- comments-kannada-oriya-telugu-08aug18@icann.org

[Comments-kannada-oriya-telugu-08aug18] FW: [Ext] Odia Script
by Sarmad Hussain Oct. 17, 2018

Oct. 17, 2018

Posting a comment from J P Das. Regards, Sarmad From: J.P. Das [mailto:prathampurush@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 12, 2018 12:40 AM Subject: [Ext] Odia Script The suggestion regarding nukta/dot below letters should be rejected. I also think these should be discarded from even ଡ ଢ. Thank you. J.P.Das Odia Writer ଜଗନ୍ନାଥ ପ୍ରସାଦ ଦାସ Dr.J.P.Das ୩୦୫ ହୌଜ ଖାସ ଆପାର୍ଟ୍ ମେଂଟସ୍ 305 Hauz Khas Apartments ନୂଆ ଦିଲ୍ଲୀ - 110016 New Delhi-110016 Telephone: 011-26511623 / 9868170180

1 0

[Comments-kannada-oriya-telugu-08aug18] Review of the Odia proposal
by anindita sahoo Oct. 10, 2018

Oct. 10, 2018

I wish to write to the maintainers at ICANN to respond to the Proposal for an Oriya Script Root Zone Label Generation Request (LGR). I happened to see this proposal through a friend's suggestion. I found certain things mentioned here are fundamentally flawed as far as Oriya/Odia as a language is concerned. Being a linguist and a native speaker of Odia, I wish to write a response to this proposal. However, I realize the deadline to send the response was yesterday. I was travelling, so could not send my response to you earlier than this. I request you to consider this mail now. My response: Example: Oriya script frequently uses “ଡ” (U+0B21), “ଢ” (U+0B22) as well as their respective allophones “ଡ଼”, and “ଢ଼”. In Oriya (Odia) script, these differ in use of nukta. Thus “ଡ଼” and “ଢ଼” as distinct letters are not allowed but their decomposed form i.e. “ଡ”, “ଢ” followed by Oriya (Odia) sign nukta (U+0B3C) can be used. Similarly, for allophones of other consonants like କ (U+0B15), ଖ (U+0B16), ଗ(U+0B17), ଚ(U+0B1A), ଜ(U+0B1C), ଫ(U+0B2B)nukta can be used. The above given para in the original proposal caught my attention because of the wrong information it provides. The retroflex sounds “ଡ଼” and “ଢ଼” are NOT the allophones of "ଡ" and "ଢ". These are distinct consonants and "ଡ" and "ଢ" should not be considered as the decomposed form of “ଡ଼” and “ଢ଼”. Rather they (“ଡ଼” and “ଢ଼”) deserve a special mention in the script because of their unique property and usage in the discourse. The other wrong information that this proposal provides is the use of "କ", "ଖ", "ଗ", "ଚ", "ଜ" and "ଫ" with a nukta. My understanding about this language says this is an absurd suggestion. The above consonants have been originally there in the script and they do not have any allophone. So the inclusion of the nukta-ed version these consonants does not serve any purpose; rather it will create confusion to the speakers of this language (economy of grammar is compromised). As far as my understanding is concerned, this proposal would make things clumsy and complex for the learners Instead of simplifying it. Therefore, I request the maintainers to keep a note of my response and do the necessary changes in the proposal. Sincerely, Anindita Sahoo Assistant Professor (Linguistics) Department of Humanities & Social Sciences Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai India Ph. +91-44-2257-4534 Webpage: https://hss.iitm.ac.in/team-members/anindita-sahoo/ [hss.iitm.ac.in] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__hss.iitm.ac.in_team-2D…>

1 0

[Comments-kannada-oriya-telugu-08aug18] Comments on Oriya /Odia Language
by Santosh Mohanty Oct. 8, 2018

Oct. 8, 2018

Thanks for the new initiative. The Odia document has some problems in section 3.4 and 3.8 (IPA and Nukta Characters). Some of the references have taken from Wikipedia which should be verified from the authentic sources. Dr. Santosh Kumar Mohanty CIIL, Mysuru, Karnataka

