From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Michael Everson
What I haven't seen is clear evidence that the wa-phallaa is considered to be related to nominal BA and not a distinct character falling after LA.
WA has been added as a new independent letter, without a decomposition to O+BA, although its graphic appearance and simple phonetics shows us that it is an innovation based on that combination.
No, the graphic appearance and phonetics reassure is this is a plausible hypothesis; they don't show us this must be how it is.
Your suggestion that NYA could be involved is less plausible.
> If DBA = [dwa] surely OBA = [owa] > [wa]
But there's that underlying assumption which is what I have been questioning: is the written representation of /dwa/ really D.BA, or should it be considered D.WA?
It is traditionally, yes.
I still haven't seen clear evidence; only an assertion of the former based on a hypothesis that, granted, is certainly plausible.
I cited examples already:
k. + ba (wa) = kwa j. + ba (va) = jva dh. + ba (wa) = dhwa m. + ba = mba r. + ba = rba sh. + ba = shba
But the more important question is how users and implementers, particularly those in India, will expect these conjuncts to be encoded, and that question remains. If I implement one thing and others another, we've got a problem.
I think we should avoid revisionist encodings, which will make it impossible to deal with older data.
I was hoping there might be some Indian -- Oriyan -- implementers or users lurking that might want to comment. If not, then there's not much more to say on this topic here. I'll try elsewhere;
I did order dictionaries so that I can help you.
in the meantime, I've got another similar question coming (encode based on sound or based on shapes?) involving some other conjuncts. I just need to get something scanned first.
:-) -- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
