Re: Representative glyphs for combining kannada signs

From: Philippe Verdy (verdy_p@wanadoo.fr)
Date: Thu Mar 16 2006 - 08:22:43 CST

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "Re: Representative glyphs for combining kannada signs"

    From: "Philippe Verdy" <verdy_p@wanadoo.fr>
    > From: "Philippe Verdy" <verdy_p@wanadoo.fr>
    >
    >> I note also that there are four other characters:
    >>
    >> * a complex letter or symbol at U+0CF2 that I can't recognize precisely (looks like U+0C95 KANNARA LETTER KA with a combining diacritic below, similar to a small U+C8E KANNARA LETTER E but still different) -- however I think this must be something else, and that this combined diacritic represents a half-consonnant modifier. Could it be a variant half-form of U+CB5 KANNARA LETTER VA, so that the composed letter would be a missing LETTER KVA? Or could it beanimport from U+D28 MALAYALAM LETTER NA, so that the combination shown would be a missing KANNARA LETTER KNA (which interestingly matches the name of the Kannara script when the first small a sound is not pronounced) ?
    >>
    >> * a complex letter or symbol at U+0CF3 (looks like U+0C9C KANNARA LETTER JA with a combining diacritic below, similar to a small U+C9E KANNARA LETTER NYA): is the composite effectively a missing KANNARA LETTER JNYA?
    >>
    >> * a J-shaped diacritic (quite similar to U+0C43 TELUGU VOCALIC COMBINING R), combining on the right and below the dashed circle. Given that there's currently no VOCALIC R in the current Kannaraencoding but only a VOCALIC RR, am I right here ?
    >>
    >> * a F-shaped diacritic, combining on the right of the sample dashed circle (looks much like a variant of U+0CEF KANNARA DIGIT NINE). Could it be a variant of the existing VIRAMA (or halant)?
    >
    > Forget my questions here: it seems they are already proposed and accepted by Unicode one year ago, and in final stage for standardization:
    > 0CF1..0CF2 KANNADA SIGN JIHVAMULIYA, KANNADA SIGN UPADHMANIYA
    > 0CE2..0CE3 KANNADA VOWEL SIGN VOCALIC L, KANNADA VOWEL SIGN VOCALIC LL

    Hmmm... Now that I compare these proposed additions found in the Unicode 5 beta charts, they look completely different from your four glyphs shown in the rose cells of your chart. U+0CF1 will be two triangles one above the other, pointing to each other and connected by one angle, U+0CF2 will be like oo . These can't be the composed letters or letter-shaped symbols you have included in your PDF...

    And the two combining 0CE2..CE3 marks for vocalic L and LL are "m"-shaped with one or two small connected dashes on the right leg. They arereally different from what you submitted in the PDF attached to your previous email (whichprobably exhibits vocalic R and RR instead).

    So, note that the locations shown in your PDF will conflict with Unicode 5. If you have made a font using them, it won't work correctly with Unicode 5.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 16 2006 - 08:26:51 CST