Re: Virama

CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU writes:

Kristian: I'm glad you and Phillip caught my "mistakes" before I had these
put down as definate (it's kind of good Paul Bennett doesnt seem to be
around, since he wanted to do a font)!

>Unfair, you mentioned Telugu! ;) Telugu is exceptional in having
>the diacritic for /a:/ above a glyph. Its mark for /e/ is also above
>the glyph. So when combined to mark /o/, its obviously above the
>glyph. So it still basically preserves the prototypical pattern.
Ok, i kind of thought it was odd. All the other ecripts followed the
circumfix patterm, or the mark above, and to the right system.

>
>
>
>You could also just have one mark after a glyph to mark /o/ - also a
>'fossilized' mark for /a:/ but where the mark for prototypical /e/ has
>been disregarded when marking /o/. This last option appeals to me for
>a language without /a:/ like Salaangal. Buginese does this.
Good idea! I do actually like this scheme best. I think this will be the
system for /o/. On Buginese, i had a book of different fonts I borrowed
from my school's library. Interesting book for script ideas. So, if the
mark for /o/ goes after the glyph, should the mark for /au/ follow (since
you say it's a variant form of /o/)?

>
>They simply don't exist - at least not prototypically. You would have to
>resort to using a virama (e.g. /ej/ /oj/ /iw/ with a virama applied to the
>consonants), or invent your own diacritics.
I think I shall stick with my own diacritics for these.
>
________________________________________________

It's worth the risk of burning, to have a second chance...