On Wednesday, January 23, 2002, at 09:05 AM, Thomas Chan wrote:
> In other words,
> yao1 'small' TC U+4E48 or U+5E7A -> SC U+4E48
> me (as in shen2me 'what') TC U+9EBC or U+9EBD -> SC U+4E48
> mo2 (as in yao1mo2 'insignificant') TC U+9EBC or U+9EBD -> SC U+9EBD
>
Thomas, do you have a reference for U+9EBC (麼) and U+9EBD (麽) being
different? The only dictionary I have which contains both is the
(traditional) CiHai, it and it claims they're variants of each other.
Meanwhile, both Sanseido and KangXi say that U+5C1B (å°›) is a member of
the family. (KangXi says that anciently U+9EBC (麼) was written U+5C1B (尛)
. Mathews and Sanseido also remind us that U+5E85 (庅) is another variant,
and Sanseido *also* lists U+5692 (åš’).
So, Doug, you see that U+4E48 (么) could conceivably be a traditional
character in its own right *or* the simplified form for no fewer than six
(!) other ideographs.
This is the kind of mess that has discouraged anybody from doing a
systematic survey of simplifications for the Unihan database.
> The other example (U+8721 kTraditionalVariant U+8721 U+881F) is a
> mistake--the TraditionalVariant should only be U+881F.
>
Actually, no. Both KangXi and the Cihai list U+8721 (蜡) as a traditional
character in its own right, although I assume it's rare as I can't find it
in my other dictionaries.
==========
John H. Jenkins
jenkins@apple.com
jenkins@mac.com
http://homepage.mac.com/jenkins/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Wed Jan 23 2002 - 12:38:13 EST