Sinitic and Japanese names should be handled differently

First of all, I'd like to say this is a cool project. It's just that I think the schema is suitable for names that are not Chinese, Japanese, Korean, or Vietnamese.

1. Homophones tend to be an issue when dealing with such names.
- Take the file `mei.json` for instance. According to the file, "mei" means "plum" in Chinese. This is only true if the word is said with the correct tone (Chinese is a tonal language) and within a context where it would be implied that "plums" are being discussed. Disregarding tone, another possible candidate for the definition would include "beautiful."
- I will use the file `sora.json` as another example. At first glance of the file, it is clear that there are multiple candidates for the Japanese translation in the form of kanji. I would suggest using kana instead of kanji. One kanji could have multiple homophones that are names, by either its *on* or *kun* reading.

2. Such names are usually not monosyllabic or just a single character.
- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_name](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_name) (Korean and Vietnamese names follow Chinese conventions to a great extent. Japanese does to less of an extent.)

While I admit that this is a lot to take in, I would strongly suggest that you research this. Thank you for your time.

Start by reviewing the schema and the examples in mei.json and sora.json, then research how Sinitic and Japanese names are represented. Define how these categories should differ and what changes are required across the name data before implementing them. Done means the schema and affected examples consistently represent the proposed distinctions.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.