Re: Sanskrit nasalized L

On 08/14/2011 06:02 PM, Richard Wordingham wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:24:01 +0530
> Shriramana Sharma<samjnaa_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The point is that the sequence:
>>
>> <la, virama, candrabindu, la>
>>
>> is strictly speaking *the* sequence recommended *across* Indic
>> scripts for representation of Sanskrit clusters involving a nasal and
>> non-nasal "semivowel".
>
> Could you please quote me chapter and verse for this from the TUS or
> other relevant ruling.

I'm sorry -- perhaps I should not have written so presumptuously. So far
there is no such official mention.

However, people working with Indic rendering in a major operating system
support the concept (see
http://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2011-m06/0153.html).

To make it official I'll submit a document for this matter to be
included in the published Standard.

> It contradicts TUS 6.0 Section 11.4 Ordering of
> Syllable Components (p367), which treats U+17D2 KHMER SIGN COENG and
> its following consonant (or independent vowel) as inseparable.

That may be true for Khmer -- I am not a user of the script. I however
can only speak for Vedic/Sanskrit writings in *Indian* Indic scripts (as
you term them).

> It also creates the further oddity that when using a 'consonant sign'
> (Tibetan, possibly Myanmar, and Tai Tham) one would have the sequence
> <la, candrabindu, subjoined la>. (Alas, I don't have any relevant
> Sanskrit examples in those scripts.)

Yep -- it is highly unlikely that such samples exist in the first place.
So it is not known what the "desired rendering is". If at all any
rendering similar to the Indian Indic scripts is attested, then the
section of Khmer which you quote may well have to be edited!

For Indian Indic scripts we have attestations for both scripts using
C1-conjoining forms and C2-conjoining forms.

> The problem may be what is meant by an 'Indic script'? Do you include
> Tibetan and Further Indian Indic scripts (e.g. Myanmar, Tai Tham and
> Khmer), or do you just mean Indian Indic scripts?

See above.

-- 
Shriramana Sharma