Re: [Kanji-database-contact] http://appsrv.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~irg/irg/irg38/IRGN1860_parseIDS.pdf

[Mitrophan C. <stm...@ya...>]

Thanks. The link to the variant dictionary in Taiwan was helpful. Are there any plans to put any or all those variants from that website into Unicode Ideographic Variation Database or integrate the variant mappings with http://www.unicode.org/charts/unihan.html ?


In my evidence the character also appears as part of 錫⿰口芉汶, which is the name of the Prophet Simeon (Συμεών in Greek/Симеон in Cyrillic) who in his elderly age was awaiting to meet the small child Jesus being presented at the Temple (cf. Luke 2:25). So based on the pronunciation of the name Simeon, I think ⿰口芉 can be unified with 哶. So if we want to display 哶 with the glyph rendered from ⿰口芉, is that where IVD plays that role and is it supported by major web browsers?




________________________________
 From: suzuki toshiya <mps...@hi...>
To: Mitrophan Chin <stm...@ya...> 
Cc: "kan...@li..." <kan...@li...>; Yuri Shardt <yur...@gm...> 
Sent: Thursday, January 3, 2013 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: http://appsrv.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~irg/irg/irg38/IRGN1860_parseIDS.pdf
 
Hi,

Sorry for lazy response!

Talking about the glyph shapes between 哶(U+54F6) and CB02378/HZK02-D0A1,
the info that CHISE provides is only where CHISE picked it from, so it's
not fruitful to discuss whether they are same or not.

The right component of CB02378/HZK02-D0A1 is looking like as if it were
芉(U+8289) (ah, CHISE's IDS does so), a composition of "grass" (upper) +
sound "gan" (or "kan") (lower). But, the right component of 哶(U+54F6) is slightly
different; it is an alternate form of sheep "羊". In fact, the sound of
哶(U+54F6) is "mie" or "me", different from the sound of 芉(U+8289).
For further information of the background of U+54F6,
    http://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/yitia/fra/fra03217.htm
would be helpful.

I don't know how many IRG experts are aware of the semantic & phonetic
difference between the right component of 芉(U+8289) and 哶(U+54F6), but,
if you propose the character with only the scanned image evidence,
somebody will ask whether it could not be unified with U+54F6.
Thus, it is expected to find the meaning or the pronunciation of it.
CHISE is not helpful at all for such purpose. Is it possible to identify
the pronunciation of the character in your evidence? If it is NOT mie/me,
the pronunciation difference could be a reason to encode it separately,
if you want to encode it separately.

# I guess, CB02378 might have been picked by CBETA project from some
# Buddhist sutra or Taisho Tripitaka, so, it could be a poorly typecasted
# result of U+54F6. Anyway, CHISE does not identify the character in *your* evidence.

Regards,
mpsuzuki

Mitrophan Chin wrote:
> Suzuki,
> 
> Do you know if this characterhttp://www.chise.org/chisewiki/view.cgi?char=&CB02378; which also looks like http://www.chise.org/chisewiki/view.cgi?char=&HZK02-D0A1; if they areunified or same kanji with 哶 or will they be separately encoded by IRG or Unicode? 
> If they are not unifiable and have not already been submitted to IRG or UTC already
>  to be encoded, I would like include it for Russian Mission character submission to UTC as well for proper name transliteration appearing on http://orthodox.cn/liturgical/festalmenaion/1884/0202meetinglord/jpg/0202-01.jpg
> 
> -Mitrophan
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
>  From: suzuki toshiya <mps...@hi...>
> To: Mitrophan Chin <stm...@ya...> Cc: "kan...@li..." <kan...@li...> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 8:19 AM
> Subject: Re: http://appsrv.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~irg/irg/irg38/IRGN1860_parseIDS.pdf
>  
>> Attached is some documented example evidence of the use of the un-coded characters.
>> They were specifically introduced by the Russian Orthodox Mission in China at the
>> turn of the 19th century to assist in transliterating Slavonic names into Chinese.
> 
> Quite interesting! When I saw your IDSes, my impression was "these are something
> like Vietnamese ChuNom, or, the pronunciation transliterating characters in old
> Bhuddist texts, because, it's difficult to distinguish the meaning and pronunciation
> components". It's reasonable to hear that they are for the transliteration of
> Slavonic names. But, seeing "利爾" and "羅爾" examples, I'm not sure why "爾" was
> added. "利" already instructs a pronunciation "ri", and "羅" already instructs "ro"
> (or "ra", in Japan), so why "爾" is needed?
> 
> I guess most easiest way to add your characters to next CJK Ext. G would be the
> submission via UTC. So... you will be needed to write some documents to propose
> the inclusion of your characters to UTC's CJK Ext. G submission. Jenkins already
> posted the short how-to in the forum.
> 
> Now CJK Ext. F is just beginning, so, it would not be impossible for Russia to
> participate IRG and submit something to CJK Ext. G, but I'm afraid that Russian
> national body is not active participants in face to face meeting of ISO/IEC
> JTC1/SC2, so making Russian national body submit your characters would not be
> so easy.
> 
> Regards,
> mpsuzuki