense, specifies less because, because this character, if you think of it as the mother of this whole thing, you know, would have to have like an under specified value, right? But the other thing I would say is come on, schwa and are, are not, it's not, it's not like, you know, O and E, you know, and I think there, there is a rationality to it in that way. We're like a kind of pragmatic rationale. Somebody needs to write not, and they turn to not, they don't turn to no or to, you know, sprung or something. Yeah. But the, yeah, which is to say, and this is what Axel Schussel would say, there is no shesham hypothesis. It was an entirely contingent, pragmatic history, right? Like individuals were trying to write words and they made pragmatic decisions based on what words had already been written. And there's no way to divine principles. Yeah. And I think that has a kind of moment of truth to it. And we're seeing that here. But on the other hand, we need a shesham hypothesis because, because we can't ask the people, you know, what they were doing. So we need to have a sort of strong phonetic hypothesis and then see where it has to be violated. Yeah. And then is, and if those violations are kind of costly or not. Yeah. And then I think one thing that you'll realize is like, I've had to give up the shesham hypothesis here. Right. Whereas other people would say, yeah, well, vealers and glottals occurring in the same series is also a violation, but you know, these things happen. Right. So it's a question of like, which kind of for aesthetic reasons, which violations do you tolerate? Yeah. And then I'll give you an example from my childhood, which is I was told, you can't divide by zero when I was like, whatever, seventh grade. Right. And I felt like this was, this was, you know, oppression. It's like, no, I want to divide by zero or I at least want to be told something other than, you know, you just can't do it. Right. So then in college, I find out of course you can do it if you want. Right. The, but it has certain negative consequences, which is that like all numbers equal all other numbers. Right. So like, basically if you, if you have a system where there's only one number, which you could call zero, then you can divide by zero. Yeah. But you can't do anything. You can't count, for instance. Yeah. So, so I think I would say the same thing, which is like, like, like, how can I bring it back to this is like, if, so I think the uvular hypothesis, I think that in that case being dogmatic and sticking to the restriction hypothesis is still profitable. I think it's still adding, you know, insight. It's still sort of juicy to embrace the uvular hypothesis. Yeah. Whereas here, what would the analog be? The analog would be proposing a new vowel or something like, like how would we manage to make the decision hypothesis work in this case? I don't think there's, I don't think it's worth it. It doesn't look promising to me. Instead, I think it's better to say, look, sometimes they violate the decision hypothesis and it's not a good deal. Yeah. But I think that this test of like, you know, like Axel Trusfield would say to, to bathroom cigar about the uvular hypothesis, you would say, look, sometimes they violate the decision hypothesis. It's not that a good deal. Right. I say that about this case, you know, when is it okay to say that, when is it not okay to say that that, like that will, that's either an aesthetic choice, or you can say history decides the history of the discipline decide. But here, it's nice for you that the, the ones with Trump cluster. Exactly. So yeah. Yeah, it's not, not random. Yeah, exactly. You're messing with the. Extra. I think it's, I think the next thing here is doing a good job of letting you have your opinion to that. Right. Yeah. That's why I'm trying to sell you on the idea. So anyhow, so we can romanize here. Not. And I'll, I'll show this slide. Yeah. So let's do along. So yeah, so this is how, you know, now I'm representing this, this process of next game. Right. So we have here, not and then. So deep though, but I give her the endings of. Not. And then this leftover map equals no. And then we can have soul note and we can have not for, and so on. And then you always are getting an analysis of the character as opposed to one semantic and one finite. Right. And then just to point out that we have some theories on. Okay, but in this case, I can't figure out any reason for it. So I'm just using a subscription. Right. So we have the characters that come directly off the mother. And then we have. Okay. Then we have this one. Okay. And then you put a pen underneath it. But I don't know why I did that. Like, I, like. As far as I know, there's no, there's no phonetic further phonetic specific agent is being made by them. So in those cases, I was indexed with a number, but maybe, you know, you will figure out a reason for it. And this is another reason that I think this kind of romanization is good at, which is the sort of thing that people, you know, do in Sumerian is then we can, then we can have an article where you say, I think pay two should actually be whatever. You know, some further specification. Okay. So, so just this is, you know, I think a nice way of kind of presenting a Chinese character. We have the character itself, the representation of the character, right? So that keeps telling me the analysis of the character into it's semantic and it's phonetic. And, and then the middle Chinese transcription. And the nice thing I think about this presentation is, if you know a little bit about Chinese, then using these two, you can reconstruct the, the old Chinese. Okay. But in this case, we know that it must have an R in the middle, and it must be accurate. So then we, we, we with Roman, sorry, we reconstruct, you know, star, T, H, R, I, W. And then I think that's, I don't know, that's one thing that I find frustrating in general when I read historical linguistics is when someone gives me a star form and I don't have the power to generate that star form myself on the slot, right? And then, you know, the answer is usually, well, you