From: Christopher Fynn (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Aug 13 2007 - 13:38:11 CDT
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
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