Re: Hangul and Jamo

From: Kevin Bracey (
Date: Tue Mar 02 1999 - 11:36:44 EST

In message <>
          John Cowan <> wrote:

> Kevin Bracey wrote:
> > Firstly, are characters in the Hangul Syllables block canonically
> > equivalent to their decomposed conjoining Jamo?
> Yes. This was nailed down in Unicode 2.1, not very readably to be
> sure, but there.

Yes, I found TR8 after that post. Sorry about that.

> Even though you have to pass through some compatibility
> equivalences to get there, the overall transformation between
> hangul and jamo is canonical.

But if you have to pass through a compatibility composition to get there,
it the Jamo->Hangul composition can't be canonical:

      G A N J ------------> G A NJ ------------> GANJ
               compatibility syllable
                composition composition

G A N J can't be canonically equivalent to GANJ, because if it were then

          G A N J = GANJ ("=" denoting canonical equivalence)
   and G A NJ = GANJ
  hence G A N J = G A NJ
  hence N J = NJ
but we've stated that N J is only compatibility equivalent to NJ.

So the process given in section 3.10's "Hangul Syllable Composition" will
only give you a syllable that's compatibility equivalent to the Jamo
sequence, if you actually do anything in stage 1.

The only loophole I can see in that argument is that I don't think I
could prove the assertion "A B = A C => B = C" used in the last step.

Kevin Bracey, Senior Software Engineer
Acorn Computers Ltd                           Tel: +44 (0) 1223 725228
Acorn House, 645 Newmarket Road               Fax: +44 (0) 1223 725328
Cambridge, CB5 8PB, United Kingdom            WWW:

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:44 EDT