From: Leo Broukhis (leob@mailcom.com)
Date: Sun Jan 11 2009 - 23:34:30 CST
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Curtis Clark
<jcclark-lists@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Naturally, not in general (I wouldn't claim that any photo or any
>> drawing of a dog is a precomposed glyph), but when an attempt is made
>> to use a stylized picture in plain text but no evidence is given for
>> any semantic difference from the corresponding word spelled out, what
>> else is it if not a precomposed glyph for that word?
>
> So is 犬 a precomposed glyph for いぬ?
As a unified CJK glyph - no, because it is also present in another
independent writing system. If you had chosen a kanji specific to
Japanese, then - in absence of homonyms - it can be argued that a
kanji character is the precomposed glyph for a word spelled out in
kana that uniquely identifies that character.
Leo
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jan 11 2009 - 23:37:14 CST