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

From: Doug Ewell <>
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:02:32 -0700

N. Ganesan <naa dot ganesan at gmail dot com> wrote:

>> On another thinking, I feel it will be even better to add more
>> characters to Tamil to help in transliterating from other Indian
>> languages.
> 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.

srivas sinnathurai <sisrivas at blueyonder dot co dot uk> replied:

> 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.

What Naga wrote had nothing to do with the Tamil language, or with the
use of the Tamil script to write the Tamil language. He specifically
referred to writing other "Indic, non-Tamil languages" in the Tamil
script. Languages are not scripts.

Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | @DougEwell ­
Received on Thu Feb 09 2012 - 11:08:42 CST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu Feb 09 2012 - 11:08:45 CST