Srivas: You shouldn’t take a narrow view of the impact of the Tamil script. Apparently, there are people that embrace it even when trying to write text in languages other than the primary one it was associated with. This is not unlike people using Hangul script for phonetic transcription of other languages—which also does happen. In such cases, it is not uncommon that the script gets extended with additional characters or marks to accommodate sounds not used in the original language. This has happened for many of the world’s other major scripts, including Latin, Arabic, Cyrillic and others.
Peter
From: indic-bounce_at_unicode.org [mailto:indic-bounce_at_unicode.org] On Behalf Of Sinnathurai Srivas
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 2:01 AM
To: Pavanaja U B; Indic Discussion List; Unicode Mailing List; UnicoRe Mailing List; N. Ganesan
Cc: wg02infitt
Subject: [indic] Re: Tamil Anusvara (U+0B82) glyph shape [ Re: Dot position in Gurmukhi character U+0A33]
Dear All,
Anusvara and Visarga are not required for Tamil.
Tamil Grammar (first chapter) deals with writing system.
Tamil writing system is different to mostly other Indic system.
primarily, Tamil alphabet does not represent sounds, but represents Places of articulation.
Most Indic alphabet represent sound. This is distinct phenomenon.
beside, there are rules to achieve what ever Anusvara and Visarga are doing. Unicode should not attempt to fix Tamil language to accommodate a different writing system, even for transliteration. Tamil has it's own transliteration methods.
As tamil is classical, ancient, current and scientific, there should not be an attempt to destroy the system. please leave it alone. tamil alphabet and it's interpretations/usage is scientifically defined.
Sinnathurai
--- On Thu, 9/2/12, N. Ganesan <naa.ganesan_at_gmail.com<mailto:naa.ganesan_at_gmail.com>> wrote:
From: N. Ganesan <naa.ganesan_at_gmail.com<mailto:naa.ganesan_at_gmail.com>>
Subject: [indic] Tamil Anusvara (U+0B82) glyph shape [ Re: Dot position in Gurmukhi character U+0A33]
To: "Pavanaja U B" <pavanaja_at_vishvakannada.com<mailto:pavanaja_at_vishvakannada.com>>, "Indic Discussion List" <indic_at_unicode.org<mailto:indic_at_unicode.org>>, "Unicode Mailing List" <unicode_at_unicode.org<mailto:unicode_at_unicode.org>>, "UnicoRe Mailing List" <unicore_at_unicode.org<mailto:unicore_at_unicode.org>>
Date: Thursday, 9 February, 2012, 2:45
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Pavanaja U B <pavanaja_at_vishvakannada.com</mc/compose?to=pavanaja_at_vishvakannada.com>> wrote:
>
> Unicode’s policy is not delete any character once encoded. You just don’t use it. That’s all.
>
> On another thinking, I feel it will be even better to add more characters to Tamil to help in transliterating from other Indian languages.
>
> Regards,
> Pavanaja
>
Yes. Anusvara and Visarga are core characters needed for transliteration in Tamil script.
The Indic, non-Tamil languages' rendition to Tamil script uses them extensively.
Regards
N. Ganesan
Received on Thu Feb 09 2012 - 12:59:20 CST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu Feb 09 2012 - 12:59:22 CST