[OT] Why is the Khmer om sign called om and not um ?

From: Patrick Andries (Patrick.Andries@xcential.com)
Date: Sun Oct 19 2003 - 23:42:07 CST

• Next message: Doug Ewell: "Re: PUA"
• Previous message: Curtis Clark: "Re: PUA"
• Next in thread: Sue and Maurice Bauhahn: "RE: [OT] Why is the Khmer om sign called om and not um ?"
• Reply: Sue and Maurice Bauhahn: "RE: [OT] Why is the Khmer om sign called om and not um ?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

I was wondering why Unicode 4.0 refers to one of the dependent vowel signs composed with nikahit (aka "am" pp. 278-279) as "om" while the other one is "aam".

If "aam" has a name based on the other character used in the composite vowel sign (U+17B6 AA), an "etymological" name distant from its prononciation [ɔ́ɘm], why would not "om" be called "um" since it is composed with U+17BB whose value is U ?

This is incidentally closer to the transliteration in Daniels & Bright, p. 469 : « ʔum ». This is also the transliteration "uM" used on top of page 8 here

http://semioweb.msh-paris.fr/escom/projets_recherche/01_02_projet_inde/IEMCT%20PAPERS/Content%20Creation%20and%20Information%20Retrieval/Minegishi%20-%20Khmer%20and%20Thai%20Scripts.pdf

P. A.

• Next message: Doug Ewell: "Re: PUA"
• Previous message: Curtis Clark: "Re: PUA"
• Next in thread: Sue and Maurice Bauhahn: "RE: [OT] Why is the Khmer om sign called om and not um ?"
• Reply: Sue and Maurice Bauhahn: "RE: [OT] Why is the Khmer om sign called om and not um ?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 18 2007 - 15:54:24 CST