Re: unified or over-unified (was Unicode CJK Language Myth)

From: Masayuki TOYOSHIMA (
Date: Mon Jun 03 1996 - 18:12:21 EDT

 Ken'ichi Handa writes :
>1) Such a character does not exist in Japan (i.e. not being used as a
>variant of Japanese glyph `choku' in Japan), but of course as far as I

 It exists.
 This GB-looking `choku' (ie. without vertical stroke at left) was fairly
 common in Japan before Meiji era(1868-). Even in Meiji era, there exist
 typefaces such as `GYOSHO-TAI' (hand-written style) in `TSUKIJI-KATSUJI'
 (one of the major printing offices existed in Tokyo) movable type set.
 They were used in printing Japanese.
 The edition diplomatique of MAN-YO-SHU (a great Japanese song book collected
 before 10th centuries) has a principle to ignore the variation between both
 `choku's, because the difference is insignificant.
 (SASAKI,Nobutsuna, et al.(1931) KOHON MANYOSHU, vol 1, p.15, p.47, qv.)
 A celebrated novelist Naoya SHIGA (1883--1971) wrote his name in the
 GB-looking glyph by hand, but on print, ordinary `choku' were used and
 was OK with him, as with his readers.
 That is how Sino-Japanese has been surviving these 1400 years :-)
>2) Even if the glyph has ever existed as Japanese somewhere in Japan,
>the glyph can't be deduced from the base glyph for Japanese `choku' by
>the generalization criterion.

 The difference may be viewed as a difference in style(SHO-TAI), not in JITAI.
 (The `TSUKIJI-KATSUJI' case above is exactly so. Other 2 cases are manuscript
  vs print, or between manuscripts).
 The JIS X0208-1996 draft mentions only MINCHO-TAI (namely Ming-dynasty-style),
 therefore that specific glyph does not come across, together with other
 common stylistic deviations such as between textbook-style (jp. KYOKASHO-TAI),
 hand-written-style (jp. KAISHO-TAI and SOSHO-TAI), or some bizarre ones
 (eg. KANTEI-RYU). cf. code-points 7CFA--7E9E : JIS X0208-1996 draft does not
 mention this kind of deviation either.
 Mapping principle between calligraphic styles is beyond the scope of the
 standard, just like other coded character sets.
>And, I don't like JISX0208 also because of its excessive unification
>done mainly to cover/correct the ambiguity of the previous version.

 Please do contribute criticisms and/or corrections.
 We are currently revising the whole thing.

Martin J Duerst <> writes:
>I have expressed this in a comment
>to the JIS commitee, not with a very satisfactory result (the main
>response I got was that JIS 212 has not yet been checked as thoroughly
>as JIS 208).

 I am sorry for delayed responces.
 I am working on the resolution list to be easily accessible by the reviewers,
 but please understand that the priority is on the draft itself.
Masayuki TOYOSHIMA / Dept. of Japanese linguistics, Faculty of Letters,
Hokkaido university, Sapporo 060 Japan, FAX +81-11-726-0919 (24h),
editor of JIS X0208-1996

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:31 EDT