RE: New property for reordrant dependent vowels reordering?

From: Peter Constable (
Date: Tue Sep 06 2005 - 13:50:51 CDT

  • Next message: Rick McGowan: "Re: For Western music notation lovers"

    From: [] On
    Behalf Of Eric Muller

    > If that picture is correct, then we really have two orthographies that

    > use two different sets of conjuncts (one smaller than the other),

    Even apart from the question of how /i/ is positioned, there are
    multiple conventions for what Devanagari conjuncts are used. For
    instance, there are conjuncts that were typically used in Sanskrit
    manuscripts, dictionaries, grammars etc. that modern Hindi speakers very
    much prefer not to use. And it's not even clear to me if Hindi speakers
    in all locations have the same preferences regarding which conjuncts to
    use or not to use, much less when the matter is broadened to consider
    other languages that are written with Devanagari besides Hindi.

    >> One can always force the I to go after the killed consonant by
    >> inserting ZWNJ; e.g., < TTA, VIRAMA, ZWNJ, TTHA, I >.
    > It seems to me that you are going beyond what is currently spelled
    > out by Unicode. The discussion about the joiners does not mention
    > how they interact with vowel signs.

    True; it is silent on that issue. For better or worse, in the context of
    that silence we made an implementation decision. That decision is not
    inconsistent with what the Standard specifies.

    Peter Constable

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Sep 06 2005 - 13:51:57 CDT