[Neobrahmigp] FW: [Ext] lgrtelugucomments-modified

Thu Jun 6 06:34:07 UTC 2019

Hoping for the option 1 to come true.Fingers crossed!Ganga
Presidentwww.babul.ngo - Babul Films Society NGO - #ICT4Advocacy Finalist eNGO Challenge South Asia 2013 & 2015; SM4E 2017.Membership Coordinator NPOC-ICANNActor - http://www.imdb.me/ gangadharpanday 

    On ‎Thursday‎, ‎06‎ ‎June‎ ‎2019‎ ‎12‎:‎02‎:‎14‎ ‎IST, Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo at icann.org> wrote:  

 #yiv0891974358 #yiv0891974358 -- _filtered #yiv0891974358 {panose-1:2 11 3 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0891974358 {font-family:Mangal;panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 2 3 3 2 2;} _filtered #yiv0891974358 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0891974358 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv0891974358 #yiv0891974358 p.yiv0891974358MsoNormal, #yiv0891974358 li.yiv0891974358MsoNormal, #yiv0891974358 div.yiv0891974358MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv0891974358 a:link, #yiv0891974358 span.yiv0891974358MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0891974358 a:visited, #yiv0891974358 span.yiv0891974358MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0891974358 p.yiv0891974358MsoListParagraph, #yiv0891974358 li.yiv0891974358MsoListParagraph, #yiv0891974358 div.yiv0891974358MsoListParagraph {margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv0891974358 p.yiv0891974358msonormal0, #yiv0891974358 li.yiv0891974358msonormal0, #yiv0891974358 div.yiv0891974358msonormal0 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv0891974358 span.yiv0891974358EmailStyle19 {font-family:sans-serif;color:windowtext;}#yiv0891974358 span.yiv0891974358EmailStyle20 {font-family:sans-serif;color:windowtext;}#yiv0891974358 span.yiv0891974358EmailStyle21 {font-family:sans-serif;color:windowtext;}#yiv0891974358 span.yiv0891974358EmailStyle22 {font-family:sans-serif;color:windowtext;}#yiv0891974358 .yiv0891974358MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv0891974358 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv0891974358 div.yiv0891974358WordSection1 {}#yiv0891974358 
Dear NBGP members, 

As per the previous email is time sensitive. May I suggest we have an online meeting to discuss the issue. 

My initial propose it 7.30PM IST today (Thursday 6 June)

Main question to discuss:

Whether the rule  “Rule5: H must follow C but not nasal-C” should be in Telugu (and Kannada) LGRs?  Currently the rules is in Telugu LGR.

The possible options:

1. The GP confirms both scripts are as intended. No action. 

2. Telugu team agrees that their Rule 5 is overly conservative and withdraw the rule. 

3. Kannada team agrees that they are missing a "Rule 5" and add the rule.

Kindly let me know if the time works, else, please suggest the alternate time. 

Regards,

Pitinan

From: Neobrahmigp <neobrahmigp-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo at icann.org>
Date: Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 13:02
To: "Neobrahmigp at icann.org" <Neobrahmigp at icann.org>
Subject: [Neobrahmigp] FW: [Ext] lgrtelugucomments-modified

Dear NBGP members, 

Please find attached the IP note to NBGP public comment on Telugu and Kannada (lgr-3-public-comment-issue-Telugu-Kannada-2019-06-05.docx)

This note response to NBGP comment as attached (lgrtelugucomments-modifed-again.docx). 

This is for your discussion and finalize how to proceed whether a change to either LGR is called for, and whether that change involves actual change in the proposed rules and or an improvement in the explanation of the features of the existing LGRs and why they were adopted.

Please note that time is of the essence. The deadline for reaction to public comments on the LGR-3 drafts is June 18. 

Regards,

Pitinan

To: NeoB GP
From: Integration Panel
Subject: Recent public comment on LGR-3 regarding Telugu and Kannada

The IP would like to direct the GP's attention to the following public comment received about a potential discrepancy between the treatment of Halant nasal consonant conjuncts in Kannada and Telugu.

The following repeats the comment and then proceeds to an analysis identifying several possible outcomes. It should be noted that while the IP has a general preference for treating parallel facts in a parallel way, this does not mean that some exceptions aren't possible if documented and justified.

Also, following the Procedure, the IP has a general preference for a conservative approach, limited to modern practice. If nasal consonant conjuncts are effectively limited to Sanskrit, and the GP decided that Sanskrit transcription is inappropriate or out of scope for TLD labels in a particular script, or that they represent an unnecessary duplication in light of the modern practice of using Anusvara, that could constitute a justifiable rationale for restricting them. 

In the existing Telugu LGR that rationale is hinted at, but not made explicit. The Kannada LGR is silent on the issue, although it is our (non-expert) understanding that a similar issue exists in that script.

The IP would like to request the GP to review this issue and suggest whether a change to either LGR is called for, and whether that change involves actual change in the proposed rules and or an improvement in the explanation of the features of the existing LGRs and why they were adopted.

In closing, we would like to note that time is of the essence. The deadline for reaction to public comments on the LGR-3 drafts is June 19. The deadline for being able to publish LGR-3 in the current fiscal year is June 18.

--- Integration Panel

=== Message from prof. Rao ===

Problem: 

The sequence of a Nasal Consonant {m, n, ṇ, ɲ, ŋ} + C is represented as 1. {m, n, ṇ, ɲ, ŋ} + H+C = { म्प,न्त,ण्ट,ञ्च, ङ्क} or 2.  {ंप, ंत, ंट ंच, ंक}.

Only one of the two representations is popularly followed in each of the languages (except for Tamil) that use Brahmi derived scripts. Now you need  a common solution whether to block one of the two in each of these languages or just simply leave it. 

In the Telugu script lgr currently we have blocked one variant (representation 1.). But I have not come across similar thing in other languages. If I am right, then  should we  assume that both variant representations are valid? If that is so, then we have same problem but followed different solutions.

Solution: 

1.  Drop blocking* in Telugu;

2. Introduce blocking in other languages.

=== End of Message ===

*Please note that the blocking in this context means having a WLE to disallow the H to follow nasal-C.

_______________________________________________
Neobrahmigp mailing list
Neobrahmigp at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/neobrahmigp

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/neobrahmigp/attachments/20190606/b3360aca/attachment-0001.html>