From: Andy White (Andy__White@btinternet.com)
Date: Sat Mar 01 2003 - 17:19:58 EST
Michael Everson tries hard to understand my point of view, but really he
does not :-(
Amongst many things I said:
>> Viramas and vowels should not & do not mix in the
>> Unicode encoding scheme. That is why we have
>> Vowel Signs. E.g. The syllable 'KU' is semantically
>> equivalent to a composite of 'Ka' and the Full-Vowel
>> letter 'U'. It is encoded as 'Ka' + 'VowelSignU' in the
>> Unicode scheme. It could also be said that 'KU' can
>> be encoded as 'Ka'+'Virama'+ 'Full-Vowel letter U'
>> In fact that is just the way it *is* done in some existing
>> input methods :- but that would not be in line with the
>> Unicode Indic encoding scheme, would it.
And Michael Everson said:
> This isn't the same. YA is a consonant, not a vowel sign,
Actually Ya is a semi-vowel. That is why it behaves like a vowel
> and it is
> affected by the preceding VIRAMA.
Well, thatís where people with an in-depth understanding of the script
do not agree.
As I see it, this is your and my line of thinking combined:
When Yaphalaa occurs after a consonant it is semantically equivalent to
a dead consonant plus the letter Ya.
Therefore in such cases Yaphalaa can be encoded as Consonant+Virama+Ya.
This is correct because a dead consonant is semantically equivalent to
'Consonant+Virama' and 'Japhalaa' is semantically equivalent to 'Ya'
when it occurs after a dead consonant. I reiterate, 'Japhalaa' is
equivalent to 'Ya'. *Not 'Virama Ya'*.
(We both agree with this, I hope :-)
When Yaphalaa occurs after a vowel, it is *not* is semantically
equivalent to the vowel plus a Virama plus the letter Ya.
Such a sequence (with a Virama) is illogical to scholars of Indic
Therefore in such cases Yaphalaa can *not* be encoded as
(I agree with this, but you do not seem to)
Because of some seemingly logical reason not stated above, when Yaphalaa
occurs after a vowel, it can be encoded as Virama+Ya, despite the
reasons given in 1 & 2.
(You agree, I believe)
Because you agree with 3, TUS 4.0 is also going to state 3 in its text,
If I am mistaken, please let me know!
> >(Incidentally that is also why the example in TUS3.0,
> Chapter 9, page
> >214, Figure 9-3 ("Conjunct Formations"), example (4) is also
> wrong as
> >previously discussed. That example 'conjunct' is correctly encoded as
> >Ra+'VowelSignVocalicR' in Unicode and not as shown.
> Yes, we know that that figure is an error, and have verified it with
> Monier-Williams' Sanskrit dictionary, and it will be corrected.
> > > I am sure that Unicode and ISCII data can be exchanged
> with regard
> > to
> >> this matter.
> >Not very easily, the exchange of data will require a 'four-character
> >ahead lookup'
> One understands that this is not all that difficult.
> Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 01 2003 - 18:11:17 EST