Re: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval

From: Christopher John Fynn (cfynn@gmx.net)
Date: Wed Dec 24 2003 - 07:00:00 EST

  • Next message: Christopher John Fynn: "Re: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval"

    "John Jenkins" <jenkins@apple.com> wrote:

    > On Dec 23, 2003, at 4:23 PM, Christopher John Fynn wrote:
    >
    > > Remember that Unicode (not ISO 10646) was originally going to be a
    > > 16bit (plane
    > > 0 only encoding) - so I suspect CJK unification was at least partly
    > > due to
    > > space limitations.

    > No, it was not. Han would have been unified even if there had been
    > space not to do so.

    & Doug Ewell wrote:

    > I think there was something in there about fundamental
    > identity of the characters as well.

    Yes. I stand corrected.

    BTW are the classical written languages of China & Japan more or less the
    same??

    I understand that e.g. the Chinese Buddhist canon is alsoread by Japanese
    Buddhists
    without translation - so is it correct to assume that there was (/is?) more or
    less a
    common written language (at least for that kind of material) while the spoken
    languages were different?

    - Chris

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 24 2003 - 09:32:44 EST