From: Richard Wordingham (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Aug 20 2005 - 19:20:21 CDT
From: "N. Ganesan wrote on 20 August 2005 at 4:03 PM
> Richard Wordingham wrote:
>>I can understand the gripes about 'level-2' v. 'level-1' implementation,
>>How well, though, would the new scheme work if it were allocated non-PUA
>>codes in the SMP?
> Tamil does not have conjuncts, and this is unique among
> Indian languages. This is because of the action of puLLi,
> all Tamil grammars define consonants with puLLi (as mentioned here
> few times). Unicode defines abugidas with inherent /a/ as
> consonants for Tamil (this is something fairly new, not attested in Tamil
> and grammar anytime).
There's KSSA (= KA + ZWNJ+SSA). As it's distinct to KA + SSA, you can't
cite the Thai defence that logical order is impossible. KSSA seems to count
as a separate consonant in Tamil, if you accept that it's Tamil at all.
However, the real issues is not conjuncts, but vowels that precede or
surround the consonant. Isn't it this plus phonetic order that that makes
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Aug 20 2005 - 19:24:38 CDT