On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 02:38:02 +0600 Christopher Fynn <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/04/2013, "Martin J. Dürst" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 2013/04/11 16:30, Michael Everson wrote: > >> On 11 Apr 2013, at 00:09, Shriramana Sharma<[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Or was the Khmer model of an invisible joiner a *later* bright > >>> idea? > >> > >> Yes. > > > > Later, yes. Bright? Most Kambodian experts disagree. > > > > Regards, Martin. > > At one time there was also a proposal for an "invisible joiner" > character for Tibetan. As far as possible I think "invisible" > characters are best avoided as ordinarily the user can't see them and > doesn't always know if one is there or not. Actually, coengs should be just as visible as standard viramas! The difference is that, unlike a visible virama, a visible coeng signifies incomplete data entry; the resulting visible form is not acceptable in the traditional orthography. 'Invisible' coengs manifest their presence by subjoined consonants or conjunct forms.
