2 ms·
I'm not Korean but seeing that said of the Hangul example definitely made me pause - I doubt Koreans think of that example as a single grapheme (open to correct
by lucideer 3y ago
I'm not Korean but seeing that said of the Hangul example definitely made me pause - I doubt Koreans think of that example as a single grapheme (open to correction), though it is an excellent example all the same since it demonstrates the complexity of defining "units" consistently across language.
It reminds me a little of Open Street Map's inconsistent administrative hierarchies ("states", "countries", "counties", etc. being represented at different administrative "levels" in their hierarchy for each geographical area), and how that hinders consistency in styling- font size, zoom levels, etc. being generally applied by level.
- lifthrasiir 3y agoAs a native Korean, I can confirm that "각" is perceived as a single character. But the example itself is bad anyway because everyone use a precomposed form U+AC01 instead of U+1100 U+1161 U+11A8 instead (they are canonically equivalent). This is more clear when you also consider a compatibility representation "ㄱㅏㄱ" U+3131 U+314F U+3131, which is same to "각" after compatibility normalizations (NFKC or NFKD), but perceived as three atomic characters in general.
- lucideer 3y agoThanks for the clarification, that's interesting. My impression before was it would be considered a single "entity" (not the same as a roman-alphabetic word, but not a character either) containing 3 characters.