🚀 go-pugleaf

fon sdlee@faith.csis.hku.hk (Lee Sau Dan ~{@nJX6X~})  :

>So, when I encounter an  unknown character (e.g.  those created by the
>Japanese themselves) having  this structure, I can know  it's the name
>of  a kind  fish.  I  don't even  need to  know how  the  character is
>pronounced.  (Some  of these fish-name characters are  invented by the
>Japanese,  and  hence  have  no  Chinese pronunciation,  and  I  ain't
>interested in knowing how it  is pronounced in Japanese.)  I know it's
>a fish and that often suffices.

imagine you have to spell it out in a radio broadcast or you reading
loud something for an audience . wouldn't it be embarrassing if 
you don't know how to pronounce the character . you have to tell something
to the people , you hardly can't omit the word . 

i heard japanese invented an electronic gadget for something but i'm not sure . 



>    Stefan> But when we use a good resolution then its very hard to
>    Stefan> write down a symbol, you have to define pixel by pixel in
>    Stefan> an image editor.  

>It's silly to do it pixel by pixel.

>Nowadays,  professional  computer  typesetting  do not  represent  the
>printouts pixel  by pixel (how many pixel  are there on an  A4 page at
>2400dpi?  Astronomical figure!).  Instead, the printout is *described*
>in terms  of high-level componnents: lines,  circles, B-spline curves,
>and  characters.   (But characters  in  quality  fonts are  themselved
>defined in ters of lines and  curves.)  This not only reduces the data
>volume, but also makes the description resolution/device independent.

>I can't see any advantage  in defining pictograms pixel by pixel.  Why
>not give the shapes of them precise mathematical definitions, in terms
>of parameterized lines and curves?  

>Chinese characters are basically defined in terms of stroke shapes and
>their *relative* position and  intersection with one another.  This is
>practical and efficient.  Pixel by pixel definition is impractical and
>silly.




>    Stefan> It is also hard to tell, if a pictogram
>    Stefan> is the original pictogram or if there are just a few pixel
>    Stefan> different.  

>That's why pixel-based definition fails.  Why not define pictograms by
>high-level  components, which  are  more natural  to  human beings  to
>understand?  Define them in terms of lines and curves!


>    Stefan> My theory for this is: at the end it turns out, that each
>    Stefan> language can describe the same knowledge, the same
>    Stefan> facts. But there is a different way to look at the same
>    Stefan> thing:

>That's a "very very different" way.


>    Stefan> For example: Let us assume languageA knows only a symbol
>    Stefan> for the circumference of a circle, not the radius.
>    Stefan> LanguageB knows only a symbol for the radius of a circle,
>    Stefan> not for the circumference.

>    Stefan> Now both languages can define a circle. They can also
>    Stefan> define the same circle.  But a translator cannot translate
>    Stefan> the size of the circle unless he knows the relation:
>    Stefan> circumference = 2*r*PI

>Another  example: How is  French "j'ai  faim" represented?   Would the
>representation lead to the English translation "I have hunger" instead
>of the more natural "I'm hungry"?











>-- 
>Lee Sau Dan                     $(0,X)wAV(B(Big5)                    ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ) 
>.----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
>| http://www.cs.hku.hk/~sdlee                        e-mail: sdlee@cs.hku.hk |
>`----------------------------------------------------------------------------'

------------------------------------------
e#o$anqo xiuyawde = e^ho^san^go ^ciu^ja�de
NeNaDNePReNePeReU