From: John Cowan (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Mar 03 2003 - 16:48:00 EST
> Let's consider the ra+virama+ya case. In the mostpart the ra+virama+ya is
> displayed as ya+reph. This obviously seems to be an
> instance of ambiguous interpretation because ra+virama+ya could also represents
> ra+ja-phalaa. ya+reph and ra+ja-phalaa are used in different words and have
> different meaning.
I'm responding to this message in order to isolate this point. If correct, then
the current model of YA PHALAA is inadequate.
-- Dream projects long deferred John Cowan <email@example.com> usually bite the wax tadpole. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --James Lileks http://www.reutershealth.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 03 2003 - 17:34:08 EST