2012/2/18 Shriramana Sharma <samjnaa_at_gmail.com>:
>> Thanks for all this info. A final question - why use "LLLA" instead of
>> ZHA?
> Actually, in what way is "ZHA" better? Anyhow, I think they just named it
> based on the Latin transliteration. So l ḷ ḻ got named as LA LLA LLLA.
There are multiple romanizations. The one you cite is the mot academic
one, with the intent of being bijectively reversible without
ambiguity, but it is the hardest to decipher, and even more difficult
thant the original script.
Consider the various romanizations of Cyrillic, and then how the ISO 9
standard evolved: the academic romanizations has been abandonned in
ISO 9, for something that is now much more workable (and is now
effectively used ni languages written either in Cyrillic or Latin;
this means that the two orthographies are not automatically
convertible without a dictionnary lookup in some direction for many
exceptions ; and thus, that those orthographies are now separated, as
if these were separate languages, even though this separation is still
only in their written form but not in their aural form).
Now for LLLA, the same will apply, and a digraph "zh" will be
enormously better than the "scientific" trigraph "lḷḻ" which is almost
impossible to read distinctly, and very inconvenient to type, even if
the reverse conversion from the Latin "zh" digraph to the Indic script
may be ambiguous.
And may be sometime there will be an academy that will opt for
replacing those ugly multigraphs by a new single Latin character
(consider what is happening now in Macedonian since the independance
of the FYROM, with the intended attempt caused by an ongoing
orthographic reform to escape from the Serbian model to a model more
similar to Bulgarian ; this is a similar situation, even though it
occurs only within the *same* unified Cyrillic script; the history of
ISO 9 versions is very instructive about what could happen to those
romanizations systems, even those that have been the subject of an
international standard).
Received on Mon Feb 20 2012 - 16:59:23 CST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Feb 20 2012 - 16:59:24 CST