Re: Feedback on PR-104

From: Sinnathurai Srivas (
Date: Mon Aug 13 2007 - 05:24:51 CDT

  • Next message: Michael Maxwell: "RE: Feedback on PR-104"


    Unicode got it wrong.
    The rule is, science/Grammar states that you need near voiceless vowels.
    But the approach taken by conjunct theory is that it is more user friendly.

    Howerver, there is only x and K+sh and there is no such thing as conjunct
    ksh in Tamil. Unicode got it wrong for reasons that I do not want to discuss
    here. It is a blatent disregard for Tamil Grammar and Seience.


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "N. Ganesan" <>
    To: "Unicode Mailing List" <>
    Cc: <>
    Sent: 13 August 2007 01:11
    Subject: Re: Feedback on PR-104

    > On 8/12/07, Sinnathurai Srivas <> wrote:
    >> There is no conjunct in Tamil.
    > [...]
    >>> ksh=x, ksh= k + sh, There is no conjunct in Tamil.
    > There is a conjunct in Tamil script, much like Malayalam, Devanagari,
    > ... scripts.
    > ksh = k + sh.
    > In unicode letter names,
    > K.SSA = K + SSA.
    > TACE (or TUNE) if and when encoded, we have to remove the
    > column of of K.SSA.
    > Normally, K.SSA is a conjunct in Sanskrit words in old times,
    > even then Islamic names, English loan words etc., were written
    > without conjunct (ie., in Unicode with ZWNJ) we achieve that.
    > Nowadays, even Sanskrit words are written without a conjunct K.SSA,
    > much like word loans from Middle East or the West (K.SSA with K
    > as a pure consonant with visible virama).
    > N. Ganesan

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 13 2007 - 05:28:05 CDT