On 2003.11.8, at 20:32 Asia/Tokyo, Eugene Lee wrote:
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:26:39PM +0900, - Edwin - wrote: : : On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 13:43:06 -0600 Eugene wrote: : > : > Actually, kana are not "simplified kanji" because it is not : > the case that kana can replace kanji while preserving the : > exact same meaning. In fact, most kana by themselves have : > no meaning. : : Well, I'm sure there's a very good reason why the dictionary : I quoted called it "simplified kanji".
I disagree with the term "simplified kanji".
regex - regular expressions
Um, what's so "regular" about it again?
The kana may have been derived from kanji and evolved over the centuries, but they are no longer kanji in the sense that they carry any intrinsic meaning by themselves.
?? Who said that they are kanji?
Kanji are Chinese characters whereas kana are Japanese characters.
Nor can they replace kanji in meaning and function. They are just phonetic alphabets.
Did I say otherwise?
- E -
PS Maybe, you can complain here:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=kana
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! BB is Broadband by Yahoo! http://bb.yahoo.co.jp/
-- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
