From: John Jenkins
Message: 1940
Date: 2003-12-14
>Actually, we've been doing this for a long time. At an early meeting
>> On Dec 13, 2003, at 8:27 AM, Scott Sullivan wrote:
>>> Do you know for sure that there are characters that are used in
>>> Cantonese and not in Mandarin?
>
> At 10:41 AM 12/13/2003, John Jenkins wrote:
>> Oh, heavens yes. (In fact, I'm sitting on a list of well over a
>> hundred that haven't been added or even proposed for Unicode yet.)
>
> THANKS BE! Finally, Unicoded goodness for non-"standard"
> characters!
>
> BTW, you've read Bauer and Cheung's recent publication onYup. Sitting on my shelf, not two meters away.
> Cantonese characters?
>
>Good point.
> Granted that with the advent of "national language
> standardization" in the early 1900s for the Sinitic
> languages/"Chinese,"
> Mandarin has come to the forefront, yet even Written Mandarin/MSC
> accesses
> large amounts of Classical Chinese, which is far removed from any
> spoken/colloquial Mandarin form.
> The whole situation of reading/writing "Mandarin" is true,This is an interesting idea. I'd love to see someone follow through on
> BUT, I
> would argue that people internally _translate_ into their own
> vernacular,
> where vernacular/colloquial forms are substituted in on not only the
> lexical, but also syntactic, level, when read.
>> (The analogy I usually use is that it would be like having SpanishThe Romance languages are similar, though, with a group of very closely
>> children read and write French, but pronounce it is if it were
>> Spanish.)
>
> I think a better analogy would be using the Scandinavian
> languages... where lexical and grammatical differences range from
> slight to
> moderate to extreme.
>