know, if you study as my PhD student for 10 years, then you'll know why I reconstructed that way. And so this is my attempt to also kind of shorten that distance is if I give you the Romanization and the reading, then, you know, relatively easily, you should be able to generate a, at least acceptable old Chinese reconstruction yourselves. Yeah. Yeah. And I promise to use this convention hereafter, but I'm actually not going to keep that promise very well. Yeah. Okay. So now your first assignment. Choose a Shenzhen series and then Romanize the series following my conventions. Yeah. Okay. So, you know, I mean, I have no hour to make you do this, but if some of you come back tomorrow and say, oh, here's my homework, then I'll be very pleased. Yeah. And then I'll just tell you how to do it. Well, you could use my 2015 article to get some Latin abbreviations, but I don't think it's a big deal, right? Like you can use different Latin than I use, or you could do it in Swedish or something. And as far as where to find Shenzhen series, you know, if you have a favorite place, please go there. But I have made a wiki book that you can find by Google and something like GSR phonetic series or something. GSR is for the dramatic aesthetic of essence, which is a book by Anna Carlgren. And it lists all everything important to the Shenzhen series. And then that will also link you to other wiki books. So I've made one for Carlgren, one for Schussler, and one for Baxter Cigar, trying to present about 9000 characters in each case according to the analysis of those different authors. Now, they're flat, right? Like those authors present their flat series. And then generally speaking, Carlgren is a splitter and Schussler is more of a lumber and Baxter Cigar is more of lumber still. But then you can do the amastic, the whole point of the assignment, right? You can do the substructure analysis yourself just based on inspection, just based on how the character looks on your computer screen. So that's an assignment that I proposed. And that's the end of this presentation about Romanizing Chinese characters. Are there any questions? We should Romanize like the modern Chinese pronunciation. I'm not sure what you mean. Like Romanizing the characters. I mean, I don't quite understand the question. This is a modern Chinese Chinese series. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So in terms of this new book, a number of computer makes will, will be correct. Yeah. And there are notes actually on my Wiki book about places where people disagree, but not very confident. Yeah. And then it might be that, you know, that. But like, sometimes. Characters end up looking similar for purely graphic reasons. Sometimes. graphic historical reasons, which is saying there are some risks involved in using, you know, purely modern forms of the characters, but no one is going to die. So the risk is very small. It's just an exercise for, you know, an assignment for tomorrow. Yeah. Or I mean also for another day if you want, but it's an assignment if you want to do it. Okay. Any other questions? Otherwise I'll move on to the next presentation. Any questions online? Yes, it's about this slide, like the last character of this slide, like the heart is like below the big one. Yeah, but why when it comes to, it comes to a purely normalization then why the heart is on the top? It's not like downstairs. Yeah, so what I actually do, and I'm not totally married to this, but I use the colon, the mean that is below. And I use the dots to mean they're next to each other, left and right. Yeah. And then I think I use a little X if one's inside the other one. That's all described in the, in the 2015 article, but I also don't think it really matters, because the only thing that matters from a linguistic perspective is analyzing it into a phoenix and a semantic. But I do think that, well, we might as well keep track of this information for, you know, for the people who are less used to reading Chinese characters. But I think that, you know, for me visually, the difference between a dot and the colon doesn't draw attention to itself. So it's kind of nice. Yeah. And it's nice to say superscript doesn't mean on top superscript means is the semantic component. Yeah, yeah. I mean if you. So I do this all using latex, and it takes me hours and hours and hours. I would make it encourage you even to do it by hand. Yeah, hi, sorry. I still don't understand how we are supposed to make the transcription so we just for instance in Pleco like we look for classical Chinese character like, and, and then we go from there like I don't understand. Okay, here's let me just do one here actually. So this is Google. So I type in something like GSR character. PSR care PSR character wiki book. Hopefully this works. Yeah, character list for carbon's GSR so this is a wiki book I made. So, I'm just going to click randomly at the top is the cross reference to just like but I'm going to click randomly. Okay, so here's series 53. And then it's who who who who who yeah. So now you know it's a uvular series. Yeah. So, now, the first problem you'll have is what rhyme for reconstruct. Yeah, because you don't know. So what I suggest you do is just click on the character. And then it takes you to the wiki book entry. And then we go down to the pronunciation. And we see that. Whoops. We see that. Backstreet cigar reconstructed with an up. Yeah. And John, John, Sean from also reconstructed with an up. Yeah. So now, I mean, you might want to check one other character in the series or something that. But now you're already at the point where you can say this syllable type is q a right. Okay, so then if you want to romanize things. So let's go back. Like if we want to romanize this one, the third one. So 0053 be if we want to romanize that third one, it's going to be a birdie under the phonetic. Yeah, so then it would be car colon office. Yeah. So is that clear now. Yeah. Like, you can choose your favorite station series and you can romanize it. So I'm expecting that, you know, the homework might be if you just write the character, then you write the