1 0

[Comments-kannada-oriya-telugu-08aug18] Comments on Odia proposal
by O Foundation Oct. 8, 2018

Oct. 8, 2018

We largely agree with Liang. “Oriya script seems to be a variant of Devanāgarī” is a glaring mistake. It is not just an insult to a classical language and a script that existed more than 1500 years ago in eastern India around the time Sanskrit and Tamil flourished, but undermining the struggle that went into making Odisha the first state in India to be formed in 1936 in the basis of linguistic identity. Additionally, it feels like a majority portion of the content is copied from Wikipedia without verification from external sources. Liang has already flagged the Gujarati part. It is disheartening to see that researchers are referring to Wikipedia rather than referring to primary and secondary sources. Wikipedia itself refers to tertiary and above sources and at times contains factual inconsistencies. 3.4 It is important to note that "ଵ" (U+0B35) is a non-existent character in the Odia alphabet. It was invented by a fringe group during sometime in the last few decades but never gained traction among the general public. It was later inserted in the Unicode chart for Odia based on unreliable sources but still remains an alien symbol for native speakers of the language. Documentary evidence corroborates with the historical non-existence of any such character in Odia such as Notable Dictionaries or Lexicons published over the last two centuries (including the most exhaustive and largest Odia dictionary “Purnachandra Bhashakosha”.) Odia literature has special literary genres known as Chautisa and Champu that were written from 7th century AD up to 19th century AD. These are poems where each stanza begins with a letter of the alphabet and continues sequentially. These also do not use this character making it of doubtful antiquity. Scholarly studies on Odia linguistics, literature and grammar as well primary sources such as stone inscriptions and palm leaf manuscripts. Odia language primers and textbooks including those published by Governmental agencies (eg: Dept of Language, Literature and Culture Govt of Odisha, The Odisha State Museum). Popular print or electronic media including newspapers, journals and television. 3.8 Another dubious claim with no explanation or logic whatsoever is the addition of nukta to “କ” (U+0B15),“ଖ” (U+0B16), “ଗ” (U+0B17), “ଚ” (U+0B1A), “ଜ” (U+0B1C), and “ଫ” (U+0B2B). There is no reference or any published resources to show the need or historical use of these. Simply put, the researchers should have gone beyond Wikipedia to find if the historical use actually exists as these characters ignore the efforts of those who standardized the language and the script on the basis of which the Indian state of Odisha was formed in 1936. If a script would evolve, it would evolve based on a dialogue between the experts and the larger community. Insertion of nukta to these characters are done in this document in an autocratic manner without any consensus, historical reference and to substantiate a new trend one of the researchers for Odia is promoting on social media. This should not be treated as an allegation but a cautionary flag as these serious flaws will tarnish the hard work of ICANN. Nukta in “ଚ” (U+0B1A), however, is visible in the Karani script which is another historical variation/predecessor of the current Odia script but has to be treated as a different script. The reason for nukta in “ଚ” (U+0B1A) was for a different purpose and bringing it back for another purpose is gross manipulation. We strongly support Liang's point about "ଡ଼" and "ଢ଼" as those two characters are regarded as treasure troves of Odia script. The very name of the language "ଓଡ଼ିଆ" and the geographical place — the state of Odisha (ଓଡ଼ିଶା) contains these characters. "ଡ଼" and "ଢ଼" are supposed to be treated as characters rather than variations of "ଡ" and "ଢ" as the use case for the former two are more than the latter. We are drafting this response immediately because it was our notice only today. We hope to formulate a complete response with necessary sources in the following week if an extension of the deadline can be accommodated. O Foundation (OFDN) www.theofdn.org OFDN is an nonprofit organization based in Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India that works in the intersection of marginalized societies, languages, and cultures. Members : Prateek Pattanaik Nasim Ali Shitikantha Dash Shreekant Kedia Sailesh Patnaik Jnanaranjan Sahu Chinmayee Mishra Mrutyunjaya Kar Subhashish Panigrahi

