James E. Agenbroad wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, Jaap Pranger wrote:
> > At 18:05 +0200 2000.08.23, James E. Agenbroad wrote:
> > >Whether a vowel or vowel sign can have a nukta I do not know. >
> > Don't think so.
> In another posting Mr. Leca says ISCII 91 uses nukta with both vowel
> and vowel signs to input certain uncommon cases. So I guess it would be
> safer to allow them, presumably before U+0901 to U+0903.
> It would help to know if these are just input conventions or are also how
> long vocalic rii and both vocalin li and lii are stored too.
Sorry I was unclear.
- the input convention (i.e. you type ka then i then nukta, and you see a k,l)
- the inner storage *in ISCII-91*.
It is *not* the way Unicode strings should be encoded (heaven forbids!)
Then should use U+944 U+0960 U+0962 U+090D U+0963 U+0961, and nothing else.
The current Devanagari/Inscript keyboard layout of Windows 2000 requires the
use of the AltGr key to input these characters, so here it does not follow
the Indian Standard. (I believe Windows does not currently accept the principe
of *post*-modifier like nukta or the Unicode combining characters, only
*pre*-modifier keys, the so-called dead keys, are supported).
> > 'Nuktated' consonants always (?)
Not really. Yes for qa khha ghha, and to a lesser extend za fa (which
exist in other culture also), but yya is specific to Bengali/Oriya scripts,
and dddha rha are also of Oriyan or Bengali origin I believe (Oriya should
in fact be written O rr i aa, 0913 095C 093E 0906, IIRC).
And dddha is also a genuine letter in Gurmukhi.
> > belong to Urdu words, and visarga "occurs almost exclusively in
> > Sanskrit loanwords", thus the occurce of nuqta followed by visarga
> > is highly unlikely, or non-existent.
> > (I don't consider U+095C, U+095D and U+095F as nuktated; should I?)
Why? where do you see a difference (except of course that their uses
are different, as I said above)
> Yes indeed. Mr. Leca points out that ISCII uses two halants to
> mean an 'explicit halant'--one not to be replaced by a more complicated
> conjunct. I guess I prefer the Unicode ZWJ.
Again, sorry to have been unclear. In Unicode, I believe ony the ZWJ should
be used, using two halanta-s is IMHO wrong.
Only perhaps the input method should perhaps be aware of that.
> > > 7. Unicode 3.0 fig. 9-3 (4) to the contrary notwithstanding, halant
> > >immediately followed by a vowel sign or an independent vowel is highly
> > >questionable--just consonant + vowel sign would seem preferable.
> > I would like to know in which word(s) this 'rare' sequence occurs,
> > in Sanskrit?
> On page 554 (middle of second column) of Monier Williams
> Sanskrit-English Dictonary there are three words beginning 'nirr.' where
> 'r.' is the vocalic ri. It displays as the independent ri vowel with a
> reph above it;
I am taking this as the normal representation for 'rr.'. Also, ru and rU
already are special; so I do not expect the other syllable with 'ra' and
a below sign to be "normal".
> but they are filed after 'niru' and before 'nire' which
> strongly suggests to me that the ra consonant + ri vowel sign are present
> but display strangely.
Sure. If it really was intended as n i r virama independant-ri
(0928 093F 094D 090C), it would collate after no... (and just before nk...
or nn... or ny...)
> does anyone know if there is an automated version of this work (like the
> OED) that one could search for all occurences of ra (consonant) + ri (vowel sign)?
I do not know of an online version of Monnier-Williams, but from sanskrit.itrans
(list of the words found in Mahabharata and Ramayana), I got only "nirr.t-" and
"nairr.t-" (r. is the vocalic r).
I also got "bhrAtrR.HSa" (with long vocalic r) which is different, since
it is displayed as tra + the double hook below.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:13 EDT