Re: Petition to UN on Abolishment of Traditional Chinese in 2008

Dylan Sung wrote:
"Lee Sau Dan" <danlee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:87sloxc1of.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"yky" == yky <yky@xxxxxxx> writes:

yky> Dylan Sung wrote:
>> So why did the traditional character set Big5 merge zhe5
>> (aspect particle of continuing action) and zhuo (to wear)?
>> There was no justification for that either, so don't just blame
>> the simplification side.

yky> Huh? Those two are different characters?

Maybe, he meant zhu4, as in zhi4ming2 (famous), pian1zhu4 (to edit and
write [a book]), etc.

Big5 has since long been extended to include zhe5/zhuo.

More info:
u+8457 = Morohashi #31302; "grass" radical + 8 strokes.
u+7740 = Morohashi #23339; "eye" radical + 6 strokes.

However, the "correct" form for both is actually Morohashi
#31410; "grass" radical + 9 strokes. It differs from
Morohashi #31302 (u+8457) by having an extra dot at the
middle of the character.

Neither Morohashi #31302 (u+8457) nor Morohashi #23339
(u+7740) is in the copy of Kangxi that I have. (ISBN
7-101-00518-7; Zhonghua Shuju, Beijing; 1st ed 1958;
11th printing 2002). OTOH Morohashi #31340 is in, as

The Unihan DB appears to have errors on these two code points.

(1) The entry for u+8457 refers to Kangxi Index
"1440 260"[*]. However, on page 1440 one finds only
Morohashi #31410 (with extra dot), not Morohashi #31302

[*] I have never figured out what the second number is for.

(2) The entry for u+7740 refers to Kangxi Index
"0808 051". Howeve, on page 808 there is no such character.

This shows, once again, that neither Big5 nor Unicode are
(good) pedagogic standards.

Tak To takto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[taode takto 陶德] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr