Re: Tamil Anusvara (U+0B82) glyph shape [ Re: Dot position in Gurmukhi character U+0A33]

From: srivas sinnathurai <sisrivas_at_blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:00:17 +0000

Dear All,

Anusvara and Visarga are not required for Tamil.
Tamil Grammar (first chapter) deals with writing system.
Tamil writing system is different to mostly other Indic system.
primarily, Tamil alphabet does not represent sounds, but represents Places
of articulation.
Most Indic alphabet represent sound. This is distinct phenomenon.

beside, there are rules to achieve what ever Anusvara and Visarga are
doing. Unicode should not attempt to fix Tamil language to accommodate a
different writing system, even for transliteration. Tamil has it's own
transliteration methods.

As tamil is classical, ancient, current and scientific, there should not be
an attempt to destroy the system. please leave it alone. tamil alphabet and
it's interpretations/usage is scientifically defined.

Regards
Sinnathurai

On 9 February 2012 02:45, N. Ganesan <naa.ganesan_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Pavanaja U B <pavanaja_at_vishvakannada.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Unicodeís policy is not delete any character once encoded. You just
> donít use it. Thatís all.
> >
> > On another thinking, I feel it will be even better to add more
> characters to Tamil to help in transliterating from other Indian languages.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Pavanaja
> >
>
> Yes. Anusvara and Visarga are core characters needed for transliteration
> in Tamil script.
> The Indic, non-Tamil languages' rendition to Tamil script uses them
> extensively.
>
> Regards
> N. Ganesan
>
Received on Thu Feb 09 2012 - 04:06:19 CST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu Feb 09 2012 - 04:06:22 CST