--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...> wrote:

> HISTORICALLY, THE <O> IS AN <E> PLUS AN <A>, BUT SYNCHRONICALLY IT

ISN'T. THE HISTORY ISN'T INTERESTING HERE.IT REPRESENTS NOTHING OTHER
THAN AN /O/ PRONOUNCED AFTER THE CONSONANT(S) IT SURROUNDS.

> >> For English a transliteration might choose
> >> to differentiate homgraphs such as 'sow', 'lead' and 'read'. A

> > THEN IT'S NOT A TRANSLITERATION.

> Do you have a name for it?

> i DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING!

This takes us back to the issue of the two Thai words written <sara
e><pho phan><lo long><sara aa> and respectively transcribable as
'pheelaa' and 'phlao'. The first is two aksharas, and using an
etymologically-based transliteration, that fact, if admissible,
justifies transliterating it as 'bela:'. The second is a single
akshara and that, if admissible, justifies transliterating as 'blau'.
Both forms back-transliterate to the original modern Thai spelling.

You are arguing that transliteration cannot use any inputs but the
text being transliterated (and a set of rules). Sometimes it is
useful to add extra information. Is there presently a name for such
schemes?

Richard.