RE: Virama after vowel in Indic

From: Andy White (
Date: Sat Mar 01 2003 - 17:19:58 EST

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "RE: Virama after vowel in Indic"

    Michael Everson tries hard to understand my point of view, but really he
    does not :-(

    Amongst many things I said:
    >> Viramas and vowels should not & do not mix in the
    >> Unicode encoding scheme. That is why we have
    >> Vowel Signs. E.g. The syllable 'KU' is semantically
    >> equivalent to a composite of 'Ka' and the Full-Vowel
    >> letter 'U'. It is encoded as 'Ka' + 'VowelSignU' in the
    >> Unicode scheme. It could also be said that 'KU' can
    >> be encoded as 'Ka'+'Virama'+ 'Full-Vowel letter U'
    >> In fact that is just the way it *is* done in some existing
    >> input methods :- but that would not be in line with the
    >> Unicode Indic encoding scheme, would it.

    And Michael Everson said:
    > This isn't the same. YA is a consonant, not a vowel sign,

    Actually Ya is a semi-vowel. That is why it behaves like a vowel

    > and it is
    > affected by the preceding VIRAMA.

    Well, thatís where people with an in-depth understanding of the script
    do not agree.

    As I see it, this is your and my line of thinking combined:

    When Yaphalaa occurs after a consonant it is semantically equivalent to
    a dead consonant plus the letter Ya.
    Therefore in such cases Yaphalaa can be encoded as Consonant+Virama+Ya.
    This is correct because a dead consonant is semantically equivalent to
    'Consonant+Virama' and 'Japhalaa' is semantically equivalent to 'Ya'
    when it occurs after a dead consonant. I reiterate, 'Japhalaa' is
    equivalent to 'Ya'. *Not 'Virama Ya'*.
    (We both agree with this, I hope :-)

    When Yaphalaa occurs after a vowel, it is *not* is semantically
    equivalent to the vowel plus a Virama plus the letter Ya.
    Such a sequence (with a Virama) is illogical to scholars of Indic
    Therefore in such cases Yaphalaa can *not* be encoded as
    (I agree with this, but you do not seem to)

    Because of some seemingly logical reason not stated above, when Yaphalaa
    occurs after a vowel, it can be encoded as Virama+Ya, despite the
    reasons given in 1 & 2.
    (You agree, I believe)

    Because you agree with 3, TUS 4.0 is also going to state 3 in its text,

    If I am mistaken, please let me know!


    > >(Incidentally that is also why the example in TUS3.0,
    > Chapter 9, page
    > >214, Figure 9-3 ("Conjunct Formations"), example (4) is also
    > wrong as
    > >previously discussed. That example 'conjunct' is correctly encoded as
    > >Ra+'VowelSignVocalicR' in Unicode and not as shown.
    > Yes, we know that that figure is an error, and have verified it with
    > Monier-Williams' Sanskrit dictionary, and it will be corrected.
    > > > I am sure that Unicode and ISCII data can be exchanged
    > with regard
    > > to
    > >> this matter.
    > >
    > >Not very easily, the exchange of data will require a 'four-character
    > >ahead lookup'
    > One understands that this is not all that difficult.
    > --
    > Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 01 2003 - 18:11:17 EST