Re: Virama based model - a note

From: Philippe Verdy (
Date: Mon May 16 2005 - 16:17:14 CDT

  • Next message: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: Cyrillic guillemotleft and guillemotright"

    From: "N. Ganesan" <>
    > On the other hand, Tamils devised puLLi orthographically
    > to do a job - to "kill" inherent -a in the so called "consonants"
    > in other Indic languages. Nakanishi rule (3) is invalid for Tamil!
    > So, will write a small proposal to include data on puLLi in Tamil,
    > its definition in ancient Tamil grammars and epigraphs,
    > and its use in making Tamil script lot simpler and lucid
    > in the info on Indic script characteristics in Devanagari section, Ch.
    > 9 of the Unicode standard.

    Tamil vowel signs do not necessarily kill the inherent [-] of the
    consonant, so the pulli "virama" will be necessary to kill it:
    Is that what is meant in the Tamil example of page 5 ([k] + [-i] gives
    [ky], not [ki]) ?

    In this case, Tamil effectively is different.
    Isn't it also true for Malalayam, the nearest script in the genetic tree?

    What about gemination then (longer consonnants)? Does Tamil require a pulli
    on each consonnant of the cluster?
    For example when writing [haikk], do you write:
    - [h]+[-i] + pulli+[k]+pulli+[k]+[-], or
    - [h]+[-i] + pulli+[k]+[k]+[-]?

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 16 2005 - 17:37:03 CDT