> "Pronounced" as you mean it here refers to thereading rules, not the structure of the script.
That seems to me to be saying we should be encoding the structure of the script (a statement I'd agree with in general).
Sure.
> It can't be a NNTAsince that would assimilate to NNTTA.
Wouldn't it be more likely for a nasal to assimilate to an obstruent rather than the other way? (We say 'impossible', not 'intossible'.)
The dental t assimilates to the retroflex n.
But that statement is following phonology, not the structure of the script. Your statements seem inconsistent to me.
I'm saying that the syllable NNTA isn't a probable syllable, because it would assimilate to NNTTA, while NNDDA is a phonetically normal syllable, which is the answer to your question.
The question is, do we encode something based on it's shape, or based on the phonemes it represents.
It's Brahmic. We encode according to the characters used to write the phonemes. The glyph shape is secondary.
Following clear cases, the shape is that of TA.
The shape in my source shows the same shape for subjoined TA and DDA.
NN.TA is phonologically unlikely, though, whereas NN.TTA or NN.DDA is phonologically plausible; so, on the other hand, we could say it makes little sense to encode NN.TA, and so should encode this as NN.DDA.
That's correct.
I guess I'd be inclined to go with that reasoning, though I have encountered an NN.DDA conjunct that uses a subjoined small DDA in a font (see attached); haven't encountered that in texts so far, though.
Well. Where did you encounter it?
> Besides my book gives NNDDAexplicitly as being made of NNA and DDA and has the same glyph.
OK, that's two sources that indicate this. I'll go with that.
Good.
> The book is Learn Oriya in 30 Days, a 150-page introductory grammarin > the National Integration Language Series.
Thanks for the reference. I've tracked down a copy and it's on its way.
I'm sure it's in http://www.evertype.com/scriptbib.html -- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
