From: Peter Constable (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Nov 29 2003 - 15:32:46 EST
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Everson [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> "Pronounced" as you mean it here refers to the
> reading rules, not the structure of the script.
That seems to me to be saying we should be encoding the structure of the
script (a statement I'd agree with in general).
> It can't be a NNTA
> since that would assimilate to NNTTA.
Wouldn't it be more likely for a nasal to assimilate to an obstruent
rather than the other way? (We say 'impossible', not 'intossible'.)
But that statement is following phonology, not the structure of the
script. Your statements seem inconsistent to me.
The question is, do we encode something based on it's shape, or based on
the phonemes it represents. Following clear cases, the shape is that of
TA. NN.TA is phonologically unlikely, though, whereas NN.TTA or NN.DDA
is phonologically plausible; so, on the other hand, we could say it
makes little sense to encode NN.TA, and so should encode this as NN.DDA.
I guess I'd be inclined to go with that reasoning, though I have
encountered an NN.DDA conjunct that uses a subjoined small DDA in a font
(see attached); haven't encountered that in texts so far, though.
> Besides my book gives NNDDA
> explicitly as being made of NNA and DDA and has the same glyph.
OK, that's two sources that indicate this. I'll go with that.
> The book is Learn Oriya in 30 Days, a 150-page introductory grammarin
> the National Integration Language Series.
Thanks for the reference. I've tracked down a copy and it's on its way.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 29 2003 - 16:11:18 EST