Re: Letters for Indic transliteration

From: Andreas Prilop (
Date: Tue Jul 19 2005 - 08:58:17 CDT

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: Letters for Indic transliteration"

    On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Kenneth Whistler wrote:

    > A note "Indic transliteration" should not be over-interpreted
    > as meaning "Sufficient for all Indic transliteration and
    > intended for Sanskrit syllabic liquids, despite the fact that
    > established transliterations now use dot below for retroflex
    > articulation and ring below for vocalization, but we're confused
    > and don't care about conventions, so insist that you use the
    > wrong forms." ;-)

    My concern is not about conventions but that you need

    - "R with ring below" and "R with dot below" *at the same time*,

    - "L with ring below" and "L with dot below" *at the same time*.

    Hindi has both "vocalic R" ("ring below") and "retroflex R"
    ("dot below"). The same holds for other modern Indic languages.
    The current situation is unfortunate: You have all necessary
    letters as precomposed letters without "R, L with ring below".

    IMHO it would be a better idea to add these missing precomposed
    letters. Otherwise there will be non-ending confusion since
    many people use the current "R, L with dot below" instead of
    "R, L" followed by U+0325 "ring below".

    I propose to add (at least) four letters:
    - R with ring below
    - r with ring below
    - L with ring below
    - l with ring below
    in "Latin Extended Additional".

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 19 2005 - 08:59:57 CDT