Dear Peter,
since the Chinese characters below are meaningless in Chinese using
them should not be a first choice, as they are meaningless, so
gibberish, just not complete gibberish.
Plane 2 has a fair number of older Chinese characters, so someone with
a knowledge of ancient Chinese might well be able make something
meaningful. Run a competition in China would be one way to get
suggestions, spotting a good suggestion is easier than making one.
Plane 2 has Cantonese, Vietnamese and Zhuang characters. The number of
Cantonese characters is small, so making phrases using only them would
be difficult. Both Vietnamese and Zhuang have a much larger number of
characters so much easier to make something meaningful.
The following Zhuang proverb, or saying
𮤯𫭴𭣀𭒹𣐡𮤯𩜋𭸘𭡘
"Plant sweet potatoes in the field, and raise pigs in the sty."[lit:
house, as the bottom floor of tradional house used for livestock and
people live in floor above.]
However third and eighth characters are not the most common used.
Regards
John
On 14.11.2017 06:38, Peter Constable via Unicode wrote:
I discussed this with one of my Chinese co-workers, and we came up
with the following:
“𠀀𠀁𠀂𠀃𠀄
𦬣𦬤𦬥𦬦𦬧
𦩒𦩓𦩔𦩕𦩖
𨣫𨣬𨣭𨣮𨣯”
Factors in the choice of characters were:
- different radicals
- for a given radical, have a sequence of consecutive characters so
people get the idea it's not a sentence but just a sequence of
characters with related meanings
- radical groups increase in complexity
It's not a sentence that can be read, but there's an obvious pattern,
so it's also not completely gibberish.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: James Kass [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 2:29 PM
To: Peter Constable <[email protected]>
Cc: Unicode list <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Plane-2-only string
Peter Constable wrote,
We don't want to add BMP characters to the ExtB fonts.
So the sample text would lack punctuation. Given that the
Supplementary Ideographic Plane is composed of rare and historical
characters from multiple sources, I suspect that the short answer to
Peter's original question is: "No".
