🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2770@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp> mohta@necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp (Masataka Ohta) writes:
>Consider, for example, a very common radical used for plant-related
>characters, such as grass and flowers (character code from 827C to 864F
>of DIS 10646-1.2).
>
>Its shape in Japanese or mainland China is
>
>        *        *
>     ****************
>        *        *
>
>whose stroke count is 3, while its shape in Taiwan and Korea is
>
>        *        *
>     *******  *******
>        *        *
>
>whose stroke count is 4. But, these different characters with differently
>shaped radicals are unified in Unicode.

Yes, this is a good example of where there is a difference in how
people count strokes.

No, this is not the way it is counted in these countries.  That is, you
cannot say that all of Taiwan and Korea always count 3 strokes; similarly
you cannot say that all of China and Japan always count 4 strokes.
Different people count (or write) these radicals differently independently
of their country of origin.  Different fonts also make different choices.
However, in all cases there is absolutely no difference in meaning.  One
can freely substitute in writing either form of this radical; few people
will even notice unless they look closely.

Take another example, such as the component form of radical radical 163
and 170 (identical except for position), which is counted as either 2 or
3 strokes.  The different standards and dictionaries have:

  GB 2312 = 2 strokes
  JIS = 2 strokes
  CNS = 3 strokes
  No way of telling with KSC, but Dae Jaweon = 3 strokes
  Han-Viet Tu-dien = 3 strokes

But that these are not consistent nationally:

  China: Kangxi Zidian = 3 strokes
  Japan: Dai Kan-Wa Ziten = 3 strokes

In China (PRC), even though the normative dictionary has 3 strokes,
GB2312 has 2; in Japan, even though a normative dictionary has 3 strokes,
JIS has 2.  A count of two is clearly an innovation; the more traditional
sources count 3.

The point here is that there is not a consistent treatment of stroke
counting in certain cases in the communities which use these character
forms.  Furthermore, in these cases, stroke count does not change
the meaning of the text whatsoever.  It is like having a dollar sign
glyph with one stroke or two strokes through an S, or having one with
a single vertical stroke that intersects the whole S, or extends vertically
from the top and bottom arches without fully intersecting the S.

In these cases, the CJK-JRG chose a normative count to assign to
these characters; doing this does not cause a loss of reliable information,
since,  in these casese, stroke counting isn't reliable in the
first place.

Glenn Adams