On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:24:01 +0530 Shriramana Sharma <[email protected]> wrote:
> The point is that the sequence: > > <la, virama, candrabindu, la> > > is strictly speaking *the* sequence recommended *across* Indic > scripts for representation of Sanskrit clusters involving a nasal and > non-nasal "semivowel". Could you please quote me chapter and verse for this from the TUS or other relevant ruling. It contradicts TUS 6.0 Section 11.4 Ordering of Syllable Components (p367), which treats U+17D2 KHMER SIGN COENG and its following consonant (or independent vowel) as inseparable. It also creates the further oddity that when using a 'consonant sign' (Tibetan, possibly Myanmar, and Tai Tham) one would have the sequence <la, candrabindu, subjoined la>. (Alas, I don't have any relevant Sanskrit examples in those scripts.) The problem may be what is meant by an 'Indic script'? Do you include Tibetan and Further Indian Indic scripts (e.g. Myanmar, Tai Tham and Khmer), or do you just mean Indian Indic scripts? Richard.
