On 03/06/2002 08:25:18 AM Michael Everson wrote:
>That almost answers my first question. Does Devanagari glottal have
>an inherent vowel? If it does, encode a new character.
That seems like a very good metric to consider, and I hadn't thought of it
myself. I'd expect that this can be used syllable-initially rather than
only finally, and so would have an inherent vowel but don't know that for
certain. I've asked my contacts working in S. Asia for further info.
>>(2) The second problem involves nukta (U+093C). In better-known
languages,
>>nukta can occur only on consonants, but for certain lesser-known
>>languages, it can occur on vowels as well. Yet some implementations
might
>>not recognise a sequence like < consonant, vowel, nukta > as valid. For
>>instance, I understand that if Uniscribe encountered such a sequence, it
>>would assume you've left out a consonant immediately before the nukta,
>>and it would display a dotted circle to indicate where a missing base
>>character should go.
>
>So what would you suggest? A vocalic-nukta? I wouldn't like that.
No, I wouldn't suggest anything different. The question is mainly intended
to find out to what extent implementers are making assumptions that would
present problems.
>In
>Cham, independent vowels can take dependent vowel signs. In
>Devanagari, I guess that doesn't occur, but the Brahmic model
>shouldn't be understood to preclude this behaviour.
There's a general problem: writing systems of lesser-known languages
sometimes involve behaviours that don't occur in the writing systems of
better-known languages, but software implementations get designed based
upon what is known, meaning the better-known writing systems only, and
sometimes implementation incorporate constraints based upon what is
exemplified in those better-known writing systems. E.g. there are
Mon-Khmer languages spoken in Thailand that get written with Thai script
but have many more vowel distinctions than Thai and so need to use
combinations of combining marks not used in combination for Standard Thai,
yet some important software implementations incorporate sequence
constraints that treat these combinations as error conditions.
>Um, that's AA, II, U, and O. What does the nukta make them sound like?
I haven't any idea, myself.
- Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Constable
Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485
E-mail: <peter_constable@sil.org>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Wed Mar 06 2002 - 22:31:53 EST