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
At 22:12 -0800 2003-11-30, Peter Constable wrote:
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,
-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
At 10:24 -0800 2003-12-01, Peter Constable wrote:
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
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
Well, Peter, it's right there on the page.
What page?
KA with Virama + BA = KWA,
in Oriya and with Latin transliterations. It's a BA. I swear.
And how do you know it's BA and not a distinct character that
At 11:52 -0800 2003-12-01, Peter Constable wrote:
Well, Peter, it's right there on the page.
What page?
Page 18 of Learn Oriya in 30 Days, what I have been quoting from.
KA with Virama + BA = KWA,
in Oriya and with Latin transliterations. It's a BA. I swear.
And how do you know it's BA and
.
Michael Everson wrote,
You should implement according to what is on page 238 of the Unicode
Standard, and if there are people in India who think otherwise they
had better argue their case convincingly to the UTC.
I don't personally care which character is used.
I *do*. Someone at the
At 22:10 + 2003-12-01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We should rejoice that these TDIL reports exist and urge the
various authors to contribute to discussions on any edge-case
issues.
Yes.
Rather than revising history or revising encoding practices, maybe
the TDIL reports could be revised where
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Michael Everson
Peter, I would take those TDIL publications with a very large grain
of salt...
I didn't say that I accepted that doc unquestioned. But when they say conjuncts are
made with WA and you come along and say,
At 00:38 -0800 2003-11-30, Peter Constable wrote:
Be thou not deceived by the glyph shapes. The etymology is O + BA =
WA, not NYA + BA.
(Or NYA + something else...) It would be just so cool if you
would provide references to accessible sources that present evidence
and analysis to support
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Michael Everson
Regardless of the etymology of that thing, though, what matters is
whether all of these should be encoded with BA, and I wouldn't find
it hard to go along with that: I've got a couple of sources (Oriya
Self-Taught and an Oriya booklet,
At 12:09 -0800 2003-11-30, Peter Constable wrote:
But there's some confusion thrown into the mix, though, by the fact
that they list the shape twice in their alphabet (their ordered
list of consonants), one being where you'd expect to find a wa;
Who lists, where?
Lists in the two sources I
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
Behalf Of Michael Everson
I think the TDIL chart is wrong.
It seems reasonable that one should need extra persuasion to take the
word of an American living in Ireland over Indians. (Sorry.)
Traditionally (as
At 13:17 -0800 2003-11-29, Peter Constable wrote:
I think the TDIL chart is wrong.
It seems reasonable that one should need extra persuasion to take
the word of an American living in Ireland over Indians. (Sorry.)
Peter, I would take those TDIL publications with a very large grain
of salt.
.
Peter Constable wrote,
The question, then, is how MBA should be encoded: as
0B2E MA, 0B4D VIRAMA, 0B2C BA , or as 0B2E MA, 0B4D VIRAMA, 0B71 WA
?
MA + VIRAMA + BA, according to TUS 4.0, page 238.
Best regards,
James Kass
.
At 11:34 -0800 2003-11-28, Peter Constable wrote:
A similar issue to the nndda: starting on page 54 of the TDIL newsletter
(http://tdil.mit.gov.in/ori-guru-telu.pdf) and continuing onto the next
page, they list conjuncts that have BA or WA as the second element. I've
shown those from the bottom of
At 21:10 + 2003-11-28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
.
Peter Constable wrote,
The question, then, is how MBA should be encoded: as 0B2E MA,
0B4D VIRAMA, 0B2C BA , or as 0B2E MA, 0B4D VIRAMA, 0B71 WA?
MA + VIRAMA + BA, according to TUS 4.0, page 238.
Heh. I wrote that.
Well, it just goes to
17 matches
Mail list logo
