Re: Feedback on PR-104

From: Christopher Fynn (cfynn@gmx.net)
Date: Mon Aug 13 2007 - 13:38:11 CDT

  • Next message: Martin v. L÷wis: "Specification for XID_Start and XID_Continue"

    I don't know anything about Tamil but isn't this just another version of the old
    argument of whether or not KSHA should have been encoded as a separate consonant
    in Indic scripts?

    BTW Several old Sanskrit grammars translated into Tibetan (and no longer extant
    in the original Sanskrit) and old Sanskrit-Tibetan "dictionaries" such as the
    Mahavyutpatti (ninth century AD) *do* consistently treat KSHA as a separate
    consonant in Sanskrit - and in old scripts used to write Sanskrit at that time
    it is also orthographically a separate glyph form - very different from a
    conjunct.

    - Chris

    Sinnathurai Srivas wrote:
    > I can follow your line of thought.
    >
    > However, in Tamil, the only one letter, x, is treated as
    > consonant/conjunct ksh by Unicode causes unnecessary and immence pain
    > for lingual programming. Yet, the Grammar explicitly avoids conjuncts,
    > while Unicode explicitly allocates conjunct to Tamil.
    >
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 13 2007 - 13:41:15 CDT