On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Stephan Stiller <stephan.stil...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > For me "non-standardized' means there is not one recognized standard, > this does not mean that things are completely unstable, nor that there are > no traditions of what character is used for what word that have been passed > down for many generations. > > > *As I stated*, for a decent number of syllable-morphemes (probably the * > majority* of Cheung-Bauer entries shouldn't be considered active or > passive knowledge), native speakers will have no clue how to write them, > and the array of characters to chose from (if C&B is used for a > forced-choice task), or often a good portion of the array, either appears > unsatisfactory to them or is seen as okay but previously unknown. Native > speakers have no problem approximating these syllables otherwise if > pressed, but, yes, things for those syllables are not that stable and if > there are stable traditions, they might not be well-known except for a low > percentage of C&B entries – definitely less than half, but I don't want to > commit to a specific number. > > Yes. The way the Cheung-Bauer list was compiled certainly hard to see how most of the characters would be in widely known. With Zhuang Sawndip I have examining texts from different locations and eras, that there exists both evidence of transmission from generation to generation, of progression and also of unstability. Regards John > Nonetheless, both type and token frequency of such syllable-morphemes are > low. > > > Stephan > >
