From: Chookij Vanatham (
Date: Tue Aug 22 2000 - 19:05:24 EDT

Hi Ken,

Thanks for the opinion.

] Consider a hypothetical syllable -qfa-. To represent that in
] Devanagari you would need:
] Ka + Nukta + Virama + Pha + Nukta
] i.e. 0958 + 094D + 095E
] Now, I don't know what happens during display of such a combination --
] it could well be that a second nukta is suppressed during display. Someone
] else is going to have to answer that. But I wouldn't consider it
] valid to take the scope of the second nukta as the entire syllable.
] >
] > Ex 3: Ka + Nukta + Virama + Ta + Nukta + Virama + Sa
] >
] > This one, the Nukta applied to "Ta" with "Virama + Sa"
] > wouldn't be considered as part of syllable "Ka + Nukta + Virama + Ta".
] > Is this correct ?
] If you don't restrict the scope of the Nukta to the immediately
] preceding consonant, you have a scope ambiguity here -- which is
] not the intention.

So, I think, for sure, "Nukta" must be applied to the immediately preceding
consonant and now, the point is about how it's related to "syllable".
Would that make sense if, within syllable itself, the consonant cluster
can have only one of "nukta applied immediately to preceding consonant"
part of the cluster ?
I think this would require a little bit more of hindi linguistic for the
If yes, then, we can determine the boundary of "syllable" and if those nukta,
even they are applied to immediately precedding consonant, can be determined
whether they should be part of syllable or not. If not, then, it's up to
the rendering system to render them seperately.

What do you think ?

Chookij V.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:13 EDT