2014-05-12 10:03 GMT+02:00 Richard Wordingham < richard.wording...@ntlworld.com>:
> Dependent vowels on independent vowels generally modify rather than > replace the vowel sound of the independent vowel. Balinese provides a > simple example; the Brahmi length mark has retained or regained its > independence and is regularly applied to both independent and > dependent vowels. > Hmmm... The length mark itself is not a dependant vowel by itself, it's a modifier that follows a vowel (dependant or not). This length mark is just like a simple macron in Latin, or other length marks used in Asian scripts. In may cases its use is optional as it is not significant semantically and phonologically, or it remains by tradition and frequently used words. It is the introduction of a null consonnant as a plain letter (H in Latin; a letter distinguished with other letters when the glotal stop is realized phonetically with semantic distinctions from a pure "mute" sound : a true glottal stop more or less advanced in the throat or palatal, or an expirated or inspirated breathe, or a short mute pause, sometimes just a modification of tone for the following vowel...) that have made possible the evolution of semitic abjads to alphabets with separate letters (though without banning the use of diacritics) Orthographies also have used diacritics for represent this null consonnant in alphabets ; notably the diaeresis as in French, where it is not only used for this but also to avoid the interpretation of digrams and enforce the separate pronounciation of one of the two vowels ; notably when appied to a final e (usually this final e is mute but it would need to be pronounced in a separate syllable if not mute for emphasis purpose — see "aiguë": /ɛ.ɡy/, or exceptionally /ɛ.ɡy.ɘ/ with emphasis, where we see this null-consonnant as if it was written "aiguhe"; the same term may also be written "aigüe" with an older orthography, the placement of the diaeresis or the first or second vowel being variable though it is preferable today to write it on the second one). Indic abugidas on the opposite have not distinguished this null-consonnant explicitly; but it still exists logically as an unbreakable combination of that null-consonnant and the dependant vowel. This Indic model was abandonned in the Hangul script using an explicit null-consonnant jamo (but older Korean orthographies have also written multiple vowels in the same syllabic cluster, without marking this null consonnant explicitly, and a syllable leading vowel coudl also be left unwritten, or written with a special placement relative to the following consonnant; today Korean no longer use clusters of vowels and have also abandonnend clusters of consonnants by promotting 'de jure' some digrams into plain consonnants even if this change is superficial).
_______________________________________________ Unicode mailing list Unicode@unicode.org http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode