Re: Virama

Barry Garcia wrote:

>Kristian Jensen writes:
>>  /a/  -  unmarked
>>   /i/  -  above a glyph
>>   /u/  -  below a glyph
>>   /a:/ -  after a glyph
>>   /e/  -  before a glyph (though variable, see NB below)
>>   /o/  -  combining the diacritics for /e/ and /a:/
>>   /ai/ -  two marks of /e/
>>   /au/ -  a variant of the marking for /o/
>>
>>NB.: The marking for /e/ is the most varied among the Indic scripts. It
>>appears to have migrated to either a superscript or subscript position in
>>a number of Indic scripts. Something to do perhaps with how unfavorable
>>it is to have a prescripted diacritic.
>
>What I have now is:
>
>/a/ - unmarked
>/i/ - above a glyph
>/u/ - below a glyph
>/e/ - below a glyph (since it was variable, I chose subscript)
>/ai/ - two marks of e, one above and one below the glyph (similar, but
>_not_ as it's done in Telugu)
>/au/ - variant of the mark for /o/ (see below)
>
>Problems: Kristian, since you say in your generalization that in the
>prototypical indic script  /o/ combines the diacritics for /e/ and /a:/,
>ans /a:/ is not in Saalangal, I chose to put a diacritic above the glyph
>(now before you say that's not how it should be done :) ,Telugu for
>example puts a diacritic above the character for /o/, and Kannada puts one
>above and to the right).
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.

Kannada still follows the prototypical pattern. Its /a:/ marker
is placed to the right of the glyph (though with an extension above
the glyph). Its /e/ marker is above. Combined to form /o/, you have
a mark above and to the right (with the extension now also to the
right of the glyph).

Anyways, getting back to Saalangal... I can give you an example of
a script which does not have a mark for /a:/, but has a mark for /o/:
Tibetan. Tibetan /e/ is marked above a glyph. Its mark for /o/ is
above the glyph. It still follows the prototypical pattern minus the
mark for /a:/. If you have decided to use a mark below a glyph to
mark /e/ in Ranaka, then off-hand I'd expect /o/ to be marked below
as well, thereby preserving the prototypical pattern. You could also
have a 'fossilized' mark for /a:/ in the script such that /o/ would be
marked by one diacritic below and another one to the right of a glyph.
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. Using one
above a glyph to mark /o/ in Ranaka seems to me to come out of the blue
without any historical persuation.

>There also doesn't seem to be diacritics for /ei/, /oi/, and iw (said as
>"ew" in English, dont know how to do the IPA for that one), in any of the
>indic scripts I looked at in the Unicode charts pages. I will probably use
>my own diacritics for these three diphthongs (they have their own glyphs)
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.

Boreanesian has /iw/ and /uj/. So I have had the same problem. I solved
it by having the mark for /iw/ as a variant of /@w/ (prototypical /o/),
and /uj/ as a variant of /@j/ (prototypical /e/).

>The Virama is still a circle, but below the glyph. (I noticed Tamil,
>Kannada, Malayalam, and Telugu either have it above or beside the glyph)
The virama is indeed the most varid marker across different Indic scripts.

-kristian- 8)