--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
wrote:

> suzmccarth wrote:
>
> > I don't want to sound too miffed. Unicode will be used for what

it

> > is. I see that. But, I keep wondering about things

like "Chinese is

> > a largely monosyllabic language so an ideographic system suits

it.

> > Is that true or just more Emac and Bolio?
>
> It's not true, since there's no such thing as an "ideographic"

writing

> system. You just said you've read at least one book by DeFrancis,

so you

> should know that.

This comment on Chinese is found in Unicode version 4. I am trying
to find out what it is doing there. There may be some opaque and
ideosyncratic explanation for this like there is for so many other
things. Who knows?

Suzanne

> --
> Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...