From: Andreas Prilop (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Jul 19 2005 - 08:58:17 CDT
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> A note "Indic transliteration" should not be over-interpreted
> as meaning "Sufficient for all Indic transliteration and
> intended for Sanskrit syllabic liquids, despite the fact that
> established transliterations now use dot below for retroflex
> articulation and ring below for vocalization, but we're confused
> and don't care about conventions, so insist that you use the
> wrong forms." ;-)
My concern is not about conventions but that you need
- "R with ring below" and "R with dot below" *at the same time*,
- "L with ring below" and "L with dot below" *at the same time*.
Hindi has both "vocalic R" ("ring below") and "retroflex R"
("dot below"). The same holds for other modern Indic languages.
The current situation is unfortunate: You have all necessary
letters as precomposed letters without "R, L with ring below".
IMHO it would be a better idea to add these missing precomposed
letters. Otherwise there will be non-ending confusion since
many people use the current "R, L with dot below" instead of
"R, L" followed by U+0325 "ring below".
I propose to add (at least) four letters:
- R with ring below
- r with ring below
- L with ring below
- l with ring below
in "Latin Extended Additional".
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 19 2005 - 08:59:57 CDT