On Fri, 7 Apr 2000, John Jenkins wrote:
> on 4/7/00 2:29 AM, Marco.Cimarosti@icl.com at Marco.Cimarosti@icl.com wrote:
>
> > Similarly, it would perhaps have been wiser to use numbers 1 ... 214 for the
> > Kangxi radicals: many people knows these numbers by heart (especially the
> > commonest radicals). On the other hand, the descriptions that have been used
> > in the English character names are highly subjective choices.
I wouldn't say 'highly subjective'.
> Well, I think that one could argue either way. I know several radicals by
> heart -- 61, 85, 86, 120, 140, 167, a few others. But I also know all these
> by name -- heart, water, fire, silk, grass, gold/metal -- and there are
> several I know by name but not by number -- pig's snout, horse, bird,
> tortoise.
I know none of them by numbers(I did look at the radical
table in unicode 3.0 book, but didn't even bother to memorize them :-)
) but I (as do most Koreans with secondary education or beyond. and I
*suppose/guess* most Chinese and Japanese do,too) know tens of them,
if not over hundred(and maybe not in English), by names. There could be
differences among CJK(V) in names of radicals, but I believe the IRG did a
reasonable job resolving/compromsing the differences as you implied below.
> common lists of names to come up with something reasonable. And for some of
> the more obscure radical it doesn't matter much since few people know them
> off-hand anyway.
>
> (And, BTW, I'm not aware of the IRG ever having objected to giving them
> names.)
Jungshik Shin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:01 EDT