Written by Soobok: > You may have missed my another answer to Kent which provides 2.6 as the average > researched by Adam. My above examples argument stands even with 2.6 jamos. > 2.6*3octets vs 2.6 latins == 3time more space needed. That was my point. > 3 jamos syllable is just for an example. Okay? :-)
I do see what Adam researched, and it was that there were 2.6 English letters/Hangul in terms of information content. (He is comparing the length of the Hangul translation of the bible with the English.) This is a completely different number from the number of jamos/syllable. This is getting more confusing that it needs to be but it would help if you quote a bit of the original research you refer to. Like this: Written by Adam: > Here are the counts for Genesis chapter 1: > > King James: 3167 letters > Basic English: 3088 letters > Chinese Union: 778 ideographs > Korean Revised: 1201 Hangul > > references: > http://www.ccim.org/bible/ > http://bible.wisenet.co.kr/ > > So it's about 4.0 English letters per Chinese ideograph, and about 2.6 > English letters per Korean Hangul. > > Each Korean Hangul takes about 2.9 octets in AMC-ACE-Z, which means a > maximal Korean domain label (20 hangul) holds about as much information > as a 52-letter English string, which about 17% less information than > a maximal English domain label (63 letters), and about 38% less > information than a maximal Chinese domain label (19 ideographs). > > I now retract this statement: > >> Of all the languages I've looked at, Korean is by far the least dense >> when encoded using AMC-ACE-Z. > > In light of the new data, I doubt that Korean is the least dense. > > AMC
