Re: Khmer Subscripts: encode directly or no

From: Timothy Partridge (
Date: Sat Aug 16 1997 - 07:59:58 EDT

In message <> you recently said:

> At 03:18 PM 8/15/97 -0700, Timothy Partridge wrote:
> >Two code encoding seems to be consistent also with the Thai which I
> >understand is closely related to Khmer.
> Actually not. Thai doesn't have subscript or conjunct forms. The languages
> also are unrelated. Of course there is a historical relationship between modern
> Thai script and Old Khmer script.

I agree about the subscript and cojuncts, but I was thinking more of there
being vowels and tone marks represented by combining characters, as opposed
to dozens of precomposed forms. Superscripts vs subscripts make little
difference to the encoding and the conjuncts aren't immediately obvious
in the encoding but are part of the additional semantics.

Thanks for the information about the historical relationship.


Tim Partridge. Any opinions expressed are mine only and not those of my employer

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:36 EDT