Re: [idn] call for comments for REORDERING<024301c149a0$c65b1ee0$ec1bd9d2@temp><4.2.0.58.J.20011010135529.03d9e6a0@localhost><024b01c15847$11e8b430$0501000a@jamessonyvaio><4.2.0.58.J.20011019160708.037cccd0@localhost><017b01c15879$99dc8e20$ec1bd9d2@temp><3BD0D662.6428B3C2@zetnet.co.uk>

[Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>]

At 10:43 01/10/21 +0900, Soobok Lee wrote:

>From: "David Hopwood" <david.hopwood@zetnet.co.uk>

> > ?? Unless I'm very confused about Hangul, it is at least as much
> > phonetically-based as Latin. Hangul Jamo are letters of an alphabet,
> > which happen to be arranged in square cells corresponding to syllables,
> > instead of linearly.
>
>You are only partly correct in that Hangul is phonetic.
>
>If you ever read a hangul-to-hangul dictionary, you can find easily that
>over 70~80% of modern hangul vocabularies came from 1:1 mappings of
>Chinese words like  most english & french words  came from latin ones.
>Therefore, one hangul character carries similar amount of information
>with its chinese character counterparts.

First, the mappings are not 1:1. There are many Hanja that map to
the same Hangul (same pronunciation), and there are some Hanja
that have two or more pronunciations.

Second, the fact that much of Korean vocabulary (same for
Japanese) came from Chinese doesn't disprove that Hangul is
phonetic, in the same way as the fact that Much of English
or French came from the Latin language doesn't disprove that
the Latin script is phonetic.


>hangul/han both carries as much information  as  about 2 latins characters.

For han, Adam has shown that this easily can go up to 4.
By your arguments, this should be the same for Chinese-
origin Hangul. I would agree, and say that for names,
I expect a higher percentage of Chinese-origin Hangul
than for Korean running text.


Regards,   Martin.