On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 02:05:35 +0000 Richard Wordingham via Unicode <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I'm still trying to work out what to do for IAST. Is it just: > > sa-t-m0-iast > > if one finds that > > sa-Latn > > allows too much latitude? For material that is a transcription rather than a transliteration, are there regional preferences for the homorganic nasals when writing in the writing systems generated by IAST? > How does one choose between anusvara and specific consonants > for homorganic nasals? Is it sa-150-t-m0-iast v. sa-IN-t-m0-iast? As these locales strictly speaking defined locales, I think I put the region in the wrong place. Perhaps they should be: sa-t-m0-sa-150-Deva-iast v. sa-t-m0-sa-IN-Deva-iast As a locale, is the latter the same as sa-t-m0-sa-IN-Mlym? I'm not sure how the preference for writing homorganic nasals varies by region and by script. What is the scope of IAST? Does sa-t-m0-sa-Thai exist? sa-Thai seems to prefer the nasal stops to anusvara before oral stops. The text in IAST that I encounter seems not to have ansuvara before stop consonants. I believe 'sa' would naturally expand (are there non-void prescribed rules on this?) as sa-Deva-IN, so perhaps the sa-Latn I usually see is unusual as sa-t-m0-iast and the description should be expanded to at least sa-t-m0-sa-150-iast if sa-Latn is not precise enough. Can someone advise? Richard.