From: jameskass@att.net
Date: Wed Feb 12 2003 - 02:07:04 EST
.
Andy White wrote,
> So to cut a long story short. Out of Wa and Va, Only Va correctly
> belongs to the alphabet. Wa is a modern innovation
So is the Hmong script, yet the entire script is being proposed
for inclusion.
Best regards,
James Kass
.
> Michael Everson wrote:
>
> > At 02:05 +0000 2003-02-12, Andy White wrote:
> > >Thank you for the reply.
> > >
> > >Given this information, I wonder if anyone can tell me why
> > the 'Bengali
> > >letter AE' and 'Bengali Letter EA' were never included in
> > the UCS? (I
> > >am talking about the letters mentioned in the Unicode Indic FAQ,
> > >http://www.unicode.org/faq/indic.html#13)
> >
> > Because these are not different letters of the alphabet.
>
> And 'Oriya letter Wa' is? What makes you think that?
>
> Oriya letter WA is not part of the alphabet. It is a modern innovation
> used to replace the long lost Oriya letter VA (which *was* once part of
> the alphabet and is now being reintroduced (sometimes confusingly with
> the appearance of letter Wa ).
> (If you are confused with the above statement I'm sorry but it's a long
> story)
> So to cut a long story short. Out of Wa and Va, Only Va correctly
> belongs to the alphabet. Wa is a modern innovation
>
> I must add here that Bengali also has a combination used to transcribe
> Wa. It is LETTER O + YYA_PHALAA.
>
>
> The special
> > form of subscript YA plus a vowel sign yields a particular
> > pronunciation, but this is a reading rule. No different from the
> > English digraph <ch> being pronounced as [t<esh>].
> > --
> > Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
> >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 12 2003 - 02:40:15 EST