From: Peter Constable (petercon@microsoft.com)
Date: Sun Nov 30 2003 - 15:09:52 EST
From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org on behalf of Michael Everson
>>Regardless of the etymology of that thing, though, what matters is
>>whether all of these should be encoded with BA, and I wouldn't find
>>it hard to go along with that: I've got a couple of sources ("Oriya
>>Self-Taught" and an Oriya booklet, "Caattassaalli Paattha") that
>>show a nominal form underlying this conjunct that looks like BA.
>>But there's some confusion thrown into the mix, though, by the fact
>>that they list the shape twice in their "alphabet" (their ordered
>>list of consonants), one being where you'd expect to find a wa;
>
>Who lists, where?
Lists in the two sources I had just mentioned: "Oriya Self-Taught" and "Caattassaalli Paattha"
>Compare these to the chart in N2525
>ya ra lla la VA WA
Which tells us what? That both the dotted-ba (VA) and the WA are attested as early as 1931, and considered by one source to be ordered after la.
What I haven't seen is clear evidence that the wa-phallaa is considered to be related to nominal BA and not a distinct character falling after LA.
Peter Constable
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 30 2003 - 15:54:21 EST