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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. "�?" = "�??"). The semantic meaning may be > equivalent, but the pronunciation and number of syllables > would be different (e.g. in English, "car" = "automobile").
