Re: Sanskrit nasalized L

On 08/16/2011 07:29 AM, Richard Wordingham wrote:
>>> The issues is on the relative ordering of candrabindu and virama.
>>> For a C1-conjoining form (i.e. C2 relatively unmodified),<la virama
>>> candrabindu la> is easier to handle. For a C2-conjoining form,<la
>>> candrabindu virama la> is easier to work with.
>>
>> Hmm -- perhaps you mean this is so because it would be possible to
>> easily map Virama + LA to the C2-conjoining form?
>
> That's my motivation.

I'm thinking more on this topic. Will get back if my ideas change.

> This is not what I was talking about. The best relevant examples in TUS
> 6.0 Section 11.4 are the words for "both" and "already". The former
> actually has nikahit + coeng!

I think these examples are exactly the region why one should not overly
identify Khmer the *Indian* Indic scripts as the latter (in which I do
not include Kharoshthi for this discussion) do not use subjoined
consonants for final consonants.

> All I've got to go on is the penultimate sentence in TUS 6.0 Section
> 10.2 - 'Rarely, stacks are seen that contain more than one such
> consonant-vowel combination in a vertical arrangement'.
>
> The Tibetan script doesn't have a combining virama. I would expect the
> natural coding to be something like letter-vowel-subjoined
> letter-vowel, e.g.<U+0F40 TIBETAN LETTER KA, U+0F74 TIBETAN VOWEL SIGN
> U, U+0FB2 TIBETAN SUBJOINED LETTER RA, U+0F74 TIBETAN VOWEL SIGN U>.

I'm not sure what such a stack of a consonant + vowel-sign pair with
another such pair would signify...

-- 
Shriramana Sharma