From: Patrick Andries (Patrick.Andries@xcential.com)
Date: Mon Oct 20 2003 - 14:06:07 CST
----- Original Message -----
From: Sue and Maurice Bauhahn
To: Patrick Andries ; firstname.lastname@example.org
Sent: 20 oct. 2003 14:19
Subject: RE: [OT] Why is the Khmer om sign called om and not um ?
>There are four problems associated with Unicode naming:
[PA] Just to reassure everyone "om" (or rather "um") is not a Unicode
character per se but the name given to a non-coded composite one in the
Unicode 4.0 text and the NameList.txt annotations. So I'm not questioning
the sacrosanct name of a character, which is immutable.
>(1) Different characters should not share the same Latinised name (so there
may be arbitrary
> differences in transliteration spelling to distinguish unique
>(2) There has been no standardised transliteration scheme in languages such
as Khmer (for
> those that have been created are generally inadequate ... for example
because they are not
>reversible or because they are more complicated than the original)
>(3) Sounds of vowels (in Khmer, as in other languages) vary according to
> there is no right or wrong for these taken out of context
>(4) Sometimes transliteration mistakes have happened...but cannot be
reversed as they
> have become normative
[PA] I understand the arbitrary and delicate nature of these names, but this
does not explain why "aam" (itself again not an official character but only
a reference in the text and in NameList) seems to have a name based on the
name of one of its constituent ("aa") rather than its prononciation, while
"om" is not named "um" although the vowel that replaces "aa" is here "u".
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
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 18 2007 - 15:54:24 CST