Re: Transcriptions of "Unicode"

From: Thomas Chan (
Date: Wed Dec 06 2000 - 22:52:32 EST

On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Kenneth Whistler wrote:

> James Kass said:
> > Consider the "teeth" ideograph(s). (Radical number 211, in
> > some radical lists.) Because this is a radical, CJK encoders
> > can select the specific desired character:
> > U+2FD2 for Traditional Chinese
> > U+2EED for Japanese
> > U+2EEE for Simplified Chinese
> a dictionary.
> > Since anyone encoding U+9F52 might see any of the above
> > three versions, my opinion is that encoders (authors) would
> > wish to explicitly encode their expected character and would
> > do so whenever they have the option.
> First of all, you missed the simplified version of 'teeth'
> at U+9F7F. If someone explicitly wants the (Chinese) simplified
> version, of course they should use that, and not U+2EEE, for
> heaven's sake.

And the "Japanese" version is at U+6B6F.

Technically, U+6B6F cannot be said to be the "Japanese" version of
'(incisor) tooth', since it is a valid vulgar variant of the
orthodox U+9F52 in "Traditional Chinese" usage.

Thomas Chan

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:17 EDT