3 ms·

then is а really a distinct concept from a? regardless of whether 刀 and 刃 have similar meaning in korean and japanese (in chinese the former refers to the knif

by dastbe 9y ago

then is а really a distinct concept from a? regardless of whether 刀 and 刃 have similar meaning in korean and japanese (in chinese the former refers to the knife/sword itself whereas the latter refers the edge of the knife), the unification of them across multiple languages makes it difficult to handle variations, nuance, and (most importantly for a forward thinking standard) divergence over time. that korean, japanese, and chinese have similar characters for historical reasons doesn't mean they are bound to be the same character forever in their respective languages. that another commenter below me can't easily transmit to me the character for "smelly" in japanese because whatever font i use is preferring the chinese character for it is a signal that the standard is broken.

emodendroket 9y ago
Those characters are not unified. What the article is actually saying is that when Koreans write 刃 they place the short stroke in a difference place than the Japanese do (and users of traditional Chinese place it in still another).
- dastbe 9y ago
  rereading my words i realize i was ambiguous; i didnt mean to say that 刀 and 刃 were unified (how would i have written them?) but that unifying those characters across multiple languages is ignoring that they have nuanced meaning based on what language they're in. then add in your point that the written forms themselve are diverging over time.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    To the extent they're exactly the same I don't think it matters. We don't need a separate English and Spanish j because they're pronounced differently. But 刃 in particular isn't the same across languages. The GP seemed to be confused, interpreting the article to mean that Koreans used 刀 instead of 刃 when what the article actually meant is that there are variants of the latter character.

by dastbe 9y ago

emodendroket 9y ago

Those characters are not unified. What the article is actually saying is that when Koreans write 刃 they place the short stroke in a difference place than the Japanese do (and users of traditional Chinese place it in still another).

dastbe 9y ago
rereading my words i realize i was ambiguous; i didnt mean to say that 刀 and 刃 were unified (how would i have written them?) but that unifying those characters across multiple languages is ignoring that they have nuanced meaning based on what language they're in. then add in your point that the written forms themselve are diverging over time.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  To the extent they're exactly the same I don't think it matters. We don't need a separate English and Spanish j because they're pronounced differently. But 刃 in particular isn't the same across languages. The GP seemed to be confused, interpreting the article to mean that Koreans used 刀 instead of 刃 when what the article actually meant is that there are variants of the latter character.