Re: [tlug] radicals and graphemes

["David Bennett" <davidbennett1979@example.com>]

There is also a lot of debate as a radical does not always carry a
semantic meaning which differentiates it from a grapheme.

um... I think.

On 4/21/06, David J Iannucci <jlinux@example.com> wrote:
> > a radical IS a (typographic) grapheme!
> > Am I misunderstanding something here ?
>
> My intuition (not authoritative) would be that a radical is a grapheme,
> but not every grapheme is a radical.  The radicals, after all, are
> strictly only the classically-defined 215 (or so?) that you can find by
> looking in Nelson or any other good kanji dictionary. On this
> understanding, there are many recognizable chunks that one may find
> appearing in multiple kanji, which one could call graphemes, but not
> necessarily radicals.