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 19:33:12 +0000

Dear All,

There is a misunderstanding about Tamil here.

To my knowledge, in day to day usage Tamil uses far more sounds than any
language in the world. This is because Tamil alphabet represents places of
articulation and it is scalable. Alphabet that represent sound is not
scalable but straight jacketed.

So Tamil uses far more phoneme for any language.

Most importantly to my knowledge, only Tamil grammar that defines what is
alphabet and how to use them.
This originate from original writing analysis/originally scientific
analysis of Lumer/sumer/Tamil system.
This got missinterpreted is another story.
It is not easy to understand when one has no grammar that defines alphabet.
Because Tamil has grammar the writing need to follow that.

So transliteration should follow Tamil rules to represent expressions, such
as anusvara.

On the other hand never think about creating alphabet to represent any
sound. this will contradict 100% with Tamil alphabet.
It represent poA and then each PoA represent all possible sounds that human
can generate from each of that poAs.

Indic is different. Tamil is different. Tamil knows how to transliterate.
Do not impose additional alien system.

On 9 February 2012 19:30, srivas sinnathurai <sisrivas_at_blueyonder.co.uk>wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> There is a misunderstanding about Tamil here.
>
> To my knowledge, in day to day usage Tamil uses far more sounds than any
> language in the world. This is because Tamil alphabet represents places of
> articulation and it is scalable. Alphabet that represent sound is not
> scalable but straight jacketed.
>
> So Tamil uses far more phoneme for any language.
>
> Most importantly to my knowledge, only Tamil grammar that defines what is
> alphabet and how to use them.
> This originate from original writing analysis/originally scientific
> analysis of Lumer/sumer/Tamil system.
> This got missinterpreted is another story.
> It is not easy to understand when one has no grammar that defines
> alphabet. Because Tamil has grammar the writing need to follow that.
>
> So transliteration should follow Tamil rules to represent expressions,
> such as anusvara.
>
> On the other hand never think about creating alphabet to represent any
> sound. this will contradict 100% with Tamil alphabet.
> It represent poA and then each PoA represent all possible sounds that
> human can generate from each of that poAs.
>
> Indic is different. Tamil is different. Tamil knows how to transliterate.
> Do not impose additional alien system.
>

Sinnathurai

>
> Srivas
>
>
> On 9 February 2012 17:02, Doug Ewell <doug_at_ewellic.org> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> http://www.ewellic.org | @DougEwell
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Thu Feb 09 2012 - 13:35:48 CST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu Feb 09 2012 - 13:35:49 CST