From: Ngwe Tun (email@example.com)
Date: Wed May 03 2006 - 17:36:40 CST
I would like to point out some wrong expressiong in geminate ddha section,
It's totally wrong for that expression. It would not be form as geminate
It's possible to form as DDA + VIRAMA + DDHA sequence expression.
please see in my attachment.
It's a little difficult to remember.
On 5/4/06, Richard Wordingham <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Mark Leisher wrote on Wednesday, May 03, 2006 6:17 PM
> > I'm working on a program to convert the visual encoding used by the
> > font (and others) into Unicode.
> > 1. One glyph provided in these fonts (at position 0x40) looks like
> > with a rotated and subscripted U+100D. Is U+100F U+1039 U+100D the
> > sequence to produce this glyph?
> Yes, unless it's not a combination of them. There's no dispute on this
> combination. (TT.TTHA and DD.DDHA are not totally secure - a DD.DDA like
> combination for the latter is plausible, but apparently unattested.) I've
> attached the forms given by the SIL Padauk font. The NN.DDHA combination
> likely to be laid out as a proper conjunct in the next version of the font
> it's apparently absent from Burmese, and the Pali examples are dubious
> words, being at best doublets of words in NN.TTHA. The font produces
> attested combinations, so it manges to handle names like 'Ngwe'.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 03 2006 - 17:44:58 CST