On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 18:41:07 -0800 Asmus Freytag <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 1/19/2017 5:04 PM, Richard Wordingham wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 14:25:14 -0800 > > Asmus Freytag <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The Khmer example would seem fairly resistant to automated > >> correction if it is a free choice. If, instead, the immediately > >> preceding consonant comes from two disjoined sets, for example if > >> TA COENG TA was possible, but not TA COENG DA, then there's scope > >> for spell check. > > It's supposed to be based on the phonetics, so a spell check could > > be used, but not a grammar rule. However, I can imagine someone > > writing in accordance with a rule restricting them to certain > > bases. > Your last sentence reads as if you might equally well meant "can't" > instead of "can" (?) I meant 'can'. According to Huffman's 'Cambodian System of Writing', initial TA is to be read as /d/ in compounds formed by infixes. (The spelling may have changed since then.) Suffixed to ណ NNO (which is in the retroflex series), the subscript is to be read as /d/, while subscripted to ន NO, it is usually /t/ but occasionally /d/. I would be tempted to apply the Pali & Sanskrit rule of place agreement and use COENG DA below ណ NNO and COENG TA below ន NO. I would expect similar agreement with ដ DA and ត TA. Interestingly, such a discordance in the use of the nasals also occurs in Northern Thai; DA (= Indic DDA) may be written subscript to NA whereas the Indic place agreement rule would dictate NNA. This increases the visual ambiguity of subscripts on the ligature NAA - both /-n daː/ <NA, SAKOT, DA, SIGN AA> and /naːt/ <NA, SIGN AA, SAKOT, DA> occur, but there are no anagrammatic homographs in the dictionary. The example ᨧᩥᨶ᩠ᨯᩣ of /-n daː/ shows every sign of having been borrowed via Khmer. Richard.
