From pandey at umich.edu Sat Jul 9 01:36:47 2016 From: pandey at umich.edu (Anshuman Pandey) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 02:36:47 -0400 Subject: Tulu Unicode In-Reply-To: References: <001501cf144a$316a28d0$943e7a70$@vishvakannada.com> <000e01d1cb1b$dc095650$941c02f0$@vishvakannada.com> <003201d1cb1e$ba684cb0$2f38e610$@sonic.net> Message-ID: <25708F3C-6AC8-4620-A44E-FA7E1AB14781@umich.edu> Dear Vaishnavi, I'm very sorry and saddened to hear about your accident. It sound very serious. I hope that you are recovering. I will look over this latest version of the proposal. The previous versions have contained a lot of valuable information on Tigalari and you have been quite diligent in describing the script. Your work is commendable. I will try to provide you wth feedback sometime next week. Please take care of yourself and especially your hands, Vaishnavi. Warm regards, Anshu > On Jul 8, 2016, at 1:37 PM, Vaishnavi Murthy wrote: > > Dear Deborah, > > Thank you for keeping me in the loop. > > I'm keeping this mail short as I can't type much. > I met with an accident and both my hands are pretty damaged! > > As of now the Tigalari proposal stands as seen in the attachment. > All the text in Red needs to be resolved. Any comments feedback or suggestions regarding this is welcome :) > > Best, > Vaishnavi > >> On 20 June 2016 at 23:38, Deborah W. Anderson wrote: >> Dear Pavanaja, >> >> In May 2011 I sent a link to the document http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2011/11120-n4025-tulu.pdf to the Government of India, but received no response. To my knowledge, no proposal has been officially submitted since then. >> >> >> >> The link on the http://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n4685-A%20Meeting%2064%20Tentative%20Agenda.pdf is meant only to track that a proposal had been submitted. No action was taken. >> >> >> >> I do know of one person who was actively working on a proposal for Tulu, and you should follow up with her to check on its status. Her email is: vaishnavimurthy at gmail.com >> >> >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Debbie Anderson >> >> >> >> From: Indic [mailto:indic-bounces at unicode.org] On Behalf Of Dr. U.B. Pavanaja >> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 10:48 AM >> To: 'Indic Discussion List' >> Cc: 'UnicoRe Mailing List' >> Subject: RE: Tulu Unicode >> >> >> >> I saw this action item at http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2011/11116.htm#127-A10 which says ? ?[127-A10] Action item for Deborah Anderson: Send pointer to the Tulu document to Government of India and ask for their feedback. [L2/11-120]?. May I know what was the outcome? >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Pavanaja >> >> >> >> From: Dr. U.B. Pavanaja [mailto:pavanaja at vishvakannada.com] >> Sent: 20 June 2016 23:03 >> To: 'Indic Discussion List' >> Cc: 'UnicoRe Mailing List' >> Subject: RE: Tulu Unicode >> >> >> >> Hello, >> >> >> >> What is the status of encoding Tulu in Unicode? Is there anything that we should do which will help the process? Do we need to send any document? >> >> >> >> I am working with Tulu Sahitya Academy of Karnataka in this direction. I am also member of the Kannada Software Committee setup by Govt of Karnataka to look into various aspects of Kannada and other languages used in Karnataka. We can come up a document if needed. >> >> >> >> I have gone through the existing proposals. >> >> >> >> Thanks and regards, >> >> Pavanaja >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Indic [mailto:indic-bounces at unicode.org] On Behalf Of N. Ganesan >> Sent: 19 January 2014 12:35 >> To: Indic Discussion List >> Cc: UnicoRe Mailing List >> Subject: Re: Tulu Unicode >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Pavanaja U B wrote: >> >> What are the steps involved to add Tulu language to Unicode? >> >> >> >> >> >> There is already a detailed proposal to add Tulu script to Unicode standard, >> >> M. Everson's document on Tulu encoding: >> >> http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2011/11120-n4025-tulu.pdf >> >> >> >> Tulu, like many Indian and other languages is written in two scripts. >> >> For example, Tevaram, sacred scriptures from Tamil, gets written in Tamil >> >> as well as Grantha scripts. >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> N. Ganesan >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Pavanaja >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Indic mailing list >> Indic at unicode.org >> http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/indic >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kucera at lupacovka.cz Sat Jul 9 15:53:09 2016 From: kucera at lupacovka.cz (=?utf-8?B?S3XEjWVyYSBKYW4=?=) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 20:53:09 +0000 Subject: DHARMMA and SVA in Grantha Message-ID: Hello, I have an inscription in Grantha that says DHARMMA, see the attached picture, end of line 32 - namely the MMA is not ligatured. Does anyone have any suggestion how this should be represented in Unicode? Technically, it should be DHA+RA+(VIRAMA+MA+[VIRAMA+]MA), I tried putting ZWJ and ZWNJ in various places, but the tricky part seems to be getting the reph after a non-joined cluster. You can get the desired appearance using DHA+MA+RA+VIRAMA+MA, but I would rather have the underlying text accurate and deal with it at render time. The only idea I have is to create another ligature for MA+VIRAMA+MA and use OpenType features to switch to it. Or am I missing something obvious? Second, there is a SVA ligature which seems to be pretty common in inscriptions. However, SA+VIRAMA+VA normally results in VA stacked below SA. What is the idea regarding choosing between stacked and ligatured clusters? Thanks! Jan -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: dharmma.PNG Type: image/png Size: 18218 bytes Desc: dharmma.PNG URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: sva.PNG Type: image/png Size: 20294 bytes Desc: sva.PNG URL: From samjnaa at gmail.com Sun Jul 10 22:28:56 2016 From: samjnaa at gmail.com (Shriramana Sharma) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 08:58:56 +0530 Subject: DHARMMA and SVA in Grantha In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 1) The text you provide reads DHA + MA + MA + REPH. Obviously however the word intended is DHARMMA. Perhaps there was a horizontally-fused ligature of the two MA-s in the original inscription and due to absence of such a glyph in printing they have approximated thus. You will have to check the original. If in fact in the original the two MA-s are separate and somehow intended to be read as a digraph (unlikely in Grantha but sometimes seen in Malayalam) then there is no other go in Unicode but to compose it as DHA + MA + RA + VIRAMA + MA though it may go against your gut feeling of what the content is. Unicode encodes orthographic content and not linguistic content. There is no magic invisible character sequence to make the RA go beyond the second MA. If OTOH the original has a horizontally fused pair of MA-s then you should use the normal and expected sequence RA + VIR + MA + VIR + MA and use an appropriate font to display such a fused M?MA. 2) The ligature you point out is not S?VA but it is SH?VA. Unicode does not mandate that it should be displayed as a ligature or as a stack. It is up to the font. Choose the font that best represents the style you want to mimic. Unicode says the sequence C1 + ZWJ + VIR + C2 may be used to *request* that a ligature be prevented and a stack (in this case) be used. Again it is up to the font and text shaping engine to support this. -- Shriramana Sharma ???????????? ????????????