Thanks Walter & Jeroen for your responses. I had suspected that it was some
sort of ligature, but I couldn't see which.
Rick - apologies for the old-fashioned graphic: I'll remember to force it
to something more '90's in hte future. To answer your question:
>> I'm not sure I understand this. When was this transliterated? By
>> this something that a translator ran across? Or was it in some
In India it's fairly common practice to convert from one script to another,
particularly with names. Thus someone might enter a name using the
U+092D U+0906 U+0935 U+0906 U+0928 (BHA-AA-VA-AA-NA)
However, a Malayalam reader would wish to see it in the script with which
(s)he is more familiar, so it's rendered as:
U+0D2D U+0D06 U+0D35 U+0D06 U+0D28 (BHA-AA-VA-AA-NA again)
It's also not unusual for the script to be rendered as Roman and even Urdu.
That's what I meant by transliteration.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:41 EDT