> > Now I came to the conclusion that there is a way to represent khando-ta
> Standard and that is quite satisfactory.
> > However some indications are confusing. So I am writing my
> > 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]
The difference is only ZWNJ and ZWJ after virama. I think you should try the
guidelines of Unicode 3.0 standards. My opinion follows the guideline. Since
all indic languages are derived from sanskreet hence I think the guideline
for devanagari is not absolutely useless for Bangla.
> 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
> 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
> shown? Or perhaps do you expect us (Bangladeshis) to use the assami Va?
In the grammar book by Munir chowdhury, Mofazzal Haider Ch. and Ibrahim
Khalil (Text book for S.S.C), vba is omitted from the bangla character set.
It is confusing for common people. So I think the decision is wise.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:06 EDT