Hello John,
On 2018/03/01 12:31, via Unicode wrote:
> Pen, or brush and paper is much more flexible. With thousands of names
> of people and places still not encoded I am not sure if I would describe
> hans (simplified Chinese characters) as well supported. nor with current
> policy which limits China with over one billion people to submitting
> less than 500 Chinese characters a year on average, and names not being
> all to be added, it is hard to say which decade hans will be well
> supported.
I think this contains several misunderstandings. First, of course
pen/brush and paper are more flexible than character encoding, but
that's true for the Latin script, too.
Second, while I have heard that people create new characters for naming
a baby in a traditional Han context, I haven't heard about this in a
simplified Han context. And it's not frequent at all, the same way
naming a baby John in the US is way more frequent than let's say Qvtwzx.
I'd also assume that China has regulations on what characters can be
used to name a baby, and that the parents in this age of smartphone
communication will think at least twice before giving their baby a name
that they cannot send to their relatives via some chat app.
Third, I cannot confirm or deny the "500 characters a year" limit, but
I'm quite sure that if China (or Hong Kong, Taiwan,...) had a real need
to encode more characters, everybody would find a way to handle these.
Due to the nature of your claims, it's difficult to falsify many of
them. It would be easier to prove them (assuming they were true), so if
you have any supporting evidence, please provide it.
Regards, Martin.
> John Knightley
Received on Sun Mar 04 2018 - 23:23:22 CST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Mar 04 2018 - 23:23:23 CST