From: Peter Constable (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Nov 28 2003 - 02:12:25 EST
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]
> Behalf Of firstname.lastname@example.org
> 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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 28 2003 - 02:52:47 EST