On Dec 12, 2003, at 6:25 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> If anything, what you chauvinistically and counterfactually call the
> "Han ideograph script" might be a "writing system," which participates
> in four different "scripts" -- the Chinese, the Japanese, the Korean,
> and the Vietnamese. But that doesn't make much sense either, since the
> four sets of characters are not interchangeable.

Well, I guess I'm getting lost here on *your* definition of "script."

What you're saying is that there is a single Japanese "script," which
consists of three (or more) components: kana, kanji, romaji, etc.,
nicht wahr? And that the overall set of characters used in the overall
Japanese script is not interchangeable with the overall set of Korean
characters, and so on?

Or are you saying that the set of kanji used in Japanese, hanzi used in
Chinese, and hanja used in Korean are not interchangeable?

If the latter, then I must confess I find the conclusion rather
remarkable, as it's rather the opposite of the general impression of
people who live in East Asia, barring anti-Unicode rhetoric. While
there is some difference in the precise set of kanji/hanzi/hanja used,
and some difference is the way they're written, the fundamental
identity is rarely questioned.

John H. Jenkins