RE: Ya-phalaa

From: Kent Karlsson (
Date: Thu Mar 06 2003 - 06:11:57 EST

  • Next message: Dean Snyder: "Re: The display of *kholam* on PCs"

    > >> Moreover, RA + VIRAMA + YA cannot represent "Ra-yaphalaa"
    > as Ra+Virama
    > >> is relied upon as being representative of Reph.
    > >> For example, in the Indic OpenType secifications, you will
    > see that a
    > >> Ra+Virama is recognised as reph before any other
    > processing is applied.
    > >
    > > If this is the case (and one would like corroboration) then simply
    > > reverse the two. The solution is the same.
    > RA + VIRAMA is a pre-base substitution and pre-base stuff gets
    > processed first.
    > RA + ZWNJ + VIRAMA + YA might be the way to go in order to
    > disambiguate REPH + YA from RA + YA-PHALAA.

    The problem with this is at least two-fold: ZWNJ is not a
    combining character, so you would be applying a virama to
    a format control as base character; this does not follow
    the pattern for other "presentation controls" for Indic
    scripts. Even if RA+VIRAMA is specially processed, RA+VIRAMA+ZWJ
    could still have its own special processing, giving longer
    matches priority over shorter matches. Note that
    RA+VIRAMA+ZWNJ already needs to have its special processing,
    not producing a "reph" but instead an explicit virama.

                    /kent k

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 06 2003 - 06:48:02 EST