From: Richard Wordingham (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Oct 16 2005 - 20:50:47 CST
Philippe Verdy wrote:
>>I have received the following communication about a possible confusion
>> in the names of a couple of Lao letters (U+0E9D and U+0E9F). I don't
>> know anything about Lao or Thai, so I'd be grateful if anyone could
>> let me know whether the Unicode names for these characters are correct
>> or not.
>> Je tiens à vous signaler que deux consonnes laotiennes qui
>> correspondent d'ailleurs aux deux consonnes thaïes sont bien à leur
>> place correcte, mais on s'est trompé en leur donnant leur nom en
>> laotien: Fo Soung est entre Pho Soung et Pho tam lequel est suivi de
>> Fo tam.
>> Les dessins des lettres sont donc corrects et à leur place, c'est le
>> nom qui doit changer. Idem en thaï: Fo Fan (Soung) doit être avant Fo
>> Fa (tam).
> In other words, the representative glyphs and the alphabetic order is
> correct (so is the encoding itself), but the names only are wrong for
>> U+0E9E : LAO LETTER PHO TAM
>> U+0E9F : LAO LETTER FO SUNG
> which are swapped, as well as:
>> U+0E1E : THAI CHARACTER PHO PHAN
>> U+0E1F : THAI CHARACTER FO FAN
The Thai is fine. It's just that the names of the Lao fo letters have been swapped. The Lao chart needs to be annotated something like:
U+0E9C : LAO LETTER PHO SUNG
U+0E9D : LAO LETTER FO TAM
The Lao name is fo sung.
U+0E9E : LAO LETTER PHO TAM
U+0E9F : LAO LETTER FO SUNG
The Lao name is fo tam.
> Unfortunately, names are normally immutable, unlike representative glyphs.
> But I think that swapping the glyphs would make more damage, breaking
> existing texts and collations, than just changing the confusive names (which
> are most often not used in implementations as well as in fonts).
> This should be an exception to the rule of immutability of normative
> character names, because this is an editorial error that should not have
> happened. I think that such change this should require an immediate "Public
> Review Issue", and a communication to ISO/IEC 10646, so that they can
> statuate on this case...
Maybe we should have a rule like the English legal rule that an Act of Parliament means what Parliament intended it to mean, not what it says. Unless of course the naming was done maliciously...
I think someone was having an off-day. Aren't
ຣ 0EA3 LAO LETTER LO LING
ລ 0EA5 LAO LETTER LO LOOT
also the wrong way round?
ร 0E23 THAI LETTER RO RUEA [ruea = boat]
ล 0E25 THAI LETTER LO LING [ling = monkey]
See also the character chart at http://www.seasite.niu.edu/lao/LaoLanguage/LaoAlphabet/lao_consonants_poster.htm . Unfortunately for its evidential quality, the author is Thai (albeit from the North East), but I am persuaded by the fact that the word for 0EA3 is _lot_, meaning car. (I don't understand the 'oo' in 'loot'.) U+0EA5 is what I would expect to see in a native word, U+0EA3 in a Pali/Sanskrit loan, if I was seeing an etymologically reliable spelling.
I haven't reported the matter because I haven't had Lao confirmation.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Oct 17 2005 - 13:15:52 CST