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.
There are not very many conjuncts with -dda.
dd-dda nn-dda which has the same shape as the -ta in Oriya r-dda which takes repha
I would be interested to see what evidence Peter has for any conjuncts in -dda.
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?
The latter, I think. "Pronounced" as you mean it here refers to the reading rules, not the structure of the script. It can't be a NNTA since that would assimilate to NNTTA.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
