From: Sinnathurai Srivas (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Sep 12 2005 - 13:54:27 CDT
If by Indic unicode means Indo-European, is it a political agenda in part of
Unicode not to name it Indo-European and conceal the facts by calling Indic?
No Indic means Indian language and Indo-European means Indo-European. That
is what Unicode means.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Wordingham" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2005 11:26 AM
Subject: Tamil Non-Tamil 2-Dot Visarga
> Is there any reason for not adding what appears to be a 2-dot visarga to
> the Tamil script? While, FWIW, I have no evidence that it occurs in
> Tamil, it frequently occurs in Sanskrit and Saurashtra texts written in
> the Tamil scripts. There are three issues that I can see:
> 1) It seems that some writers simply use the similar looking colon
> (U+003A). I believe it is regarded as bad practice to use this sort of
> punctuation as a letter. The 2-dot visarga occurs word-internally in
> 2) It might possibly be a glyph variant of aytham. That seems unlikely -
> has anyone examples of them both appearing, ideally in the same font, in
> text that is a mixture of the Sanskrit and Tamil languages or the
> Saurashtra and Tamil languages?
> 3) Spoofing and IDN. ASCII colon and the Tamil-script 2-dot visarga are
> very similar. However, would a colon be allowed inside a Tamil script
> The description of the character should probably say something like
> 'Sanskrit, Saurashtra, not Tamil'. I'd prefer something stronger, like
> 'Indic languages, not Dravidian', but:
> (a) I'm not sure it's actually true.
> (b) Many people don't know the use of 'Indic' to refer to a family of
> Indo-European languages, and using it would be as confusing to some as the
> true statement, 'Strine is not an Australian language'. ('Strine' =
> English as spoken in Australia; 'Australian' = to do with the Australian
> language phylum.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 12 2005 - 13:55:35 CDT