Re: Re: [idn] Zone rules (was: wg milestones update)]

[John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>]

Maynard (and James and Tin Wee),

I think I understood this.  But many thanks for the
clarifications and my apologies for my less-than-precise
language.

   john


--On Tuesday, 01 May, 2001 20:52 +0800 Maynard Kang
<maynard@pobox.org.sg> wrote:

> Yes, that is true. But I think that is not what Tin Wee is
> trying to point out.
> > One TC character does not map to a two or more SC character
> "phrase" (the keyword being "phrase", as used by John in his
> previous mail), which is the error in John's understanding
> that Tin Wee was trying to point out.
> > TC-SC equivalence would best be described as "many cases of
> 1-1 mappings for the same source TC character" and not "1-n
> mappings" which is gives the false impression of a possible
> decomposition process where one character becomes two (e.g.
> one character "a with umlaut" -> two characters "a" + "umlaut")
> > Although one Chinese character may map to a two or more
> Chinese character phrase, that is not strictly a TC-SC
> equivalence rule, but rather just a relationship between
> synonyms (e.g. "å½?" = "é??"). The semantic meaning may be
> equivalent, but the pronunciation and number of syllables
> would be different (e.g. in English, "car" = "automobile").