. Peter Constable wrote, > ?The Indian gov?t doc at http://tdil.mit.gov.in/ori-guru-telu.pdf > describes the conjunct shown in the attached PNG as being pronounced > as though NNA + VIRAMA + DDA (0B21). The component attached to the > NNA otherwise represents TA (0B24), however. > > My question is this: should this conjunct be encoded as < 0B23 NNA, > 0B4D VIRAMA, 0B24 TA > or as < 0B23 NNA, 0B4D VIRAMA, 0B21 DDA >?
Page 13 of 59, right-hand column shows four examples of the subjoined reduced TA under "TA (Sign)". The only example given for the subjoined reduced DDA immediately follows. It seems clear from the illustration that the authors of the document expect that the glyph in question would be encoded as NNA + VIRAMA + DDA. Since base letters TA and DDA are similar in appearance, their reduced form(s) could be identical. If this is the case, then probably NNA + VIRAMA + DDA. Or, if it's supposed to be the reduced form of "TA" and is only *pronounced* like "DDA" when it's under "NNA", then probably NNA + VIRAMA + TA. Best regards, James Kass .
