Re: Sanskrit nasalized L

From: <>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 14:46:41 -0400

In standard Brahmic (Indic) text is there anything like this? Is this an
error in writing? Could you please give an example from texts?

Anbu Kaveeswarar Selvaraju

<br><br>On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 21:57:19 +0530, Shriramana Sharma
<> wrote:
> On 17-06-2011 21:38, Andreas Prilop wrote:
>> How can I combine Devanagari "La" U+0932 with*both*
>> "Virama" U+094D and "Candrabindu" U+0901 ?
> Well OK this *is* a tricky question.
> If your question is a result of not getting some form of desired display

> from your font, then it's a problem with the font/rendering engine.
> If your question is about what *sequence* should be used for anunaasika
> LA, then I personally believe (and have stated in L2/09-372) that the
> "proper" sequence is:
> LA may also be substituted by YA or VA.
> My justification for choosing the above sequence is:
> 1. candrabindu is always placed after vowel signs, and the virama, while

> not commonly labeled one, is functionally also a vowel sign, to wit, a
> sign of vowel *absence* (taking a vowel sign to be one which modifies
> the inherent vowel of the base consonant in whatever way.)
> 2. Mapping YA/VA/LA + VIRAMA to half-forms or overt virama forms will
> work this way (though of course one has to test for a following
> consonant to determine whether a half-form or full vowelless form should

> be displayed -- this is only for C1-conjoining scripts like Devanagari
> and not for C2-conjoining South Indian scripts).
> I am however yet to submit a document to the UTC on this. Let me see if
> I can do so before the next UTC. If there are any other thoughts from
> others expressed here, it would also be useful for such a document.
Received on Fri Jun 17 2011 - 14:29:00 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri Jun 17 2011 - 14:29:01 CDT