From: Sinnathurai Srivas (sisrivas@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Wed Jul 27 2005 - 17:29:30 CDT
There are many phonemes in Tamil usage, that would benefit if diacritics are
used.
example
thick /th0/ thirai
father /th1/ athan
this /th2/ inththa
example:
¾¢ = ¾̥, ¾, ¾̧
and so on ..
While on the question of diacritics,
does combining marks allow ligature formations to give
consonant+depen.vowel = consonant + combining mark + depen.vowel ligatures.
example:
¾¢ = ¾̥¢, ¾¢, ¾̧¢
Sinnathurai
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Wordingham" <richard.wordingham@ntlworld.com>
To: <unicode@unicode.org>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 6:39 PM
Subject: Re: Letters for Indic transliteration
> Andreas Prilop wrote:
>
>> The Unicode range "Latin Extended Additional" includes many letters
>> marked for "Indic transliteration". None of these are really necessary
>> because you can use combining marks such as U+0323 and U+0325.
>>
>> Since so many are precomposed, I suspect the intention was to include
>> all necessary letters for Indic transliteration. However, four letters
>> (= eight characters) with ring below are missing and two other letters
>> (= four characters) do not exist in transliteration.
>>
>> Indic letters Transliteration
>>
>> 090B 098B 0D0B R with ring below -- --
>> 090C 098C 0D0C L with ring below -- --
>> 0933 -- 0D33 L with dot below 1E36 1E37
>> 095C 09DC -- R with dot below 1E5A 1E5B
>> 0960 09E0 0D60 R with ring below and macron -- --
>> 0961 09E1 0D61 L with ring below and macron -- --
>> -- -- -- L with dot below and macron 1E38 1E39
>> -- -- -- R with dot below and macron 1E5C 1E5D
>>
>> The precomposed characters 1E38, 1E39, 1E5C, 1E5D suggest that
>> the Unicode Consortium confused the letters "with dot below"
>> (denoting retroflex/cerebral consonants) and "with ring below"
>> (denoting vocalic R and L).
>
>> - ISO 15919:2001 "Transliteration of Devanagari and related Indic scripts
>> into Latin characters"
>
> I wouldn't call it confusion, at least not on the part of the Unicode
> Consortium. There is an old tradition of using a dot below to indicate
> vocalisation. I know I encountered it (and in the context of Sanskrit and
> Proto-Indo-European) before I encountered the IPA symbol ring below. The
> 1969 edition of the Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology uses dot below
> for both Sanskrit and PIE. Indeed I recall reading of some dismay at ISO
> 15919 because fonts with r with dot below (with and without macron) had to
> be supplemented with r with ring below (with and without macron).
>
> Underdotted l is also used to transcribe the Vedic/Pali consonant
> corresponding to retroflex da - isn't the Vedic/Pali consonant plain
> U+0933?
>
> Richard.
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 27 2005 - 17:31:47 CDT