Re: One q. of lexicography, one q. of orthography

Dear Eisel,

I don't know much about what you're asking about and besides I'm away from
most of my resources (until Thursday) to be of much help. I think I can
respond with a few remarks though.

> in a standardized or consistent way. Ideally I would also like to know
> the Latin/Greek names for these symbols, as (e.g., obelus) this is the
> only way to find the Unicode entity corresponding thereunto.

I'm not familiar with the obelus but did find the following Unicode name:
U+070B : SYRIAC HARKLEAN OBELUS. There is also a U+070B : SYRIAC HARKLEAN
METOBELUS. Not sure if this is what you have in mind but it's all that came
up in my Unicode text editor's search tool.

> whatsoever).  What I *DO NOT KNOW* is whether this is more a matter of
> vernacular or classical orthography --or if it is an acceptable
> variant for both.

I think this Burmese representation of the conjunct /.d.dha/ more likely
belongs to the set of special Burmese characters used for writing Pali and
Sanskrit i.e. classical orthography. Some months ago, I was looking over the
Unicode range of Burmese characters and found that I couldn't write much
Pali with these characters which are more suited for the Burmese vernacular
which doesn't seem to have much in the way of the conjuncts used in Pali.
This left me wondering if they've even gotten around to including these
special characters in Unicode. The character that you see is also used in my
1929 edn. of Mmd.

Thanks for your Maha-Sarakham report.

Best wishes,
Jim

---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]