From: Mike Meir (Mike42@gateseven.co.uk)
Date: Tue Aug 05 2003 - 16:27:19 EDT
I stand corrected, apologies
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kenneth Whistler [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: 05 August 2003 21:15
> To: Mike Meir
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
> One small correction to what Mike Meir stated:
> > The Unicode position that nukta modifies the sound is therefore a
> > simplification. But in any event, the nukta, however it is
> > represented, indicates a distinction, usually a change of
> sound, not
> > what that distinction might be.
> It is not the "Unicode position" that a nukta "modifies the sound".
> This is neither a requirement of the Unicode Standard nor
> something that the UTC has stated.
> A combining nukta, as for any combining mark in the standard,
> is a character which graphically modifies a base *character*.
> What the nature of that modification *signifies* is entirely
> a matter for the users of the relevant orthography to determine.
> Indeed, the standard mantra that the editors put in the names
> list for Indic nuktas is simply:
> "for extending the alphabet to new letters"
> What those new letters are used for -- whether they signify
> modified sounds and whether such modification is uniformly
> applied when such letters are used for different languages --
> is up to the users of those letters.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 05 2003 - 17:10:12 EDT