1 0

[Comments-kannada-oriya-telugu-08aug18] A quick review of the Kannada proposal
by 梁海 Liang Hai Oct. 8, 2018

Oct. 8, 2018

- 2, Latin transliteration of the native script name: kannaḍa (Also, please use a consistent transliteration scheme in the document.) - 3.4.7, “For 3.4.7.4 there could be cases involving …”: The discussed cases and §3.4.7.4 are not relevant. - 3.4.7, “… hence this is explicitly prohibited by the NBGP”: Not necessary. Just think about writing a note in a limited space then inter-word spaces are extremely narrow — do users have to modify words’ spelling to avoid vowel letters following a consonant with halant? - 5.3: What does “Does not belong to Kannada” even mean? U+0CBC KANNADA SIGN NUKTA is a Kannada grapheme, just not commonly used. U+0CD5 KANNADA LENGTH MARK and U+0CD6 KANNADA AI LENGTH MARK are technically used part of vowel sign character’s canonical decompositions, just not used independently and IDNA2008 requires NFC. - 6.1, “There are no variants within the Kannada script.”: Preconditions are WLE and the limited character set. - 7: A comprehensible pattern for other reviewers to refer to: `C[M][B|X] | V[B|X] | CH` (consonant clusters analyzed as a consonat preceded by one or more `CH` occurences). - 7, Rule 5: Unnecessary restriction. - Appendix II: This is important discussion about required usage of ZWJ and ZWNJ. Should be included in the main text instead of in appendix. Also the rationale/excusing of the lack of ZWJ/ZWNJ is weak and riduculous. - The proposal should discuss the inconsistent encoding and rendering of <ra, virama, ra> /rra/. The preferred rendering form should be glyph sequence <<ra base, ra vattu>>, but in most implementations <ra, virama, ra> yields <<ra base, reph>> thus requires a ZWJ, as in <ra, virama, zwj, ra> (legacy logic) or <ra, zwj, virama, ra> (Unicode recommendation), to trigger the preferred form. Best, 梁海 Liang Hai https://lianghai.github.io

1 0

[Comments-kannada-oriya-telugu-08aug18] A quick review of the Odia proposal
by 梁海 Liang Hai Oct. 8, 2018

Oct. 8, 2018

- 2, “oḍiā”: Not an accurate transliteration as it doesn’t distinguish ଓଡିଆ and ଓଡ଼ିଆ. - 3, “known in Unicode as Oriya”: It’s known also as “Oriya” everywhere. - 3, “Oriya script seems to be a variant of Devanāgarī … mahājani (trader's) script.”: Seriously? Is this copied from the Gujarati proposal? Odia doesn’t seem to be a variant of Devanagari to anyone who knows the existence of the Bangla script. - 3.1, “The diagram belowshows the major stages in the evolution of Oriya attesting its late divergence from Devanāgarī.”: Are the authors trying to ignore/deny Odia’s relationship with Bangla? - 3.4: Why the IPA of ଯ is missing? The whole set of IPA transcriptions is apparently inaccurate as it doesn’t reflect even some of the Odia language’s typical features (eg, the rounded schwa). Actually the proposal doesn’t need IPA transcriptions for every letter because it’s text encoding being discussed. Lossless transliterations are much more useful. The whole Table 1 can be removed. - 3.6: Authors are not using accurate transliterations. - 3.7, “Half form of consonants (pre-base form)”: Pre-base forms don’t seem relevant to Odia discussions. - 3.8, “… to show that words having these consonants with a nukta are to be pronounced in the Perso-Arabic style.”: Inaccurate. At least the usage of nukta on dda and ddha is not related to Perso-Arabic words. - 3.10, “/ãala/”: Either use a phonetic transcription (then the first syllable’s vowel is probably not /a/ and the consonant is not /l/), or use transliteration: am̐ḷā. It’s not helpful and is only confusing if an inaccurate transcription/transliteration is provide. Drop it or correct it. - 3.11: Rendering failure of the second example (saṁkhyā). - 3.12, Table 3: Clean up the duplicated dotted circles. Why is vocalic rr excluded but vocalic l adn vocalic ll are included? Be consistent with the discussions in later sections. - 5.2 and 5.2.1: Doesn’t U+0B35 ORIYA LETTER VA fall into “4.1.2.4 No Rare and Obsolete Characters“? Why is U+0B57 ORIYA AU LENGTH MARK excluded but U+0B56 ORIYA AI LENGTH MARK is included? - 6.1, “… there are no characters/character sequences which can be created by using the Oriya characters permitted as per the [MSR] and look identical.”: **FALSE**. Odia has a seriously problem of confusables because of multiple ways of encoding the signs of ba and ya. Many fonts (eg, Nirmala UI) allow both <virama, U+0B2F ya> and <virama, U+0B5F yya> to form the post-base form of ya; and allow all of <virama, U+0B2C ba>, <virama, U+0B35 va>, and <virama, U+0B71 wa> to form the blow-base forms of ba. To the very least, this is the problem the propasal should’ve captured, and the NBGP failed. And these variants probably need to be proposed as “allocatable”. Also, Odia does have other natural (not because of technical issues like the problem aforementioned) ambiguities that need to be addressed (note many of them are stylistic and depend on what font is used to render text), see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odia_alphabet#Ambiguities](https://en.wikiped… - 7: For other reviewers’ reference: `C[N][M][B|D|X] | V[B|D|X] | C[N]H` Best, 梁海 Liang Hai https://lianghai.github.io

