Re: Inputting mixed SC/TC (Re: [idn] A question...)

["James Seng/Personal" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>]

Originally send the following as a private mail to you but heck, lets
open this "profound" topic.

U+53EA is both a TC and a SC, depending how it is use, with two tone,
"zhi1" or "zhi3".

OTOH, U+986F is a TC only character which have only one tone "zhi1".

When you use U+53EA in "1 little bird" in chinese, "一只小鸟" (SC) "一隻
小鳥" (TC) then U+53EA ("zhi1") is a SC of U+96BB ("zhi1").

In the case when you use to U+53EA to mean 'Only' ("zhi3"), then using
U+96BB ("zhi1") is inappropriate.

In my case, "只顯示BIG5字集" is a valid Traditional Chinese sentence.

This is yet another example why TC-SC is not just a simple 1-to-1
mapping.

ps: If chinese is "so profound" that "no one (human) can enumarate",
then should we expect a computer (or DNS) to be able to do so?

-James Seng

----- Original Message -----
From: "xiang deng" <deng@cnnic.net.cn>
To: "Kenneth Whistler" <kenw@sybase.com>
Cc: <idn@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: Inputting mixed SC/TC (Re: [idn] A question...)


> Mr. Kenneth,
>
> Chinese culuture is so profound,no one can enumerate
> all case, neither you nor me.
>
> The U+53EA is one case of the 1:(n+1) simplifications.
> It is simplified character.
>
> All variants of U+53EA are include in GBK GB13000 GB18030
> And U+7947 is a TongJiaZhi of U+53EA.
>
> If you decide one character is simplified of traditional
> depend on whether it is been included in BIG5 or GB, you
> don't understand the TC/SC variant issue.
>
> And yes, it's tiresome to keep deny a simple fact.
> There are objecting argument, I respect it.
> But, I'm not appreciate the way of deny fact.
>
> Regards
> Deng xiang
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kenneth Whistler" <kenw@sybase.com>
>
> > Mr. Deng,
> >
> > > Hi James,
> > >
> > > Maybe you not realize that your following input Chinese string
> > > is  TC/SC mixed:
> > > the simplified is "鍙樉绀築IG5瀛楅泦"
> > > <u+53ea u+663e u+793a u+0042 u+0049 u+0047 u+0035 u+5b57 u+96c6>
> > >
> > > the traditional is "闅婚’绀築IG5瀛楅泦"
> > > <u+96bb u+986f u+793a u+0042 u+0049 u+0047 u+0035 u+5b57 u+96c6>
> > >
> > > your input is "鍙’绀築IG5瀛楅泦"
> > > <u+53ea u+986f u+793a u+0042 u+0049 u+0047 u+0035 u+5b57 u+96c6>
> >
> > And perhaps *you* do not realize that U+53EA zhi3 is *also* a
> > traditional character, and that it contrasts in proper usage
> > with U+96BB zhi3, and that a normal *traditional* representation
> > of zhi3xian4 "Only show..." would be U+53EA U+986F.
> >
> > U+53EA is also one of the 1-n simplifications that screw up the
> > SC/TC mapping in any case. In PRC orthography, it is not only the
> > simplification of U+96BB, but also the simplification for U+7947
> > (and U+7957), which is the proper adverbial particle for "only,
merely".
> >
> > > And, do you mean User will set a cofiguration to forbiden himself
to use
> > > his familiar character?
> >
> > U+53EA *is* in Big-5. 0xA575. Do your homework.
> >
> > This kind of intentionally misleading example and campaign of
> > ad hominem argumentation directed at the chair is getting
> > truly tiresome.
> >
> > --Ken
> >
> >
>