Re: A case for Tamil-X (k sh)

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Wed Jan 08 2003 - 11:40:02 EST

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: A case for Tamil-X (k sh)"

    Sinnathurai Srivas <avarangal at hotmail dot com> wrote:

    > ie, with rendering enabled one can not have ksh, but only x.
    > without rendering only ksh is possible and not x.

    "Without rendering," neither is possible. As I tried to explain last
    July 22, the term "rendering" refers to the general process of mapping
    characters to glyphs. The process you are talking about is "complex

    > An analogy is
    > en in English is a single consonant (though written as en), but
    > en in penguin is two independent consonants.

    How can "en" in "English" be considered a single consonant? It's
    pronounced [ɪŋ], a vowel (U+026A) followed by a consonant (U+014B). The
    g is pronounced separately: [ˈɪŋɡlɪʃ].

    A better analogy would be:

    sh in hogwash is a single consonant (though written as sh), but
    sh in hogshead is two independent consonants.

    There may be merit in adding this new "x" character (or perhaps the
    problem could be solved with ZWNJ or ZWJ), but Michael is correct:
    although it's a good idea to discuss it on the list first, nothing will
    be considered for addition unless a proper proposal is written and

    -Doug Ewell
     Fullerton, California

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 08 2003 - 12:24:45 EST