From: Richard Wordingham (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Jan 31 2011 - 03:18:09 CST
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 23:44:12 -0500
Ed <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Richard Wordingham
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 10:23:17 -0600
> > Ed <email@example.com> wrote:
> >> Hi, Everyone,
> >> In ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2 document N3121, "Proposal for encoding the
> >> Lanna script in the BMP of the UCS", the table of examples on pages
> >> 2-3 of section 5 "Dependent vowel signs" appears to imply (but note
> >> that the text does not *explicitely* state) that the decompositions
> >> shown are in fact the logical storage order.
> >> For most of the examples shown, the logical order makes sense. But
> >> for combinations containing U+1A6C OA BELOW, it appears that an
> >> arbitrary choice has been made regarding the logical storage
> >> position of U+1A6C.
> >> In the examples in N3121, U+1A6C OA BELOW appears after U+1A6E
> >> VOWEL E (which makes sense to me) but (for example) before U+1A65
> >> VOWEL I --and the latter does not make sense to me.
> > The combining *vowels* in a syllable have been written in accordance
> > with the rule for Thai-script character stacks, namely (pre-vocalic)
> > consonants, and then vowels and tone-marks from bottom to top. For
> > example, <U+0E4D THAI CHARACTER NIKHAHIT> follows <U+0E38 THAI
> > CHARACTER SARA U> when writing Pali.
> OK ...
> > If Unicode hadn't balked at the idea of decomposing characters of
> > non-zero combining class (e.g. U+0D4B MALAYALAM VOWEL SIGN OO, which
> > consequently wound as class 0), then we might have assigned U+1A6C
> > OA BELOW class 220 and U+1A65 VOWEL I class 230. In accordance
> > with this principle, I assume that multiple vowels below would be
> > ordered from top to bottom as with European scripts, but I haven't
> > found any examples that would make this an issue.
> > A surprise from the Thai point of view is the treatment of the -ua
> > and -ia vowels - these are <U+1A60 SAKOT, U+1A45 WA, 1A6B VOWEL O>
> ... I can live with that one
> > and
> > <U+1A60 SAKOT, U+1A3F LOW YA, U+1A6E VOWEL E>.
> ... but this one makes no sense at all to me.
They're parallel! Also note that there is a tendency for /ua/ and
/ia/ to simplify as /o/ and /e/, a process that seems to be complete
in Shan, Tai Khuen and Tai Lue.
However, I don't think a *font* should reject the sequence <U+1A6E
VOWEL E, U+1A60 SAKOT, U+1A3F LOW YA> - it would make sense as /ei/,
even though that might not occur in any Tai or Indic language written in
the Lanna script.
I can't immediately rule out the occurrence of <U+1A60 SAKOT, U+1A3F
LOW YA, U+1A6E VOWEL E> in Pali, and I'm not sure one shouldn't write
Sanskrit in the Lanna script. After all, it supports Sanskritisation.
In short, a font has to support the sequence whatever view you
take on the orthography of Tai languages.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 31 2011 - 03:24:52 CST