2 1

[Comments-kannada-oriya-telugu-08aug18] A quick review of the Telugu proposal
by 梁海 Liang Hai Oct. 8, 2018

Oct. 8, 2018

- 2, “telɯgɯ”: This is probably a phonetic transcription, not an accurate transliteration that should be used in this document. - 3.5, “… and 16 dependent signs”: 15. - 3.5.1: Vocalic l should be categorized with vocalic rr and vocalic ll. Transliteration of vocalic ll is wrong. - 3.5.1, R1, “ca= a consonant with an inherent ‘a’”: When discussing text encoding, Indic consonants naturally are with an inherent vowel. Try to distinguish phonetic sequence and written forms and encoded character sequence. The 3 lines under R1 are not helpful. - 3.5.3: The introduction of arasunna usage is unclear. Is it commonly used today or not? - 4.1: Good to see the usage of ZWNJ to be clearly introduced here. - 4.2: Unclear how the common case of ZWNJ usage is to be dealt with by domain name applicant. Will the applicant be allowed to use ZWNJ? If not, then it’s not particular clear how it’s decided to forbid ZWNJ, given the strong and unambiguous usage of it. - 5: It is appropriate to exclude U+0C58 tsa and U+0C59 dza? - 5.2: Apparently U+0C44 TELUGU VOWEL SIGN VOCALIC RR should be excluded. - 5.3, Various signs: The description doesn’t make sense. These two characters should be excluded because they’re part of vowel signs that are already atomically encoded and encluded. U+0C55 is not meant for encoding hā (unless it’s decided other irregularly written consonant–vowel structures need to be encoded visually too). - 5.3, Historic phonetic variants: Unclear why “Phonological variants shall not be permitted”. - 6, “There are no characters in the Telugu Unicode chart that either in simple form or in combined form are deemed similar by NBGP.”: Should mention the precondition of WLE. - 6.1: There shouldn’t be disposition of “blocked” in the table (or anywhere), because it’s not even proposed to be variants. The example i and ii as well as the table are all very confusing. Vowel sign o and oo need to be discussed separately as they have different behavior. See [https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2014/14005-telugu-kannada-vs-o-oo--UTN.pdf](htt… for a better introduction. Also, హా should be introduced in this section too, although it’s not proposed either (because of excluded character). - 6.2: Inappropriate restriction. This is like restricting one between “colour” and “color” because they’re alternative spellings. “This can be disallowed by the WLE rule: H cannot follow a nasal consonant.” — Inappropriate rule, as the authors didn’t even consider geminated nasal consonants (eg, in కన్నడ kannaḍa). - 6.4.1: Inappropriate analysis. Confusbale standalone letters don’t necessarily mean confusable contextual forms (eg, vattu forms can have different ascending behavior and different positioning behavior and different letterforms). Also it’s unclear if the authors have examined contextual forms independently from the similarity of standalone letters. Further, many contextual forms are expectable in a small context (eg, one can tell a vattu exists in well-formed text as long as a consonant is preceded by virama), thus it’s not necessary to enumerate akshars and overload the variant set. (Table 16 is a duplication of Table 10.) - 6.4.2, “NBGP concludes …”: Given the weak analysis above, it’s hard to believe what NBGP concludes now. - 7: A comprehensible pattern for other reviewers to refer to: `C[M][B|X] | V[B|X] | CH` (consonant clusters analyzed as a consonat preceded by one or more `CH` occurences). - 7, Rule 5: Inappropriate and over-restrictive rule. See my comment above for §6.2. - 7, Rule 6: Unecessarily restrictive rule. “… perceptually dissimilar but phonetically and semantically similarity between the two labels” is enough for allowing such usage. NBGP doesn’t have the right to force the public to abandon preferred spelling conventions. Best, 梁海 Liang Hai https://lianghai.github.io

