Re: Khmer Subscripts: encode directly or no

From: Michael Everson ([email protected])
Date: Sat Aug 16 1997 - 08:35:50 EDT

Next message: Geoff Back: "RE: Ess-zed (was: Ligaturing)"
Previous message: Timothy Partridge: "Re: Khmer Subscripts: encode directly or no"
Maybe in reply to: Maurice J Bauhahn: "Khmer Subscripts: encode directly or no"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Ar 16:21 -0700 1997-08-15, scr�obh Glenn Adams:
>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.

Ruhlen 1991 classifies thus:

Austric (1175 languages)
        Miao-Yao (4)
        Austroasiatic (155)
                Munda (17)
                Mon-Khmer (138, including Khmer)
        Austro-Tai (1016)
                Daic (57, including Thai)
                Austronesian (959)

Of course, this classification would place Thai and Khmer in the same sort
of relationship as Bengali and Portuguese. Not very closely related.

--
Michael Everson, Everson Gunn Teoranta
15 Port Chaeimhghein �ochtarach; Baile �tha Cliath 2; �ire (Ireland)
Guth�in:  +353 1 478-2597, +353 1 283-9396
http://www.indigo.ie/egt
27 P�irc an Fh�ithlinn; Baile an Bh�thair; Co. �tha Cliath; �ire

Next message: Geoff Back: "RE: Ess-zed (was: Ligaturing)"
Previous message: Timothy Partridge: "Re: Khmer Subscripts: encode directly or no"
Maybe in reply to: Maurice J Bauhahn: "Khmer Subscripts: encode directly or no"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

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