Misspelling or Miscoding?

[Richard Wordingham]

On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 18:41:07 -0800
Asmus Freytag <asmusf at ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> On 1/19/2017 5:04 PM, Richard Wordingham wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 14:25:14 -0800
> > Asmus Freytag <asmusf at ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> >> The Khmer example would seem fairly resistant to automated
> >> correction if it is a free choice. If, instead, the immediately
> >> preceding consonant comes from two disjoined sets, for example if
> >> TA COENG TA was possible, but not TA COENG DA, then there's scope
> >> for spell check.  
> > It's supposed to be based on the phonetics, so a spell check could
> > be used, but not a grammar rule.  However, I can imagine someone
> > writing in accordance with a rule restricting them to certain
> > bases.  
> Your last sentence reads as if you might equally well meant "can't" 
> instead of "can" (?)

I meant 'can'.  According to Huffman's 'Cambodian System of Writing',
initial TA is to be read as /d/ in compounds formed by infixes.  (The
spelling may have changed since then.)  Suffixed to ណ NNO (which is in
the retroflex series), the subscript is to be read as /d/, while
subscripted to ន NO, it is usually /t/ but occasionally /d/.  I would be
tempted to apply the Pali & Sanskrit rule of place agreement and
use COENG DA below ណ NNO and COENG TA below ន NO.  I would expect
similar agreement with ដ DA and ត TA.

Interestingly, such a discordance in the use of the nasals also occurs
in Northern Thai; DA (= Indic DDA) may be written subscript to NA
whereas the Indic place agreement rule would dictate NNA.  This
increases the visual ambiguity of subscripts on the ligature NAA - both
/-n daː/ <NA, SAKOT, DA, SIGN AA> and /naːt/ <NA, SIGN AA, SAKOT, DA>
occur, but there are no anagrammatic homographs in the
dictionary.  The example ᨧᩥᨶ᩠ᨯᩣ of /-n daː/ shows every sign of having
been borrowed via Khmer.

Richard.