On 08/16/2011 07:29 AM, Richard Wordingham wrote:
The issues is on the relative ordering of candrabindu and virama.
For a C1-conjoining form (i.e. C2 relatively unmodified),<la virama
candrabindu la> is easier to handle. For a C2-conjoining form,<la
candrabindu virama la> is easier to work with.
Hmm -- perhaps you mean this is so because it would be possible to
easily map Virama + LA to the C2-conjoining form?
That's my motivation.
I'm thinking more on this topic. Will get back if my ideas change.
This is not what I was talking about. The best relevant examples in TUS
6.0 Section 11.4 are the words for "both" and "already". The former
actually has nikahit + coeng!
I think these examples are exactly the region why one should not overly
identify Khmer the *Indian* Indic scripts as the latter (in which I do
not include Kharoshthi for this discussion) do not use subjoined
consonants for final consonants.
All I've got to go on is the penultimate sentence in TUS 6.0 Section
10.2 - 'Rarely, stacks are seen that contain more than one such
consonant-vowel combination in a vertical arrangement'.
The Tibetan script doesn't have a combining virama. I would expect the
natural coding to be something like letter-vowel-subjoined
letter-vowel, e.g.<U+0F40 TIBETAN LETTER KA, U+0F74 TIBETAN VOWEL SIGN
U, U+0FB2 TIBETAN SUBJOINED LETTER RA, U+0F74 TIBETAN VOWEL SIGN U>.
I'm not sure what such a stack of a consonant + vowel-sign pair with
another such pair would signify...
--
Shriramana Sharma
