Re: Major Defect in Combining Classes of Tibetan Vowels

From: Peter Lofting (
Date: Wed Jun 25 2003 - 12:08:10 EDT

  • Next message: Mark Davis: "Re: Major Defect in Combining Classes of Tibetan Vowels"

    At 8:11 AM -0700 6/25/03, Michael (michka) Kaplan wrote:
    >From: "Andrew C. West" <>
    > > What I'm suggesting is that although "cui" <0F45, 0F74, 0F72> and
    >"ciu" <0F45,
    >> 0F72, 0F74> should be rendered identically, the logical ordering of the
    > > codepoints representing the vowels may represent lexical
    >differences that would
    >> be lost during the process of normalisation.
    >Do you (or does anyone) have an actual example where this is the case? It
    >may well be true but until someone has a proof there is not really an
    >indication of a specific problem for the UTC to address.
    >The current discussion is like arguing about a color that none of the
    >participants have ever seen.

    A list of common contractions would help here. I've seen at least one
    such published collection in the past which listed common
    contractions found in U-Med running text. However I don't have it
    with me. Does anyone on-line have access to a document like this?


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 25 2003 - 13:47:46 EDT