From: Michael Everson (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Nov 29 2003 - 17:11:46 EST
At 12:32 -0800 2003-11-29, Peter Constable wrote:
> > "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'.)
The dental t assimilates to the retroflex n.
>But that statement is following phonology, not the structure of the
>script. Your statements seem inconsistent to me.
I'm saying that the syllable NNTA isn't a probable syllable, because
it would assimilate to NNTTA, while NNDDA is a phonetically normal
syllable, which is the answer to your question.
>The question is, do we encode something based on it's shape, or
>based on the phonemes it represents.
It's Brahmic. We encode according to the characters used to write the
phonemes. The glyph shape is secondary.
>Following clear cases, the shape is that of TA.
The shape in my source shows the same shape for subjoined TA and DDA.
>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.
Well. Where did you encounter it?
> > 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.
I'm sure it's in http://www.evertype.com/scriptbib.html
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 29 2003 - 17:53:46 EST