1 0

[Comments-kannada-oriya-telugu-08aug18] Finalized Information for NBGP LGRs
by Pitinan Kooarmornpatana Oct. 4, 2018

Oct. 4, 2018

Comment submitted on behalf of Thin Zar Pyho, the Myanmar GP Chair. Regards, Pitinan From: thinzar <thinzarlayster(a)gmail.com> Date: Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 19:13 To: Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo(a)icann.org> Cc: "Y. May Oo" <yinmayoo(a)gmail.com>, Ye Zarni Aung <yezarniaung(a)gmail.com>, "Myint Myint Than (Ph. D" <drmmthan(a)gmail.com>, "Paing Khant (paingpeace)" <paing.peace(a)gmail.com>, Kaung Khant Zaw <kaungkhantc(a)gmail.com>, Thura Soe <trickleith(a)icloud.com>, UNT <ngwestar(a)gmail.com> Subject: [Ext] Finalized Information for NBGP LGRs Dear Pitinan, I would like to inform you that the NBGP LGRs document to submit to the public comments platform. It was checked and reviewed by Myanmar gp group and already agreed to submit to there. The comment document is as attached. Thank you so much your kindly supported. Sincerely Thin Zar Phyo Founder of Techno Zenith (IT Solution) info(a)technozenith.net<mailto:info@technozenith.net> www.technozenith.net [technozenith.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.technozenith.net&d=…>

1 0

[Comments-kannada-oriya-telugu-08aug18] Comments for Kannada, Oriya and Telugu Scripts' Root Zone Label Generation Rules
by Amresh Mishra Sept. 19, 2018

Sept. 19, 2018

Availability of domain in Oriya was long awaited and finally met herewith. In this spectacular work, I could find all the essential Oriya letters and their allophones to write all types Oriya texts viz. traditional, social, spiritual, scientific etc. So this Oriya orthography is complete and has wide applicability. Thanks, ICANN team for this praiseworthy work. -- Regards, Amresh Mishra Mobile: +353-899444793 Email: amreshtech(a)gmail.com

1 0

[Comments-kannada-oriya-telugu-08aug18] Comment
by Nistha ranjan Dash Sept. 13, 2018

Sept. 13, 2018

Our Oriya alphabet owes its origin to Brahmi script and thus has both bilabial plosive 'Ba' (ବ) and nonplosive dentolabial 'Va' (ଵ). I am really happy to know that ICANN has included both these. As such scholars of all sectors can find it useful. The later addition of Wa/ୱ has also been included. Oriya is written as it is spoken and hence to avoid confusion a perfect Oriya script requires all these letters. It's a great work that no persons will be disappointed while asking for a domain name of their choice. Best wishes, Nistha Ranjan Dash Audiologist & Speech Therapist Ph: 9437905307

1 0