From: Curtis Clark (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Jan 07 2010 - 23:36:35 CST
On 2010-01-07 11:08, Christoph PĂ¤per wrote:
> Shouldnâ€™t that work more like this?
> k i
> k i m â€“ not Kim already
> Kim ch â€“ as there is no syllabogram Kimch nor Mch
> Kim ch i
> Kim ch i k â€“ not Chik
> Kim Chi k a â€“ could still be something longer than Ka
> Kim Chi Ka
> That is, show separate constituents (jamos) until the syllabogram is
> definitely complete (but probably also indicate which jamos are still
> being considered to form a syllabogram together). Something similar is
> true for shaping scripts like (traditional) arabic where you wouldnâ€™t
> want the last entered letter to bear a final form until you hit a
> non-letter key.
Perhaps it *should*, but it didn't. The point that she made to me is
that there is no need to "complete" the syllable, since syllable
completion is implicit in the orthography.
-- Curtis Clark http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/ Director, I&IT Web Development +1 909 979 6371 University Web Coordinator, Cal Poly Pomona
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 07 2010 - 23:39:08 CST