> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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. Well, most of the C+ta conjuncts I've seen so far use this form (exceptions are r-ta, which uses the reph above, and t-ta, which uses a distinct ligature). In contrast, of the few undisputable C+dda conjuncts I've seen, apart from the r-dda with reph, the others use a scaled, subjoined dda. If this is really to be considered a nn-dda conjunct, it's the only C-dda conjunct that uses this shape. > Or, if it's supposed to be the reduced form of "TA" and is only > *pronounced* like "DDA" when it's under "NNA", Well, that's precisely the question: should it be handled like a TA that's pronounced like DDA, or should it be considered an exceptional DDA? As you point out the doc I referenced appears to assume the latter, and that it should be encoded NNA + VIRAMA + DDA. I want to know whether that's an agreed-upon encoding convention, or whether this is something not fully resolved in Unicode's support for Oriya. Peter Peter Constable
