This is the Pali sorting order in PTS Pali. The Last letter is the retroflex L: a ā i ī u ū e o aṃ aaṃ iṃ iiṃ uṃ uuṃ eṃ oṃ k kh g gh ṅ c ch j jh ñ ṭ ṭh ḍ ḍh ṇ t th d dh n p ph b bh m y r l v s h ḷ
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Richard Wordingham < [email protected]> wrote: > Can someone please advise me as to the sorting of Pali as Pali in > Tibetan script. I need a prompt response rather than a complete > treatment. It is possible that I have been misunderstood what I have > been able to pull together. > > What I understand is the following: > > (a) The retroflex lateral ('LLA' in most Unicode encodings) is written > <U+0F63 TIBETAN LETTER LA, U+0F39 TIBETAN MARK TSA -PHRU>, as at > http://www.tipitaka.org/tibt/ . > > (b) For Pali, the retroflex lateral should be sorted as though a full > letter, rather than as letter plus subscript. This is general > international practice, embodied in scripts that have LLA encoded as an > independent letter, such as Sinhalese (backed up by SLS 1134:2004) and > Thai (many dictionaries). > > (c) The long vowel II sorts at a primary level between the short vowel I > and the short vowel U - general practice in Indic scripts, and captured > by ISO 14651 and the Default Unicode Collation Element Table (DUCET). > > Now if I am correct, this does have an interesting processing effect. > The syllable LLII, in NFD, will be written <U+0F63, U+0F71 TIBETAN > VOWEL SIGN AA, U+0F72 TIBETAN VOWEL SIGN I, U+0F39>, so to collate LLII > on the basis of the constituent consonant and vowel requires the > discontiguous contraction <U+0F63, U+0F39> and then the contraction > <U+0F71, U+0F72> from the skipped characters. Version 6.1.0 of the > Unicode Collation Algorithm requires the ability to do exactly this. > However, it has been proposed that Version 6.2.0 *prohibit* this > ability. > > The treatment of LL.HA could be interesting, but is not of urgent > interest. > > Doubts are cast on my analysis by the rules for Tibetan collation > given, for example at > http://developer.mimer.com/collations/tibetan/Chilton_slides.pdf , > which states that U+0F71 is given a secondary weight and makes no > mention of the long vowels, and certainly makes no mention of any LLA. > > If the desciption there is correct and complete, it seems that I should > see a sort order > > LI <U+0F63, U+0F72> << LLI <U+0F63, U+0F72, U+0F39> << > LII <U+0F63, U+0F71, U+0F72> << LLII <U+0F63, U+0F71, U+0F72, U+0F39>. > > Is this the correct order for sorting as Tibetan? The diacritics do > seem to apply back-to-front. > > Richard. > >
