bug-gnu-emacs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#9336: 24.0.50; No way to input character #xbb4 using ta-itrans


From: Vijay Lakshminarayanan
Subject: bug#9336: 24.0.50; No way to input character #xbb4 using ta-itrans
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 08:57:33 +0530
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (windows-nt)

Jambunathan K <address@hidden> writes:

>>> (Rationale: This is how it's usually mapped by a layman even outside of
>>> ta-itrans)
>>
>> "zha" would be more appropriate.  Just to pick two contemporary names
>> that have ழ in them, we have Azhagiri and Kanimozhi.
>
> (For Kenichi's benefit) The two things that you have cited above are
> Tamil people names.
>
> Or 
>
> Are you making the suggestion - "zha" - based on an actual itrans
> implementation? 

I have zero experience with itrans but I do have some experience with
transliteration, per se (see below).

> mapping
> `ha' to `ஹ' seems very reasonable to me.

I agree.  But this is orthogonal to mapping "zh" to "ழ்".  With this
mapping, a user who wishes to write "ழ்ஹ" would merely write "zhha".

> IMO, there seems to be some de-facto or normative standard on how
> english sequences are mapped to tamil alphabets (or any given language?)
> via itrans. In that case, there is nothing much Emacs can do but follow
> the crowd.
>
> I am a layman user, I don't have any prior experience with other
> ta-itrans implementations and Kenichi is the expert here. I would be
> perfectly OK with a less than perfect mapping as long as I get uniform
> experience across a variety of systems (including Emacs).

Here too I agree.  From your earlier post it seemed as if you were
suggesting new combinations for transliteration and that's why I
provided my own.

Using "zh" to represent "ழ்" is quite canonical and common in
comtemporary culture (possibly older, but I'm not sure).  I already
cited two people with "ழ்" in their names transliterated as "zh".  The
recent Tamil movie "மொழி" was also transliterated as "mozhi".

I'm the author of an online transliterator
(http://www.yash.info/indianLanguageConverter/tamil.html) which had some
moderate success when it was originally written (back in 2005).  Its
transliteration scheme is quite different from some of the other
suggestions in this thread.  I felt that only the "z" -- "zh" was strong
enough to change.

> Jambunathan K.
>

-- 
Cheers
~vijay

Gnus should be more complicated.





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]