Re: Ugaritic Affiliations

On Sep 10, 1:37 pm, Tak To <ta...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Peter T. Daniels wrote:

No. Any ordering by shape is completely arbitrary with no reason to
favor it over any other. (The order of Chinese characters certainly
seems completely arbitrary and isn't by shape, sound, meaning, or
anything else.)

The ordering of the CJKV characters is basically by radical +
stroke count, following more or less the Kangxi Dictionary.

That's not how it appears to be in the tiny charts in the Mac Chinese
Input manual!

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is symbolic thinking the silver bullit for programming?
    ... 'Not likely to *guess* the meaning of the 2001st?' ... writing is the most difficult in the world. ... Programming is still primarily a linguistic exercise. ...
    (comp.lang.scheme)
  • Re: Ugaritic Affiliations
    ... Peter T. Daniels wrote: ... (The order of Chinese characters certainly ... seems completely arbitrary and isn't by shape, sound, meaning, or ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Transmission of meaning
    ... You *do* know how to pronounce them, ... Whereas with the Chinese characters, one can see a cluster of them and ... have absolutely no clue how it is pronounced in the target language, ... a meaning is immediately present in one's mind. ...
    (sci.lang.japan)
  • Re: To---dajava
    ... >> intended meaning. ... Chinese characters were introduced to Korea during Chinese Tang ... But Korean and Chinese are two totally different languages. ... We look up a Chinese character on 'special dictioanries' the way we do ...
    (rec.games.go)
  • Re: To---dajava
    ... intended meaning (let alone dialect). ... So Chinese characters do not comprise a system of phonetics. ... One character = one syllable is *always* true in Chinese; it is often not true when Chinese characters are used in Japanese, e.g. Chinese xiao lin = Japanese ko bayashi = small forest. ...
    (rec.games.go)