Thanks for bringing the point of view of a native writer, I believe it
Dhrubajyoti Banerjee wrote on the Unicode list:
> From a Bengali's point of view (who has studied Bengali in Kindergarten from
> 'Barnparichay' [a bengali learner]), and after queries to some students of
> Bengali I find the question of including A_zophola_aa as a valid form is
> not justified. It is far better to include it as a glyph in the font.
I fail to understand your latter point.
Of course, the glyph had to exist in some way in the font (being one glyph
selectable as such, or as a combination of 3 glyphs as I understand in ISFOC).
I do not believe this is a problem, since I understand we are talking
about the encoding, i.e. the way to "trigger" this glyph in the renderer.
I perfectly understood that you object against using the combination
A + jophola + aa (0985 09CD 09AF 09BE). But what for a solution are
you arguing for?
> As in most indic scripts(e.g. Devanagari) the 'at' symbol was incorporated
> in bengali to include English sounds and to be able to write words like
> 'America'.In original Bengali there was no requirement for such a 'forced'
> vowel. In this case Bengali was lucky because it already had a zophola with
> which to take care of words like B-at, C-at etc whereas Devanagari had to
> include the 'candra' (0945) sign for the same purpose to be able to write
> English words.
Also, I was noticing in Jeroen Helligmann's works that a similar problem
occurs in Oriya. I am unable to know if Oriya also use jophola to "take care
of words like B-at, C-at" (to quote Dhrubajyoti), but it is probable,
given the relationships that exist between the two scripts. So if we agree
on a solution for Bengali, it probably will also apply to Oriya.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:02 EDT