W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-cjk@w3.org > July to September 2016

Re: Measuring "ideographic character face" and commonest characters

From: Ambrose LI <ambrose.li@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 00:02:05 -0400
Message-ID: <CADJvFOWQ3R6m4JsRPAoBhriV_crR6oSfW3Y+vOnxyAq2wD9Gmw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, CJK discussion <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
2016-09-26 23:29 GMT-04:00 Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>:
> Higher complexity doesn't mean higher rarity. As an example, on
> http://kanjicards.org/kanji-list-by-freq.html, 園 is listed as more frequent
> than 因, which is more frequent than 困. Same again at

I would say these are rougly equally frequent.

> http://jon-fu.net/jjj/kanji-by-frequency.pdf. But 園 doesn't seem to be very
> frequent in simplified Chinese.

That's because the character 園 has been simplified, to 园 I believe
(but I can be wrong). I wouldn't actually expect it to appear in
simplified Chinese texts at all.

> And it's not that fonts are just leaving out a few characters here and
> there. As an example, the Japanese in what's now X 208 had two levels of
> Kanji. You can still see them separated in the code charts. The idea was
> that some fonts would only implement level 1, to save work and memory. That
> was the case maybe in the '70ties and '80ies, but not later.
> Regards,    Martin.
>> 因 is reasonably common. 回 is also common but
>> I'm not sure that it's thought of as part of the same series, whereas
>> I'm pretty sure 因 and 困 are linked up to the rest and would therefore
>> share their proportions.

Ambrose Li // http://o.gniw.ca / http://gniw.ca
If you saw this on CE-L: You do not need my permission to quote
me, only proper attribution. Always cite your sources, even if
you have to anonymize and/or cite it as "personal communication".
Received on Tuesday, 27 September 2016 04:03:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 26 October 2016 23:39:18 UTC