Mijan scripsit: > >> Let's consider the ra+virama+ya case. In the mostpart the ra+virama+ya is >> displayed as ya+reph. This obviously seems to be an >> instance of ambiguous interpretation because ra+virama+ya could >>also represents >> ra+ja-phalaa. ya+reph and ra+ja-phalaa are used in different words and have >> different meaning. > >I'm responding to this message in order to isolate this point. If >correct, then >the current model of YA PHALAA is inadequate.
>ZWJ can be used to produce the required differentiation. -- >Michael Everson If exeption can be done for ra why not vowels? why to use virama to function as zwj when we could have used zwj itself? i.e. virama+ya to be encoded as yaphala. After vowels however zwj+ya is best to be encoded as yaphalaa after vowels.(in fact microsoft's unicode processor uniscribe does exactly that). But unicode people's stubborness to use virama as a joining mark, no matter it follows vowel or consonant, is inexplainable. aa-virama-ya forming ba-yaphalaa is quiet understandable and intuitive to me, but a-virama-ya is not. Another ISCII considers Devanagari YA to be equivalent to Bengali YYA, so tranferring a old bengali iscii to unicode faces a serious problem whether to convert yya-viramaa to yaphalaa also. ===== Dr Anirban Mitra Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web Page http://www.geocities.com/mitra_anirban ________________________________________________________________________ Missed your favourite TV serial last night? Try the new, Yahoo! TV. visit http://in.tv.yahoo.com
