From: Jungshik Shin (jshin@mailaps.org)
Date: Mon Dec 22 2003 - 04:42:02 EST
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003, Kent Karlsson wrote:
> Philippe Verdy wrote:
Thanks a lot for your work. I should have made up this file a long time
ago, but haven't gotten around to do it. Glad that you did it.
> > Here is what I have (this is just the part related to Hangul
> > jamos in the Johab set), presented in collation order:
Can you clarifiy what you meant by 'Johab set'?
> > # add canonical de/recomposition of "Johab" compound leading
> > consonnant jamos in Hangul
> > # (there are 17 basic consonnants) in Hangul, IEUNG is used for
> > KAPYEOUN-
> > #1100;HANGUL CHOSEONG KIYEOK;Lo;0;L;;;;;N;;G;;;
> > 1101;HANGUL CHOSEONG SSANGKIYEOK;Lo;0;L;<johab> 1100 1100;;;;N;;GG;;;
> ...
>
> When possible, I've preferred the "left associative" reading, just to
> make it easier for the recomposition. I don't thing there is any linguistic
> reason for prefering the "right associative" reading for any of these. The
I agree. If possible, I would have preferred the 'full decomposition' of
'Jamo clusters' (made of three simple Jamos) into three Jamos (as done
in http://i18nl10n.com/korean/jamocomp.html), but I guess we have to do the
way it's done in your file and Kent's file if we want to apply Unicode
Normalization algorithm/rules. Importanly, the end result is identical
either way.
> current interpretation for doubled consonants is a modern one; I think
> the historic reading is different (but not quite sure exactly how).
I don't think there's any consensus on this issue among linguists.
> There are also some direct errors in your mappings (detailed below).
> 111B;HANGUL CHOSEONG KAPYEOUNRIEUL;Lo;0;L;<johab> 1105 114C;;;;N;;RQ;;;
> -----PLAIN WRONG, yesieung used instead of ieung
which would have been easily avoided if Philippe had paid attention to my
messages refering to my decomposition table in the thread he actively
participated in.
Jungshik
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 22 2003 - 05:25:30 EST