On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 02:38:02 +0600
Christopher Fynn <chris.fynn_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/04/2013, "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst_at_it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:
>
> > On 2013/04/11 16:30, Michael Everson wrote:
> >> On 11 Apr 2013, at 00:09, Shriramana Sharma<samjnaa_at_gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Or was the Khmer model of an invisible joiner a *later* bright
> >>> idea?
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >
> > Later, yes. Bright? Most Kambodian experts disagree.
> >
> > Regards, Martin.
>
> At one time there was also a proposal for an "invisible joiner"
> character for Tibetan. As far as possible I think "invisible"
> characters are best avoided as ordinarily the user can't see them and
> doesn't always know if one is there or not.
Actually, coengs should be just as visible as standard viramas! The
difference is that, unlike a visible virama, a visible coeng signifies
incomplete data entry; the resulting visible form is not acceptable in
the traditional orthography. 'Invisible' coengs manifest their presence
by subjoined consonants or conjunct forms.
Received on Sat Apr 13 2013 - 16:27:48 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sat Apr 13 2013 - 16:27:49 CDT