From: Patrick Andries (Patrick.Andries@xcential.com)
Date: Sun Oct 19 2003 - 23:42:07 CST
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 18 2007 - 15:54:24 CST