----- Original Message -----
From: Md Ziaur Rahman
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 9:38 PM
Subject: Re: Bangla(Bengali) letter Missing
> Now I came to the conclusion that there is a way to represent khando-ta in
Standard and that is quite satisfactory.
> However some indications are confusing. So I am writing my understanding,
> Ta + Virama + ZWNJ = ta with explicit virama
> Ta + Virama + consonant = Conjunct (ta + consonant)
> Ta + Virama = Khando-ta (while occurs final )
> Ta + Virama + ZWJ = Khando-ta (explicit half - consonant)
This was my suggestion:
[Ta] [virama] -> [khando-ta] (when final)
[Ta] [virama] [ZWNJ] -> [khando-ta]
[Ta] [virama] [....] -> [appropriate conjunt form]
[Ta] [Virama] [ZWJ] -> [Ta Virama]
Note that this (my suggestion) does not follow the Unicode3.0 guidelines,
but I believe these guidelines were written only with Devanagari in mind. In
any case, this is the way it's done in my implementation, and follows ISCII
> Am I right ?
>> A more of a concern of mine is the lack of a 'Bengali letter Va' in the
>> Some Bangla texts make a distinction where a conjoint forms with ba and
>> see http://www.btinternet.com/~abdulmalik/banglaglyphs.GIF
>> How am I to encode the different forms in unicode?
>> Also note the 'two symbols commonly found in Bangla fonts' - do these
>> to be included in the standard?
>We do not make any distinction between bo and vo while they forms a
You say, "We do not make any distinction". Don't forget that we are talking
of the 'Bengali Script' and *not* the 'Bangladeshi language'. Assami and
monipuri writers *do* make the distinction, but they have the luxury of
being able to use Assami Va (U+09F1) as well as Ba (U+09AC) to produce the
two forms shown in my gif.
Speakers of Bangla make the distinction of the two forms depending only on
context. e.g.. svaamii is spelt sbami and pronunced shami and not sbami by
Bangladeshis, whilst in Assamiya it is spelt svami (with U+09F1) not sbami.
My question is, should speakers of Bangla be restricted to be able to form
only the common forms, or should there be a way for us to produce both forms
shown? Or perhaps do you expect us (Bangladeshis) to use the assami Va?
> I have not seen your two common glyphs in Bangla. So I can't help it.
Yes, these glyphs seem to be only common in fonts, and not in texts. The
first symbol is part of BSD1520 1995 'the Bangladesh Standard 1520', I have
seen the second symbol in many Bangla fonts, it appears to be equivalent to
the @ sign , but would it be appropriate to map it to such? I don't think so
> I want to know how can I integrate the unicode with font file ? Is there
any convention ?
Yes definitely, it depends on what you want to do exactly. You could start
your quest here:
> Thanks everybody,
> Md Ziaur Rahman
Hello Ziaur Rahman
Khando-ta does need special attention, including it in the standard would
make encoding it much easier.
For those that don't know, khanda-ta is a special form of ta that is used
when ta has its inherent vowel suppressed. i.e. It is equivalent to 'ta
virama'. It often occurs when final in a word, and also medial but never
Ta with a visible virama does not occur in any Bangladeshi word, 'khanda-ta'
or plain 'ta' are always used in its place. However, 'Ta virama' may be
needed in educational texts and possibly in some foreign words
In the absence of khanda-ta being included in the standard, the following
rendering rules will need to be observed for the Bangla script
There are cases in Indic scripts where the Unicode standard states that a
'explicit virama' character should be displayed. In such cases, if the base
consonant is 'Bengali Letter Ta', Khanda-ta needs to be rendered instead of
the expected 'ta_virama' i.e.
Ta virama when final, is rendered as khanda-ta, and
Ta virama ZWNJ is rendered as khanda-ta
In other words khanda-ta is to be considered the explicit virama form of ta
The standard states that when a sequence such as 'consonant virama
consonant' occurs, and there is no predefined conjunct formation* in the
font, the first consonant should rendered as a half form. As Bangla does not
posses half forms the consonant should be displayed with a visible virama,
Ta virama consonant (no defined form) is displayed as Ta Virama consonant
Ta virama ZWJ is displayed as Ta Virama
*(In the example 'utsab' (festival), 'ts' is written as khando-ta sa. Here
'khando-ta sa' needs to be considerd as a conjunct form i.e. defined in the
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:06 EDT