- 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.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odia_alphabet#Ambiguities) - 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
Odia/Oriya: Largely agree with Liang. Additionally, it feels like a majority portion of the content is lifted from Wikipedia without correcting anything based on verification. Liang has already flagged the Gujarati part. It is weird to see that researchers are referring to Wikipedia rather than referring to primary and 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 burrowed character from Sanskrit that was inserted in the Unicode chart. Apart from any alleged publications that might have been created by the authors, the character has not seen the day of light in any authentic source (e.g. news publication by noted publication houses, text books, other published books from noted publishers, etc.). What is the point in pushing the agenda of a few people that is not largely accepted by the community. 3.8 It's laughable and there is no logic whatsoever to explain why nukta is added “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 exist as these characters not only mimic the efforts of those 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 dialog between the experts and the larger community. Insertion of nukta to these characters are done in this document in a monolithic manner without any consensus, historical reference and to promote a new trend one of the researchers for Odia is promoting on social media. This should not be treated as allegation but a serious 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. 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 usage case for the former two are more than the latter. Subhashish On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 4:20 PM 梁海 Liang Hai <lianghai@gmail.com> wrote:
- 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.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odia_alphabet#Ambiguities)
- 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
_______________________________________________ Comments-kannada-oriya-telugu-08aug18 mailing list Comments-kannada-oriya-telugu-08aug18@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/comments-kannada-oriya-telugu-08aug18
participants (2)
-
Subhashish Panigrahi -
梁海 Liang Hai