[OT] Why is the Khmer om sign called om and not um ?

[Patrick Andries]

I was wondering why Unicode 4.0 refers to one of the dependent vowel signs composed with nikahit (aka "am" pp. 278-279) as "om" while the other one is "aam".

If "aam" has a name based on the other character used in the composite vowel sign (U+17B6 AA), an "etymological" name distant from its prononciation [ɔ́ɘm], why would not "om" be called "um" since it is composed with U+17BB whose value is U ?

This is incidentally closer to the transliteration in Daniels & Bright, p. 469 : « ʔum ». This is also the transliteration "uM" used on top of page 8 here

http://semioweb.msh-paris.fr/escom/projets_recherche/01_02_projet_inde/IEMCT%20PAPERS/Content%20Creation%20and%20Information%20Retrieval/Minegishi%20-%20Khmer%20and%20Thai%20Scripts.pdf


P. A.

[Sue and Maurice Bauhahn]

There are four problems associated with Unicode naming:

(1) Different characters should not share the same Latinised name (so there may be arbitrary differences in transliteration spelling to distinguish unique characters/character combinations)

(2) There has been no standardised transliteration scheme in languages such as Khmer (for those that have been created are generally inadequate ... for example because they are not reversible or because they are more complicated than the original)

(3) Sounds of vowels (in Khmer, as in other languages) vary according to the context...so there is no right or wrong for these taken out of context

(4) Sometimes transliteration mistakes have happened...but cannot be reversed as they have become normative

Sincerely,

Maurice
-----Original Message-----
From: unicode-***@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-***@unicode.org]On Behalf Of Patrick Andries
Sent: 20 October 2003 06:42
To: ***@unicode.org
Subject: [OT] Why is the Khmer om sign called om and not um ?


I was wondering why Unicode 4.0 refers to one of the dependent vowel signs composed with nikahit (aka "am" pp. 278-279) as "om" while the other one is "aam".

If "aam" has a name based on the other character used in the composite vowel sign (U+17B6 AA), an "etymological" name distant from its prononciation [ɔ́ɘm], why would not "om" be called "um" since it is composed with U+17BB whose value is U ?

This is incidentally closer to the transliteration in Daniels & Bright, p. 469 : « ʔum ». This is also the transliteration "uM" used on top of page 8 here

http://semioweb.msh-paris.fr/escom/projets_recherche/01_02_projet_inde/IEMCT%20PAPERS/Content%20Creation%20and%20Information%20Retrieval/Minegishi%20-%20Khmer%20and%20Thai%20Scripts.pdf


P. A.

[Patrick Andries]

----- Original Message -----
From: Sue and Maurice Bauhahn
To: Patrick Andries ; ***@unicode.org
Sent: 20 oct. 2003 14:19
Subject: RE: [OT] Why is the Khmer om sign called om and not um ?
[PA] Just to reassure everyone "om" (or rather "um") is not a Unicode
character per se but the name given to a non-coded composite one in the
Unicode 4.0 text and the NameList.txt annotations. So I'm not questioning
the sacrosanct name of a character, which is immutable.

Post by Sue and Maurice Bauhahn
(1) Different characters should not share the same Latinised name (so there

may be arbitrary

Post by Sue and Maurice Bauhahn
differences in transliteration spelling to distinguish unique

characters/character combinations)

Post by Sue and Maurice Bauhahn
(2) There has been no standardised transliteration scheme in languages such

as Khmer (for

Post by Sue and Maurice Bauhahn
those that have been created are generally inadequate ... for example

because they are not

Post by Sue and Maurice Bauhahn
reversible or because they are more complicated than the original)
(3) Sounds of vowels (in Khmer, as in other languages) vary according to

the context...so

Post by Sue and Maurice Bauhahn
there is no right or wrong for these taken out of context
(4) Sometimes transliteration mistakes have happened...but cannot be

reversed as they

Post by Sue and Maurice Bauhahn
have become normative

[PA] I understand the arbitrary and delicate nature of these names, but this
does not explain why "aam" (itself again not an official character but only
a reference in the text and in NameList) seems to have a name based on the
name of one of its constituent ("aa") rather than its prononciation, while
"om" is not named "um" although the vowel that replaces "aa" is here "u".

P. A.


--------

I was wondering why Unicode 4.0 refers to one of the dependent vowel signs
composed with nikahit (aka "am" pp. 278-279) as "om" while the other one is
"aam".

If "aam" has a name based on the other character used in the composite vowel
sign (U+17B6 AA), an "etymological" name distant from its prononciation
[ɔ́ɘm], why would not "om" be called "um" since it is composed with U+17BB
whose value is U ?

This is incidentally closer to the transliteration in Daniels & Bright, p.
469 : « ʔum ». This is also the transliteration "uM" used on top of page 8
here

http://semioweb.msh-paris.fr/escom/projets_recherche/01_02_projet_inde/IEMCT%20PAPERS/Content%20Creation%20and%20Information%20Retrieval/Minegishi%20-%20Khmer%20and%20Thai%20Scripts.pdf


P. A.




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
KnowledgeStorm has over 22,000 B2B technology solutions. The most comprehensive IT buyers' information available. Research, compare, decide. E-Commerce | Application Dev | Accounting-Finance | Healthcare | Project Mgt | Sales-Marketing | More
http://us.click.yahoo.com/IMai8D/UYQGAA/cIoLAA/8FfwlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: unicode-***@yahooGroups.com

This mailing list is just an archive. The instructions to join the true Unicode List are on http://www.unicode.org/unicode/consortium/distlist.html


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/