>It is a SINGLE CHARACTER, not a sequence of three characters.
heh.. I was actually commenting on how I'd never seen the set of
characterS that Mair cites in WWS...
> > Contrary to Professor Mair's claims of primacy - sound over
>It's hardly Mair's claim. It goes back at least to Gelb 1952, but
>granted that his understanding of East Asian writing was not optimal, it
>belongs at least to DeFrancis 1985.
Again.. this was in reaction to re-reading his section in WWS...