romanization. And then you write maybe the middle Chinese. And then I forget even what it was, which tone it was. Yeah, I don't get it. How the cool change to the, the, the q a on the whiteboard. So, let me take it in reverse order now for the rhyme. I just looked up the answer in wiki books. Right. I just said, back from cigar reconstruct all. And John's and Sean from Williams for off. So who am I disagree. So that's how I get the off. Right. Now the question is, how do I get the queue. The answer is I look at the series and I say, we have a mixture of stops and predictors. Yeah, we have a mixture of stops and predictors. So that's characteristic of a uv or series which is what I covered yesterday. But look, you may make mistakes, right, like, so don't don't sweat it. Shall we look at one more. Yeah, sorry. This H is the. So actually, yeah, this is a problem. This is a problem actually, this is using back through a system. Yeah, so his age is my age with the thing under it. So yeah, so there will be some problems but I think that, you know, it's good to get your hands dirty. Let's do. Let's do let's Yeah, these are some of these are too easy. Yeah. Oh, but yeah. Let's look at this one. This one's really so it'll be clear. Yeah, the fish series. Okay. So, so in this case, I'll just tell you the answer. So, yeah, this is back through reconstruction, which for me would be this. Don't worry too much about that. But in any case, it should, it will reconstruct to not be right. Because if you look at it, all of those characters are type B. And then how do you know it's off you just go look in, you know, for the answer in the the witchnery entries for those relevant characters. So this is the syllable type. And then, like, so so so fish is the mother character is just this now, but then I'll like the second one is is water and then fish. So then it's going to be awkward and then thought and then not be. I feel like there's something less than overwhelming enthusiasm for this project. Yeah. So this is a rare time that actually being session series is overspecified with the character. I know that hasn't really been as far as I know that hasn't been really well studied. And actually, like if you look at this one, Schussler and Baxter and Sagar combine these two series. So part of it's a question of like, if you're a splitter, you will tend to get less overspecified series. Whereas if you're on lump area tend to get less, less, less over Well, will you do. Yeah, yeah, yeah, no, it's going to be hard though. So watch out, because it's with an S. But you see that the fish is in there. Yeah. Yeah. So now you can see both why Carl's split it because he said it's, it's totally different initial totally been right. Yeah. But you can also see why Schussler and Baxter sort of combined because they said no look it's got the fish in it. Yeah, so we're going to do that. Yeah, yeah, they reconstructed those those that come out with an S they reconstruct now, but I would still reconstruct so so I would end up, this is, you know, just saying what would I end up doing I would end up for this series. I mean, not with no specification of a or B, because these two with the S are type, a so. Yeah, so, so I think at the, you know, at the core level what does pitch tell you, all it tells you is it's a it's a dealer nasal with the rhyme off. That's what I think. But if you're romanizing Carl's interpretation, then you would end up specifying I'd be here, but could you please show us again how you access this document and then the dictionary. Well, this document is the dictionary. Yeah. And I got to it by googling GSR character list wiki book. Oh, so this is the wiki book, and then each of the characters in it is a live link to which area. So you can click on anything, right. So like, let's actually just see what happens we can click on this, this, this one this. Yeah. And then it takes us to which area. And then we can go down to actually here you can say, which area says that it's a phonos to make a compound with fish as the phonetic, and I don't even know what this means. But as the semantic yeah. Oh, yeah, we, yeah, right. Yeah. So, so it's something that sounds like fish and something to do with me. Yeah, and then if we look at the reconstructions. So we can go down here with old Chinese back to the cigar readings for SNA and John Johnson also we construct SNA. So which area has a very six vowel school bias they always give back to the cigar reconstructions and John Johnson instructions. But that's okay with me. I don't know who did this. I mean, there's some some kid with too much time. There's hundreds, hundreds of characters in here. And then they also have like lots of dialect readings and teleographic information and so you know which an area is is a good place to. But one thing it doesn't give you is session analysis so that's what you know why you can go to my wiki book and then there are these links here. But anyhow that's. I don't know that's that's tells you how you can go about doing your homework if you want to do it. Yeah, which is to say for the for the initials do the best you can based on what you've learned so far for the rhymes look them up in Wiktion area and then use the session analysis, either in the program or Schuessler or backs or cigar as you find in one of the relevant wiki books, and then try to analyze one station series using my romanization so then you get the you get the initial from your knowledge. So you get the Latin from looking it up in back since you are or or jungle. And you get the Latin from my 2015 article, or I can send you, you know, something more updated, but actually you can write in English if you want or whatever. The point is just to experience the analysis of characters into phonetics and semantics in a way that is, you know, modeling the reading experience of a an old Chinese reader and potentially to explore some of this substructure right like in the in the series you choose is there a sub series. If there is a sub series, do you notice anything that that sub series seems to further specify phonetically. Yeah, that's the point.