From: Andrew C. West (andrewcwest@alumni.princeton.edu)
Date: Fri Dec 12 2003 - 12:27:37 EST
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Dec 12 2003 - 13:15:05 EST