From: Ben Monroe (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Jul 06 2003 - 20:09:09 EDT
Tex Texin wrote:
> On shi/jo the glyph I see in Windows charmap doesn't look
> right. Perhaps it is my particular set of fonts. I expect to
> see a radical on the right that looks like the character for
> child, and charmap shows something else. I'll wait to see if
> someone else chimes in pro or con.
The right side of the character probably has U+4E88 予 instead of U+5B50 子 (child). These two characters are different. As I mentioned before, there are several different glyphs used to write shi/jo.
Several of the forms are U+79ED 秭, U+25797 𥞗, U+25791 𥞑, and U+25771 𥝱.
These all express the value of 10^24 and are read as shi or jo, depending on your source.
> Also, I wonder what the correct thing to recommend would be?
> Assuming surrogate support was consistently available, and
> fonts were available containing this character (are there any
> today?), since the character was not generally being written
> as a single character until now (and I am still not sure if the
> pair U+79BE U+4E88 is the correct alternative), would it be
> right to recommend this for people to use in number writing
> going forward? I tend to think of Ext. B as there for historic
> and special characters, not those that might be used every day.
If you are worried about surrogate support and font availability, then U+79ED may be the best, which is attested and documented, and listed in modern dictionaries. Both Koujien and Daijirin (available online at http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/index.html?kind=jn&mode=0se this glyph for it's entry of "shi". Otherwise, go for U+25771, which seems to be attested the most in documents. Daijirin uses this glyph for it's entry of "jo", but Koujien does not list it.
However, these are not really "every day" characters, at least in my experience. Most people will know "chou", some will know "kei", fewer will know "gai", and even fewer will know "shi/jo". I would be a little surprised if many people could list the rest off the top of their head without prior special study or other references.
[For those looking for my original e-mail message that Tex responded to, I accidentally sent it under a new address forgetting to update my subscription information after my e-mail address changed. (Old one is still being forwarded to this one.)]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jul 06 2003 - 20:42:25 EDT