James E. Agenbroad wrote:
>
> Whether a vowel or vowel sign can have a nukta I do not know.
As a sidepoint (not really relevant, but it may matter), ISCII-91
does use the combination of vowel with nukta, in both standalone
and vowel sign form.
short ri + nukta gives long rii
short i + nukta gives short vocalic li (and issues a collation problem)
long ii + nukta gives the theoric long vocalic lii
> 6. Two adjacent halants or vowel signs are probably invalid.
Again, this was "reused" by ISCII-91: the combination halant+halant
means "explicit halant", much like the use of zwnj in Unicode.
> 4. In a conjunct consonant only the last consonant can have these
> 'various signs' after it (possibly with nukta or vowel sign (or
> halant?) between the consonant and one of the 'various signs.
Well, there is a problematic point here: with the sandhi of n with l.
The PaNini rules ("torli" IIRC) asserts that it should be rendered
as nasalized l followed by normal l with the associated vowel (whatever).
I read that normal Devanagari practice (with obviously postdates PaNini)
is to write as a (linearized) lla conjunct, with candrabindu above the
*first* l.
I am not able to get the proper encoding to satisfy this. The nearer I
found is to use la + virama + zwj + candrabindu + la (or the equivalent
ISCII-91 la + halanta + INV + candrabindu + la), but I then have to cheat
when it comes with the short-i matra (because then the code for i have
to come between the zwj/INV and the candrabindu to have correct results).
Anyway, that is certainly a very specific point that does not need
too much or too wide interest.
It is only slightly annoying that we cannot get correct answer.
Antoine
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:13 EDT