> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> Your suggestion that NYA could be involved is less plausible. I didn't actually suggest it was nya; I merely pointed out that the same shape is used for more than /o/. > >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 Your examples do not constitute clear evidence: the question is whether the characters underlying /kwa/ are k + ba or k + something else, and what you have written has to be taken either as presupposing the answer (thus not eligible as evidence) or as ambiguous -- either it is ba or it is wa. > I think we should avoid revisionist encodings, which will make it > impossible to deal with older data. Revisionist encodings? If the encoding is getting implemented for the first time, one can hardly talk of revisionist encodings. But this is a good question: are there Oriya implementation precedents? How were these conjuncts handled in ISCII and is there an official mapping between ISCII and Unicode for these sequences? > >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. Most kind. I asked for details about the dictionaries, but I don't think you replied to that. Peter Peter Constable Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies Microsoft Windows Division
