thanks. I've signed up.
On 25 November 2010 11:35, Arthur Reutenauer <
arthur.reutena...@normalesup.org> wrote:
> > Should we have a separate list for this sort of thing?
>
> There is the tex-hyphen list (http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/tex-hyphen
> );
> this kind of discussion is certainly w
> Should we have a separate list for this sort of thing?
There is the tex-hyphen list (http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/tex-hyphen);
this kind of discussion is certainly welcome there.
Arthur
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List informatio
Sanskrit
ka-rman -> kar-man
Should we have a separate list for this sort of thing?
Dominik
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 01:00, Manuel B. wrote:
>
>>> If Indic scripts hyphenate in the same way in all the languages that
>>> use the script
>
>>I've seen no evidence to let me think that they do, but I'm happy
>>about any input.
>
> Hmm... I think this discussion could be brought to an end more q
>But first of all the question: what would be the biggest benefit? New
>languages?
My idea was, that the biggest benefit of a single hyphenation file for
several Indic scripts could be, that it is possibly easier to
maintain. Only one file has to be updated if a change in the pattern
is necessary
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Arthur Reutenauer
wrote:
>> If Indic scripts hyphenate in the same way in all the languages that
>> use the script
>
> I've seen no evidence to let me think that they do, but I'm happy
> about any input. Santhosh, since you obviously used Yves' hyphenation
> patt
2010-11-22 18:24, Dominik Wujastyk skrev:
Those who write both transliterated Hindi and Sanskrit in the
same publication will be glad of the ISO standard, I suppose.
You have the problem in transliterated Hindi on its own, since
both graphemes occur there. In fact they are in complementary
dis
Sanskritists have been using ṛ (r-underdot) for over a century.
Promulgating a new standard that changes this usage to r-undercircle is far
from being an obvious choice, in my view. But we're irrevocably lumbered
with it now. :-( Though I note that most Sanskritists pay no attention to
the ISO s
2010-11-21 10:22, Manuel B. skrev:
1) I saw that that all diacritics used for IAST appear in the pattern,
while some of them (for example ṛ and ṝ) are marked as "non standart
transliteration". That is OK, insofar as IAST is not a standart in the
official sense. But IAST is most commonly used and
Le 22 nov. 2010 à 14:23, Arthur Reutenauer a écrit :
>> Debatable, I'm not sure :) Gustibus et coloribus non est disputandum.
>> Personally I don't mind breaks such as a-rhasi.
>
> Well, it's not only a matter of taste: in that case, it looked
> incorrect to Dominik, to the point that he thoug
> If Indic scripts hyphenate in the same way in all the languages that
> use the script
I've seen no evidence to let me think that they do, but I'm happy
about any input. Santhosh, since you obviously used Yves' hyphenation
patterns for Sanskrit as a basis for your files, can you tell us a bit
Hello,
> I'll also add the missing characters, ṁ, ẖ, ḫ and the sign for anudātta
> (I think that's all, as far as Sanskrit is concerned).
I'll wait for your update :-)
> Arthur and Mojca are better qualified than I to answer those questions. What
> comes to mind is that such a "t
> 2) That might be a stupid question, but aren't hyphennation patterns
> for most Abugida-scripts more or less the same?
Yes, more or less. If you check the actual files you'll see that
there are some differences between languages that use the same script.
There's not much you can do with that,
> Debatable, I'm not sure :) Gustibus et coloribus non est disputandum.
> Personally I don't mind breaks such as a-rhasi.
Well, it's not only a matter of taste: in that case, it looked
incorrect to Dominik, to the point that he thought something was wrong
with his installation; which is somewha
On 21 November 2010 10:12, Yves Codet wrote:
> Debatable, I'm not sure :) Gustibus et coloribus non est disputandum.
> Personally I don't mind breaks such as a-rhasi. I know many prefer ar-hasi,
> but there are some books where you would find a-rhasi. On page 189 of Gray's
> edition of Vāsavada
It works. Thanks! I tried \sanskritfont yesterday myself, and it didn't
work, but my file was pretty cluttered by that time and who knows what else
was in the way.
Dominik
On 21 November 2010 13:42, Yves Codet wrote:
>
> Le 21 nov. 2010 à 10:12, Yves Codet a écrit :
>
> > Dominik, I think y
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 22:34, Yves Codet wrote:
>
> Le 21 nov. 2010 à 10:22, Manuel B. a écrit :
>
>> But I don't know how far one can go here. While IAST is meant
>> exclusivly for Sanskrit-transliteration (I know that it's used for
>> Pali also, but in a slightly different way), ISO 15919 contai
Hello.
Le 21 nov. 2010 à 10:22, Manuel B. a écrit :
> While I was checking hyphen-sa.tex, I wondered two things (which are
> irrelevant to Dominik's problem):
>
> 1) I saw that that all diacritics used for IAST appear in the pattern,
> while some of them (for example ṛ and ṝ) are marked as "non
That's extremely helpful! Thank you, Arthur.
I've upped the first argument of hyphenmins to 2, which helps a lot for
romanisation, but may make the Nagari breaks more difficult. I suppose it's
not reasonable to assume that hyphenation parameters will be the same across
different scripts.
Best,
Hello.
Le 20 nov. 2010 à 22:12, Arthur Reutenauer a écrit :
>> I'm really not sure what I'm getting as a result. It looks as if it's roman
>> script being hyphenated as if it were Devanagari. The initial a- of several
>> words, like arhasi, gets separated (a-rhasi), which might just about look
>>
Le 21 nov. 2010 à 10:12, Yves Codet a écrit :
> Dominik, I think you can write \sanskritfont, can’t you?
I just tried this:
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{fontspec}
\usepackage{polyglossia}
\setdefaultlanguage{sanskrit}
\newfontfamily\sanskritfont{Charis SIL}
\textwidth=0.5cm
Im glad to here that there is finaly some implementation of roman
transliteration in the sanskrit hyphenation pattern. Keep up the good
work!
While I was checking hyphen-sa.tex, I wondered two things (which are
irrelevant to Dominik's problem):
1) I saw that that all diacritics used for IAST appe
> I'm really not sure what I'm getting as a result. It looks as if it's roman
> script being hyphenated as if it were Devanagari. The initial a- of several
> words, like arhasi, gets separated (a-rhasi), which might just about look
> okay in Nagari, but not in romanisation. Am I actually getting th
I've been banging my head against this for a while today, without resolving
things. I see that the UTF8 hyph-sa.tex file contains the rules for
hyphenating Sanskrit in several scripts, including Roman (Latin?). The way
this should work, I believe, is that as long as I flag my words as being in
Sa
24 matches
Mail list logo
