RE: Sanskrit nasalized L

Why should candrabindu inhibit formation of a half form? I'm saying that it should not.

And I'd also say that ZWJ should not be seen as an override to force half-form conjoining in the presence of something that would otherwise block half forms. ZWJ in this context causes a half form to be displayed when otherwise a full-ligature conjunct would be displayed--and that's it.

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: unicode-bounce_at_unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce_at_unicode.org] On Behalf Of vanisaac_at_boil.afraid.org
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 12:41 PM
To: unicode_at_unicode.org
Subject: RE: Sanskrit nasalized L

From: Peter Constable <petercon_at_microsoft.com>

> Yes, I'm agreeing with you: for Devanagari, I'd use <la, virama,
> candrabindu, la> and not a sequence with ZWJ.
>
> Peter
>
> From: Shriramana Sharma
> > On Thursday 23 June 2011 11:15 AM, Peter Constable wrote:
> > > The examples shown here and that I've assumed are Devanagari script.
> > > Grantha or other scripts that sub-join "C2" consonants would,
> > > indeed, be another matter. And even for Devanagari, while it may
> > > be a valid sequence I don't think I'd recommend it.
> >
> > Just clarifying -- you mean that:
> >
> > LA + VIRAMA + ZWJ + CHANDRABINDU + LA
> >
> > *with* a joiner is *not* recommended, right?
> >
> > --
> > Shriramana Sharma

My understanding is that there is nothing inherently wrong with <La + Virama + ZWJ + Candrabindu + La>, though, is there? If the candrabindu inhibits formation of the half form, you should use ZWJ, right? Am I completely off base here?

-Van
Received on Thu Jun 23 2011 - 16:15:35 CDT