From: Michael Everson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Nov 28 2003 - 18:37:18 EST
At 23:12 -0800 2003-11-27, Peter Constable wrote:
>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.
There are not very many conjuncts with -dda.
nn-dda which has the same shape as the -ta in Oriya
r-dda which takes repha
I would be interested to see what evidence Peter has for any conjuncts in -dda.
>Well, that's precisely the question: should it be handled like a TA
>that's pronounced like DDA, or should it be considered an
The latter, I think. "Pronounced" as you mean it here refers to the
reading rules, not the structure of the script. It can't be a NNTA
since that would assimilate to NNTTA.
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 28 2003 - 19:28:50 EST