From: Shriramana Sharma (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Aug 25 2009 - 22:03:34 CDT
On 2009-Aug-26 00:22, Asmus Freytag wrote:
> the same reason, UTC is correct to continue to be
> consistent with past practice in assigning Mc to any new
> characters that are analogues to existing Mc characters.
This is not entirely true. Tamil Sign Visarga is Lo, unlike the
Visarga-s of other Indic scripts. OTOH it can be argued that the
function of the Tamil Sign Visarga is not entirely visarga-like.
I hope this practice of UTC doesn't mean that the visarga or
ardhavisarga proposed for any new Indic script would have to be perforce
Mc and Lo would not be allowed.
-- Shriramana Sharma
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 25 2009 - 22:06:45 CDT