Re: U+0BA3, U+0BA9

From: Peter Kirk (peterkirk@qaya.org)
Date: Sat Oct 25 2003 - 16:27:33 CST


On 25/10/2003 14:08, Doug Ewell wrote:

>Peter Jacobi <peter_jacobi at gmx dot net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>So, in effect the UNICODE character names attempt to be
>>a unified transliteration scheme for all languages? Are these
>>principles laid down somewhere or is this more informal?
>>
>>
>
>The Unicode character names attempt to be (a) unique and (b) reasonably
>mnemonic. Anything beyond that is a bonus. They expressly do *not*
>represent any form of transliteration or transcription scheme.
>
>-Doug Ewell
> Fullerton, California
> http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
If you think the Tamil is misleading, look at the Cyrillic. The same
sound is written as I in 0415, Y in 042E and J in 0408.

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/


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