--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
> suzmccarth wrote:
> > I don't want to sound too miffed. Unicode will be used for what
> > is. I see that. But, I keep wondering about things
like "Chinese is
> > a largely monosyllabic language so an ideographic system suits
> > Is that true or just more Emac and Bolio?
> It's not true, since there's no such thing as an "ideographic"
> 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?


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