From: Sinnathurai Srivas (sisrivas@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Mon Aug 13 2007 - 05:24:51 CDT
Well,
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.
Sinnathurai
----- Original Message -----
From: "N. Ganesan" <naa.ganesan@gmail.com>
To: "Unicode Mailing List" <unicode@unicode.org>
Cc: <indic@unicode.org>
Sent: 13 August 2007 01:11
Subject: Re: Feedback on PR-104
> On 8/12/07, Sinnathurai Srivas <sisrivas@blueyonder.co.uk> 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