- From: Ambrose LI <ambrose.li@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 00:02:05 -0400
- 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