RE: Oriya: nndda / nnta?

From: Peter Constable (
Date: Fri Nov 28 2003 - 02:12:25 EST

  • Next message: Arcane Jill: "RE: numeric properties of Nl characters in the UCD"

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: []
    > Behalf Of

    > Since base letters TA and DDA are similar in appearance, their
    > reduced form(s) could be identical. If this is the case, then
    > probably NNA + VIRAMA + DDA.

    Well, most of the C+ta conjuncts I've seen so far use this form
    (exceptions are r-ta, which uses the reph above, and t-ta, which uses a
    distinct ligature). In contrast, of the few undisputable C+dda conjuncts
    I've seen, apart from the r-dda with reph, the others use a scaled,
    subjoined dda. If this is really to be considered a nn-dda conjunct,
    it's the only C-dda conjunct that uses this shape.

    > Or, if it's supposed to be the reduced form of "TA" and is only
    > *pronounced* like "DDA" when it's under "NNA",

    Well, that's precisely the question: should it be handled like a TA
    that's pronounced like DDA, or should it be considered an exceptional

    As you point out the doc I referenced appears to assume the latter, and
    that it should be encoded NNA + VIRAMA + DDA. I want to know whether
    that's an agreed-upon encoding convention, or whether this is something
    not fully resolved in Unicode's support for Oriya.


    Peter Constable

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 28 2003 - 02:52:47 EST