On Wednesday, January 23, 2002, at 09:05 AM, Thomas Chan wrote: > In other words, > yao1 'small' TC U+4E48 or U+5E7A -> SC U+4E48 > me (as in shen2me 'what') TC U+9EBC or U+9EBD -> SC U+4E48 > mo2 (as in yao1mo2 'insignificant') TC U+9EBC or U+9EBD -> SC U+9EBD >
Thomas, do you have a reference for U+9EBC (麼) and U+9EBD (麽) being different? The only dictionary I have which contains both is the (traditional) CiHai, it and it claims they're variants of each other. Meanwhile, both Sanseido and KangXi say that U+5C1B (尛) is a member of the family. (KangXi says that anciently U+9EBC (麼) was written U+5C1B (尛) . Mathews and Sanseido also remind us that U+5E85 (庅) is another variant, and Sanseido *also* lists U+5692 (嚒). So, Doug, you see that U+4E48 (么) could conceivably be a traditional character in its own right *or* the simplified form for no fewer than six (!) other ideographs. This is the kind of mess that has discouraged anybody from doing a systematic survey of simplifications for the Unihan database. > The other example (U+8721 kTraditionalVariant U+8721 U+881F) is a > mistake--the TraditionalVariant should only be U+881F. > Actually, no. Both KangXi and the Cihai list U+8721 (蜡) as a traditional character in its own right, although I assume it's rare as I can't find it in my other dictionaries. ========== John H. Jenkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://homepage.mac.com/jenkins/
