Proposal to add Roman transliteration schemes to ISO 15924.

Richard Wordingham via Unicode unicode at
Tue Dec 3 04:15:55 CST 2019

On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 02:05:35 +0000
Richard Wordingham via Unicode <unicode at> wrote:

> I'm still trying to work out what to do for IAST.  Is it just:
> sa-t-m0-iast
> if one finds that
> sa-Latn
> allows too much latitude?

For material that is a transcription rather than a transliteration, are
there regional preferences for the homorganic nasals when writing in
the writing systems generated by IAST?

> How does one choose between anusvara and specific consonants
> for homorganic nasals? Is it sa-150-t-m0-iast v. sa-IN-t-m0-iast?

As these locales strictly speaking defined locales, I think I put the
region in the wrong place.  Perhaps they should be:

sa-t-m0-sa-150-Deva-iast v. sa-t-m0-sa-IN-Deva-iast

As a locale, is the latter the same as sa-t-m0-sa-IN-Mlym?  I'm not
sure how the preference for writing homorganic nasals varies by region
and by script.  What is the scope of IAST?  Does sa-t-m0-sa-Thai
exist?  sa-Thai seems to prefer the nasal stops to anusvara before
oral stops.

The text in IAST that I encounter seems not to have ansuvara before
stop consonants.  I believe 'sa' would naturally expand (are there
non-void prescribed rules on this?) as sa-Deva-IN, so perhaps the
sa-Latn I usually see is unusual as sa-t-m0-iast and the description
should be expanded to at least sa-t-m0-sa-150-iast if sa-Latn is not
precise enough.

Can someone advise?


More information about the Unicode mailing list