On Wed, 2 Apr 2014 19:16:32 +0700 Theppitak Karoonboonyanan <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 5:35 AM, Richard Wordingham > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 11:10:52 +0700 > > In that case, it ought to address GHA, NYA, > > TTHA, NNA, DHA and BHA as seen in inscriptions, recorded for > > example in the 1979 MA thesis of Thawaj Poonotoke (ธวัช ปุณโณทก) at > > http://www.khamkoo.com/uploads/9/0/0/4/9004485/thai_noi_palaeography.pdf . > I see. As said in the thesis, these Thai-borrowed characters were > mostly used by the elites who were influenced by foreign states. Are they any more borrowed than the rest of the alphabet? > > I'm not convinced that the old Tai Noi and > > Buddhist Institute forms of each of NYA and NNA are the same > > character - I suspect we may have four characters here. The two > > versions of NYA are particularly difficult to reconcile. > Don't you think it's a matter of style, in the same manner that Lao > Tham share the same block with Lanna and Khun? Perhaps it will work. It's tidier if it does. > > 1) The Lao block already has two subscript consonants, U+0EBC LAO > > SEMIVOWEL SIGN LO and U+0EBD LAO SEMIVOWEL SIGN NYO, though perhaps > > the various forms of the latter need to disunified. How does the > > latter's J-shaped glyph kern? > I'd rather leave the kerning to fonts (i.e. fonts for contemporary > Lao and those for Tai Noi would kern differently). For the > variations, I'm afraid it's a matter of style again. My worry here is with the Khmu usage of the J-shaped glyph. Khmu uses U+0EBD as an initial consonant. If it is kerned in Khmu usage, then there is not a problem. > > ... in the > > related Thai Nithet script (อักษรไทยนิเทศ), formerly used in > > Northern Thailand, one can argue for four forms of the cluster HO > > MO - the ligature HO MO (as LAO HO MO), and HO plus (i) a purely > > subscript MO (gc=Mn), (ii) subscript MO with an ascender (gc=Mc), > > and (iii) a borrowing of Tai Tham <SAKOT, MA> (gc=Mn if treated as > > a single character). > > What's the difference between HO plus (i) and HO plus (ii)? > I think I haven't seen the former case yet. It's the same as the difference between U+1A5E TAI THAM CONSONANT SIGN SA and <U+1A60 TAI THAM SIGN SAKOT, U+1A48 TAI THAM LETTER HIGH SA> or between U+1A56 TAI THAM CONSONANT SIGN MEDIAL LA and <U+1A60, U+1A43 TAI THAM LETTER LA>. Richard. _______________________________________________ Unicode mailing list [email protected] http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
