L2/01-170
From:
Peter_Constable@sil.org
Sent:
Tuesday, April 17, 2001 2:43 PM
Subject: comments on N2242
>>When
you say "the Dai scripts", exactly what are you referring to?
>
>New
Tai Lue and Tai Le. But in my view, we are not going to send
>these out to ballot if the Chinese don't play by the rules and get
>(for instance) me and Ken to sign off on these. Two meetings now they
>haven't turned up for. Expensive, from my point of view. Grrr.
>
>I've
indicated to Mr Chen that we need to see some actual lexica to
>ensure ordering info and other things. We'll see if they respond.
I
haven't responded to Ken's earlier message yet because I haven't had a chance,
but I'll just say quickly that N2242 is definitely a lot better than any of the
earlier proposals I saw, but still has some issues. There's a big improvement
in getting rid of things that were not actually used in NTL, so the inventory
is very nearly right.
Here
are the outstanding issues I see:
1. The ordering
is way off, though - that's the biggest problem. I can
provide
scans of a NTL dictionary that shows the proper order. (The order
should
be more typical of Brahmi-derived scripts, based on point and then
manner
of articulation, not based first on tone class.)
2. I
don't see a reason to decompose the hat off the high class b, d and glottal.
It's not done for the high class sonorants, and it shouldn't be done here. This
is not a productive combining mark. These are three very specific combinations.
They should be treated as atomic. (For the high class sonorants, the reasoning
given has to do with rendering issues, which is the wrong reason. I agree that
the high class sononrants should not be decomposed, but for other reasons: this
is largely a simple script - certainly relative to Lanna from which it is
descended - and these things are simply a set of atomic symbols in this script.
I would be willing to consider a proposal to decompose the high class
sonorants, but it makes very little sense to me in the case of b/d/glottal.)
3. That
proposal discusses the possibility of decomposing the low class consonants that
have the upward LTR arch (e.g. xx95, xx98), and dismisses that again for
reasons related to rendering. It's the right decision but the wrong reason.
These should no more be decomposed than the dot on Latin i should be - and for
the same reasons. These are merely atomic characters, not a case of a
productive modifier or a digraph.
4. The
issue of subjoining the labial semivowel is not adequately discussed. This
proposal makes it sound like it should merely be treated as obligatory
ligation. E.g. < ka, wa > --> glyphKWA. The pros and cons of
alternative approaches, particularly using a virama, should at least be
considered. (I'm not disagreeing with what is proposed here; I'm just saying it
needs more discussion.)
5.
Another alternative for the 7 final forms would be better to use non-finals
together with a virama. (This would mean adding a virama, of course, but that
may also be useful for the conjoined labial.) This alternative at least needs
to be discussed. The only alternative considered in the proposal is a combining
mark, and again, the main argument for ruling that out has to do with
rendering, which shouldn't be the basis for the argument.
6.
There is no character for the front mid open vowel. I'm guessing that this
proposal assumes it can be represented as an e-e digraph. That should at least
have been explained. I'd suggest that a separate character should be proposed
for this, however, to make this more consistent with other related scripts,
such as Thai and Lao.
7. The
low class ta is duplicated (xx8e, xx9a), but the high class fa is missing. The
glyph at xx8e needs to be corrected.
(See
attached GIF for correct shape – <01170-NTL_HiFa.gif>.)
8. The
glyph for digit for is Burmese; I have not seen this used in NTL, though there
is a probable historical connection. The shape that should be used in NTL is
close to what is used in Lanna .
(See
attached GIF <01170-NTL_dig4.gif>.)
9. A
couple of quibbles: I think there could be some improvements in the history.
Also, here a very nice New Tai Lue font available that could have been used.
- Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter
Constable
Non-Roman
Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W.
Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1
972 708 7485
E-mail:
<peter_constable@sil.org>
(See
attached file: NTL_dig4.gif)(See attached file: NTL_HiFa.gif)
