Re: Retroflex ".l"

A boring but very easy study could be conducted of the actual
orthography for ".l" in various periods and scripts --the question
that Ole raises about the relationship to ".d" seems to be re-enforced
by the acutal "writ" of the ".l" in some cases.  Systematic
relationships of phonology are often reflected in systematic
relationships of orthography --a tradition dating to Ashoka.  Thus,
e.g., that it was thought of as some sort of "d" sound seems blatantly
true of Khmer ("Cambodian") orthography, in which the ".l" is simply a
modified "d".  Also, e.g., it may be that the Burmese script(s)
devised the glyph for ".l" as an inverse ".d" to suggest their
phonological relationship (NB: sheer speculation).  At any rate,
because none of the vernaculars had a ".l" sound, the orthography for
this sound was "no accident".

I'm sorry to say this message is an improvisation under the influence
of Jet lag ... I may later regret it.

P.S., I'm currently in Toronto, Canada --and will soon meet with Jim.

E.M.