On Fri, 8 Mar 2002, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> Peter Constable wrote:
> > On 03/07/2002 02:16:10 PM "James E. Agenbroad" wrote:
> >
> > >A similar but not the same situation is found in the fourth
> > example in
> > >figure 9-3 of Unicode 3.0 (page 214) where an intedpendent
> > vowel has the
>
On Fri, 8 Mar 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Jim Agenbroad responded (off list):
>
> >Not quite. On page 214 of 3.0 there is one RA vowel, a halant and a
> RI
> >vowel: RA(d) + RI(n) --> RI(n) +RA(sup) ( parens in lieu ofsubscript)
>
> I didn't realise that "RI" meant the vocalic R. I m
On Fri, 8 Mar 2002, Michael Everson wrote:
> At 15:16 -0500 07/03/2002, James E. Agenbroad wrote:
> >On Wed, 6 Mar 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> On 03/06/2002 08:25:18 AM Michael Everson wrote:
> > [snip]
> >>
> >> >In
> >> >Cham, independent vowels can take dependent
At 10:29 -0600 2002-03-08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Jim Agenbroad responded (off list):
>
>> Not quite. On page 214 of 3.0 there is one RA vowel, a halant and a
>RI
> >vowel: RA(d) + RI(n) --> RI(n) +RA(sup) ( parens in lieu ofsubscript)
>
>I didn't realise that "RI" meant the vocalic R. I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
> I didn't realise that "RI" meant the vocalic R.
It reflects the modern Hindi pronunciation of Skt /r=/.
--
John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a
Jim Agenbroad responded (off list):
>Not quite. On page 214 of 3.0 there is one RA vowel, a halant and a
RI
>vowel: RA(d) + RI(n) --> RI(n) +RA(sup) ( parens in lieu ofsubscript)
I didn't realise that "RI" meant the vocalic R. I mistook it to mean
something else. I find it a weakness of
On 03/08/2002 06:54:54 AM Michael Everson wrote:
>Using Apple's WorldText, I can confirm that short I did not reorder
>correctly when preceded by 0294. But the 0294 glyph was in another
>font.
>
>I wonder could we see some samples of this in actual Limbu text?
It's on its way.
- Peter
-
On 03/08/2002 05:09:46 AM Michael Everson wrote:
>At 15:36 -0600 07/03/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>I may be wrong, but I believe that example has < ra, halant, ra,
>>independent i >. The first ra is the one that transforms into the reph.
>
>You're wrong. RI in this case is a way of writin
At 11:26 +0100 2002-03-08, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
>You are wrong, in fact, sorry. Although figure 9-3 does not show code point
>values, both the glyphs and the abbreviated letter names make it clear that
>the sequence is:
>
> U+0930 (DEVANAGARI LETTER RA)
> U+094D (DEVANAGARI SIGN VIR
Using Apple's WorldText, I can confirm that short I did not reorder
correctly when preceded by 0294. But the 0294 glyph was in another
font.
I wonder could we see some samples of this in actual Limbu text?
--
Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
At 15:16 -0500 07/03/2002, James E. Agenbroad wrote:
>On Wed, 6 Mar 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> On 03/06/2002 08:25:18 AM Michael Everson wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> >In
>> >Cham, independent vowels can take dependent vowel signs. In
>> >Devanagari, I guess that doesn't occur
At 15:36 -0600 07/03/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I may be wrong, but I believe that example has < ra, halant, ra,
>independent i >. The first ra is the one that transforms into the reph.
You're wrong. RI in this case is a way of writing the vocalic r.
Compare Kr.s.n.a and Krishna.
--
Mich
Peter Constable wrote:
> On 03/07/2002 02:16:10 PM "James E. Agenbroad" wrote:
>
> >A similar but not the same situation is found in the fourth
> example in
> >figure 9-3 of Unicode 3.0 (page 214) where an intedpendent
> vowel has the
> >"reph" (an abridged form of a the consonant 'ra') above i
Peter, I think we should not, under the circumstances, encode another
character for this. People shouldn't be writing software for "Hindi
support" that is too lame to be able to render such a thing just because
it's not "in the block". (They might not render it for other reasons, such
as "
cc:
Subject: Re: Devanagari variations
Peter,
I responded to Steve also, but the short answer is NO, the glottal has no
inherent vowel.
Jeff
On 03/07/2002 02:16:10 PM "James E. Agenbroad" wrote:
>A similar but not the same situation is found in the fourth example in
>figure 9-3 of Unicode 3.0 (page 214) where an intedpendent vowel has the
>"reph" (an abridged form of a the consonant 'ra') above it. Unicode
wants
>this encoded as con
On Wed, 6 Mar 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 03/06/2002 08:25:18 AM Michael Everson wrote:
[snip]
>
> >In
> >Cham, independent vowels can take dependent vowel signs. In
> >Devanagari, I guess that doesn't occur, but the Brahmic model
> >shouldn't be understood to preclude
>That behaviour, IMHO, is incorrect. There is no, and was never
>any kind of grapheme or even combining sequence break
>at that point, and there should never be a dotted circle
>displayed through that sequence of characters (a "show-
>individual-characters mode" should of course be excepted).
I
> implementations might
> not recognise a sequence like < consonant, vowel, nukta > as
> valid. For
> instance, I understand that if Uniscribe encountered such a
> sequence, it
> would assume you've left out a consonant immediately before
> the nukta,
> and it would display a dotted circ
On 03/06/2002 08:25:18 AM Michael Everson wrote:
>That almost answers my first question. Does Devanagari glottal have
>an inherent vowel? If it does, encode a new character.
That seems like a very good metric to consider, and I hadn't thought of it
myself. I'd expect that this can be used sylla
At 02:24 3/6/2002, Herman Ranes wrote:
>There is a related problem in connection with Norwegian typography: Most
>fonts include the 'fi' and 'ffi' ligatures, but I have never heard of a
>commercial font which includes the 'fj' ligature.
>
>Using such a font, the word 'fire' (four) would be liga
On 03/06/2002 04:24:54 AM Herman Ranes wrote:
>There is a related problem in connection with Norwegian typography:
>Most fonts include the 'fi' and 'ffi' ligatures, but I have never
>heard of a commercial font which includes the 'fj' ligature.
That's quite a different problem. All it would take
* Herman Ranes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-03-06 11:24]:
> There is a related problem in connection with Norwegian typography:
> Most fonts include the 'fi' and 'ffi' ligatures, but I have never
> heard of a commercial font which includes the 'fj' ligature.
>From the Adobe OpenType user guide:
(h
At 00:12 -0600 2002-06-03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>(1) The first problem is the need for a glottal character for Limbu (ie,
>Limbu language written in Devanagri script, as opposed to Limbu script,
>which already has a symbol for glottal). The Limbu language committee has
>decided that this char
On Wednesday, March 6, 2002, at 03:24 AM, Herman Ranes wrote:
> There is a related problem in connection with Norwegian typography: Most
> fonts include the 'fi' and 'ffi' ligatures, but I have never heard of a
> commercial font which includes the 'fj' ligature.
>
Apple's Hoeffler font contai
Peter, I've been looking into Devanagari orthography for Kashmiri.
They're using AVAGRAHA as a vowel. It might be good if we took this
off line and compared data, as there may be overlap.
--
Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
There is a related problem in connection with Norwegian typography:
Most fonts include the 'fi' and 'ffi' ligatures, but I have never
heard of a commercial font which includes the 'fj' ligature.
Using such a font, the word 'fire' (four) would be ligated correctly,
while 'fjerde' (fourth) would
27 matches
Mail list logo
