Re: Major Defect in Combining Classes of Tibetan Vowels

Date: Thu Jun 26 2003 - 03:43:08 EDT

  • Next message: "Re: Biblical Hebrew (Was: Major Defect in Combining Classes of Tibetan Vowels)"

    John Hudson wrote on 06/25/2003 06:47:44 PM:

    > >This is not. The Unicode Standard makes no assumptions or claims
    > >about what the phonological or meaning equivalence of <hiriq, patah>
    > >or <patah, hiriq> is for Biblical Hebrew.
    > But it does make assumptions about the canonical equivalence of the mark

    > orders <U+05B4, U+05B7> and <U+05B7, U+05B4>, unless my understanding of

    > the purpose of combining classes is completely mistaken.

    Your understanding on this point is correct.

    > My understanding
    > is that any ordering of two marks with different combining classes is
    > canonically equivalent;


    > further, I understand that some normalisation forms
    > will re-order marks to move marks with lower combining class values
    > to the base character.

    *Every* Unicode normalization form will apply canonical reordering.

    > * Meteg re-ordering is in some respects even more problematic than
    > multi-vowel re-ordering

    And it is because of meteg-vowel ordering distinctions that the ordering
    of things like patah + hiriq should not be solved in any way other than
    the two having the same canonical combining class, because that is exactly
    what will be needed to deal with meteg-vowel ordering distinctions.

    - Peter

    Peter Constable

    Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
    7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
    Tel: +1 972 708 7485

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 26 2003 - 04:34:51 EDT