Re: Sanskrit nasalized L

From: Richard Wordingham <>
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:32:35 +0100

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:24:01 +0530
Shriramana Sharma <> wrote:

> The point is that the sequence:
> <la, virama, candrabindu, la>
> is strictly speaking *the* sequence recommended *across* Indic
> scripts for representation of Sanskrit clusters involving a nasal and
> non-nasal "semivowel".

Could you please quote me chapter and verse for this from the TUS or
other relevant ruling. It contradicts TUS 6.0 Section 11.4 Ordering of
Syllable Components (p367), which treats U+17D2 KHMER SIGN COENG and
its following consonant (or independent vowel) as inseparable.

It also creates the further oddity that when using a 'consonant sign'
(Tibetan, possibly Myanmar, and Tai Tham) one would have the sequence
<la, candrabindu, subjoined la>. (Alas, I don't have any relevant
Sanskrit examples in those scripts.)

The problem may be what is meant by an 'Indic script'? Do you include
Tibetan and Further Indian Indic scripts (e.g. Myanmar, Tai Tham and
Khmer), or do you just mean Indian Indic scripts?

Received on Sun Aug 14 2011 - 07:38:18 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Aug 14 2011 - 07:38:24 CDT