From: Benjamin Kite (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Jun 14 2005 - 12:20:51 CDT
On Jun 14, 2005, at 8:53 PM, Tom Emerson wrote:
>> In a related discovery, Unihan doesn't seem to include a reference to
>> the semantic relationship between U+939D [...] and U+642D [...].
> And the semantic relationship is what? Both characters share the
> phonetic component da1, but the radicals are different. Which of the
> Unihan semantic categories would you suggest this relationship be
> represented as.
When referring to the farming tool, U+27C4F (𨱏) can be used
interchangeably with U+642D (搭).
I would suggest this relationship be represented as a reciprocal
>> Lastly, there is a simplified version of U+939D with the standard
>> simplification (U+9485 - îÄ) of the Kangxi gold radical (U+2FA6 - ½ð),
>> but it doesn't seem to appear in Unicode anywhere at present.
> Is this "simplified" form attested to anywhere? As you undoubtedly
> aware, the fact that the components of a full-form character can be
> simplified does not mean that they actually exist. The fact that they
> could exist is not enough to get them encoded.
Evidently the simplified form does exist, as Andrew suggested, at
U+27C4F. That was my oversight. However, since there is no
kTraditionalVariant record in U+27C4F nor a kSimplifiedVariant record
in U+939D, I would suggest that these be added. However, since I have
either overlooked or forgotten that there is a Unihan list, it seems
only appropriate that these matters be presented in that forum rather
than clogging this list with a lot of Unihan mumbo-jumbo that might
sully the otherwise enlightened conversations.
>> I'm sending this to this list because I've sent several corrections on
>> Unihan without receiving any acknowledgment.
> Sent where? Just to the list or via the feedback form on the Unicode
The information was sent only to the Unicode website.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 14 2005 - 12:23:01 CDT