On Wed, 2 Apr 2014 19:16:32 +0700
Theppitak Karoonboonyanan <theppitak_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 5:35 AM, Richard Wordingham
> <richard.wordingham_at_ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 11:10:52 +0700
> > In that case, it ought to address GHA, NYA,
> > TTHA, NNA, DHA and BHA as seen in inscriptions, recorded for
> > example in the 1979 MA thesis of Thawaj Poonotoke (¸ÇѪ »Ø³â³·¡) at
> > http://www.khamkoo.com/uploads/9/0/0/4/9004485/thai_noi_palaeography.pdf .
> I see. As said in the thesis, these Thai-borrowed characters were
> mostly used by the elites who were influenced by foreign states.
Are they any more borrowed than the rest of the alphabet?
> > I'm not convinced that the old Tai Noi and
> > Buddhist Institute forms of each of NYA and NNA are the same
> > character - I suspect we may have four characters here. The two
> > versions of NYA are particularly difficult to reconcile.
> Don't you think it's a matter of style, in the same manner that Lao
> Tham share the same block with Lanna and Khun?
Perhaps it will work. It's tidier if it does.
> > 1) The Lao block already has two subscript consonants, U+0EBC LAO
> > SEMIVOWEL SIGN LO and U+0EBD LAO SEMIVOWEL SIGN NYO, though perhaps
> > the various forms of the latter need to disunified. How does the
> > latter's J-shaped glyph kern?
> I'd rather leave the kerning to fonts (i.e. fonts for contemporary
> Lao and those for Tai Noi would kern differently). For the
> variations, I'm afraid it's a matter of style again.
My worry here is with the Khmu usage of the J-shaped glyph. Khmu uses
U+0EBD as an initial consonant. If it is kerned in Khmu usage, then
there is not a problem.
> > ... in the
> > related Thai Nithet script (ÍÑ¡ÉÃä·Â¹Ôà·È), formerly used in
> > Northern Thailand, one can argue for four forms of the cluster HO
> > MO - the ligature HO MO (as LAO HO MO), and HO plus (i) a purely
> > subscript MO (gc=Mn), (ii) subscript MO with an ascender (gc=Mc),
> > and (iii) a borrowing of Tai Tham <SAKOT, MA> (gc=Mn if treated as
> > a single character).
>
> What's the difference between HO plus (i) and HO plus (ii)?
> I think I haven't seen the former case yet.
It's the same as the difference between U+1A5E TAI THAM CONSONANT SIGN
SA and <U+1A60 TAI THAM SIGN SAKOT, U+1A48 TAI THAM LETTER HIGH SA> or
between U+1A56 TAI THAM CONSONANT SIGN MEDIAL LA and <U+1A60, U+1A43 TAI
THAM LETTER LA>.
Richard.
_______________________________________________
Unicode mailing list
Unicode_at_unicode.org
http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
Received on Wed Apr 02 2014 - 15:30:42 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Apr 02 2014 - 15:30:42 CDT