[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Inputting mixed SC/TC (Re: [idn] A question...)
Originally send the following as a private mail to you but heck, lets
open this "profound" topic.
U+53EA is both a TC and a SC, depending how it is use, with two tone,
"zhi1" or "zhi3".
OTOH, U+986F is a TC only character which have only one tone "zhi1".
When you use U+53EA in "1 little bird" in chinese, "一只小鸟" (SC) "一隻
小鳥" (TC) then U+53EA ("zhi1") is a SC of U+96BB ("zhi1").
In the case when you use to U+53EA to mean 'Only' ("zhi3"), then using
U+96BB ("zhi1") is inappropriate.
In my case, "只顯示BIG5字集" is a valid Traditional Chinese sentence.
This is yet another example why TC-SC is not just a simple 1-to-1
ps: If chinese is "so profound" that "no one (human) can enumarate",
then should we expect a computer (or DNS) to be able to do so?
----- Original Message -----
From: "xiang deng" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Kenneth Whistler" <email@example.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: Inputting mixed SC/TC (Re: [idn] A question...)
> Mr. Kenneth,
> Chinese culuture is so profound,no one can enumerate
> all case, neither you nor me.
> The U+53EA is one case of the 1:(n+1) simplifications.
> It is simplified character.
> All variants of U+53EA are include in GBK GB13000 GB18030
> And U+7947 is a TongJiaZhi of U+53EA.
> If you decide one character is simplified of traditional
> depend on whether it is been included in BIG5 or GB, you
> don't understand the TC/SC variant issue.
> And yes, it's tiresome to keep deny a simple fact.
> There are objecting argument, I respect it.
> But, I'm not appreciate the way of deny fact.
> Deng xiang
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kenneth Whistler" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > Mr. Deng,
> > > Hi James,
> > >
> > > Maybe you not realize that your following input Chinese string
> > > is TC/SC mixed:
> > > the simplified is "鍙樉绀築IG5瀛楅泦"
> > > <u+53ea u+663e u+793a u+0042 u+0049 u+0047 u+0035 u+5b57 u+96c6>
> > >
> > > the traditional is "闅婚’绀築IG5瀛楅泦"
> > > <u+96bb u+986f u+793a u+0042 u+0049 u+0047 u+0035 u+5b57 u+96c6>
> > >
> > > your input is "鍙’绀築IG5瀛楅泦"
> > > <u+53ea u+986f u+793a u+0042 u+0049 u+0047 u+0035 u+5b57 u+96c6>
> > And perhaps *you* do not realize that U+53EA zhi3 is *also* a
> > traditional character, and that it contrasts in proper usage
> > with U+96BB zhi3, and that a normal *traditional* representation
> > of zhi3xian4 "Only show..." would be U+53EA U+986F.
> > U+53EA is also one of the 1-n simplifications that screw up the
> > SC/TC mapping in any case. In PRC orthography, it is not only the
> > simplification of U+96BB, but also the simplification for U+7947
> > (and U+7957), which is the proper adverbial particle for "only,
> > > And, do you mean User will set a cofiguration to forbiden himself
> > > his familiar character?
> > U+53EA *is* in Big-5. 0xA575. Do your homework.
> > This kind of intentionally misleading example and campaign of
> > ad hominem argumentation directed at the chair is getting
> > truly tiresome.
> > --Ken