Re: Why wasn't it possible to encode a coeng-like joiner for Tibetan?

From: Shriramana Sharma <samjnaa_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 07:46:05 +0530

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Michael S. Kaplan
<michka_at_trigeminal.com> wrote:
> Qty

Uh? I even checked if that is a contraction like QED, but didn't seem
to find any explanation on the net!

--
Shriramana Sharma ஶ்ரீரமணஶர்மா श्रीरमणशर्मा

Received on Thu Apr 11 2013 - 21:23:54 CDT

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Shriramana Sharma: "Re: Why wasn't it possible to encode a coeng-like joiner for Tibetan?"
Previous message: Michael S. Kaplan: "RE: Why wasn't it possible to encode a coeng-like joiner for Tibetan?"
In reply to: Michael S. Kaplan: "RE: Why wasn't it possible to encode a coeng-like joiner for Tibetan?"

Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]
Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu Apr 11 2013 - 21:23:58 CDT