On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 07:53:13 -0800, Peter Kirk wrote: > > OK. In fact I suspect that the number "that have meaningful semantics > and effective usage" is actually rather small and could be fitted within > the higher PUA planes if one chose to do that. After all, not many > languages use large numbers of different grapheme clusters (i.e. more > than a few hundred consonant-vowel combinations)
About 10,000 for Tibetan. But why on earth are we talking about mapping grapheme clusters to the PUA ?! I thought we had heard the last of that sort of "heresy" when William softly and suddenly vanished away. Andrew
