From: N. Ganesan (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Aug 21 2005 - 07:39:12 CDT
Richard Wordhingham wrote:
>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.
(Pl. note it's "K +" , rather than "KA +".)
Actually, KSSA is a Tamil Grantha letter that's used to
write Sanskrit words. Foreign words are written in Tamil script
as both conjunct and nonconjunct KSSA. Nowadays, the
general trend is to avoid the conjunct KSS and instead use
non-conjunct KSS. And, both these are equivalent and not distinct.
Also, Tamil normally nativizes words with -KSS- into -KK-, -CC-, -TTC-.
Because of this, the actual frequency of KSS is rather miniscule.
>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
Isn't the PUA scheme in TUNE, Tamil Nadu level-1?
That is what I understood from their paper or Philippe Verdy's mail.
If someone produces a font with just the needed glyphs in tscii in PUA
will it be level-1?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Aug 21 2005 - 07:41:51 CDT