From: Kent Karlsson (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Sep 04 2005 - 04:56:34 CDT
Richard Wordingham wrote:
> It has become clear from some curious cases, such as
> Devanagari TTA + VIRAMA
> + TTHA + I with the Mangal font, that the orthographic
> syllable can depend
> on the font, and not simply on the characters. As there is
> no ligature for
> TTA and TTHA and no half-form for TTA, this sequence is two
> syllables - TTA + VIRAMA and TTHA + I.
Then there are two orthographic syllables here, per definition.
If there in addition is any ligating between adjancent
orthographic syllables, then that is a separate issue.
Are you claiming that reordering may take place over more
than one orthographic syllable? If so, that should be carried
in the underlying text somehow. It should not be a font
dependence, as this is would clearly be an orthographic difference.
> Do you yet have any examples of R1/R2 as opposed to R3/R4?
R3/R4 would be used for (e.g.) Devanagari; see rule R15 (not to be
confused with the property value names I suggested) on page 228 of
TUS4. I'm not sure about R1/R2, and I'll leave that to be answered
by someone more familiar with the Indic scripts than I am.
> For Malayalam, some of the splitting forms are only
> optionally splitting!
No, that is definitely NOT the case. (cont. below)
> Your proposal requires that splitting and non-splitting forms
> be different characters.
Yes, that difference *is* carried by a difference in sequence of
Below I use the following short forms: 'au' -- U+0D4C, canonically
equivalent to <'e', 'au length mark'>; 'e' -- U+0D46;
'au lenght mark' -- U+0D57.
Where one used to write an 'au' vowel, I've been told that in modern
orthography, only the 'au length mark' is written, not the reordrant
'e' part, for what used to be written as a two-part vowel.
* old orthography: <..., 'au'> canonically equivalent to <..., 'e', 'au
* new orthography: <..., 'au length mark'>
If some system+font (claiming to support Unicode/Malayalam) displays
'au' as just the 'au length mark', ommitting the 'e' part, that
> I haven't seen any cases where they break consonant-vowel
Some posted scans would be nice...
> theory subscripts shouldn't be any worse than nuktas, and for simple
> conjuncts, as in Brahmi, I think they shouldn't break the
> conjuncts. After
> all, they wouldn't present any problems when writing by hand.
Where would you then display them? Inside in the middle of the
conjunct somewhere? Again, presenting actual existing examples
would be nice; if any exist.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 04 2005 - 05:11:14 CDT