> 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/.
But many WAs have differently shaped O-parts. I think your observation was a bit superficial. In this case.
> 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.
Well, Peter, it's right there on the page. KA with Virama + BA = KWA, in Oriya and with Latin transliterations. It's a BA. I swear.
Perhaps I shall scan it for you. ;-)
> I think we should avoid revisionist encodings, which will make itimpossible 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?
The revisionism would be in deciding that the innovated WA was to be used instead of BA. It isn't. WA is used word initially for foreign words. BA is used traditionally even when the reading rule says [w]. Did you read Tony Stone and my paper on VA and WA?
> >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.
Um, I'll hunt them down shortly. Actually I haven't had an acknowledgement from the bookstore yet, which I figured I would just forward to you when it arrived.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
