written by: Maynard Kang: > Bruce Thomson wrote: > > I am belatedly trying to come up to speed on SC/TC, and > > I see that it does have a lot of merit. But I think that the > > notion of "equivalent characters" is really trying to take > > this game too far. There are two words ways to write "egg" > > in Japanese, pronounced the same, but one is written > > with two characters, and one with only one character. Are > > going to call these words "equivalent"? Sounds like you > > would like to do that, if I understand your concept. > > > > I find the notion of comparing TC/SC equivalence to Japanese > Kanji/Hiragana/Katakana equivalence rather compelling and far-stretched to an > extent. >
Sorry, I confused you by carrying my conversation with Liana over 2 posts. I was not indending to say that the two forms of egg in Japanese corresponded to an SC/TC equivalence. I was responding to Liana's proposal(?) that the 4 forms of "wind" in Chinese (2 SC, 2 TC) be treated as equivalent. If you are going to do that, logically the same thing should be done for Japanese. There are some cases with semi-obsolete characters where such equivalences might be useful, but the whole issue is quite complex, poorly defined, and might actually be objectionable to many users in my opinion. SC/TC equivalence itself is far simpler than the "four winds, two eggs" equivalences, and has quite a bit of merit. I won't express any real opinion on it until I study it further. By the way, both forms of egg I was referring to are Kanji. There are of course additional kana forms. I doubt any Japanese user would want to treat Kanji and kana as equivalent at the domain name level. As usual, I am counting on Yoneya-san to keep me honest when I make statements like this. Bruce
