[XeTeX] Hyphenated, transliterated Sanskrit.

Manuel B. flammschild at googlemail.com
Tue Nov 23 01:00:43 CET 2010

>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, not many. But I'm ready to admit, that this view of
things might be naiive.

I think Arthur has a good point in saying that it is probably not
worth the effort to merge the hyphenation files into one.

And I didn't know that there is a correspondence to the OOo
hyphenation files. In that case I absolutely agree, that this
correspondence should be preserved, despite the duplication of
identical data.

>> 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 quickly
by falsification: we need an example of two Indian languages with
different hyphenation rules in the same script.


2010/11/22 BPJ <bpj at melroch.se>:
> 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
> distribution, and in a way which would be easy to automatize,
> but being different graphemes they should be transliterated
> differently.  Retransliteration shouldn't require linguistic
> analysis.
>> Typical standard's work: result of a committee that has a
>> certain limited logic to it, but pays not enough attention to
>> usage amongst professional groups, and consequently leaves
>> nobody actually happy.
> Agreed.  I'm definitely not a friend of standards for
> standards' sake, but that applies to century-old standards
> founded by people not considering modern languages too!
> Of course you _can_ use different transliterations for Sanskrit and Hindi,
> but IMHO transliteration should be by script and not
> by language. But let's be thankful nobody came up with d̤ for ड़
> since IPA uses d̤ for ध!
> /bpj
> --------------------------------------------------
> Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
>  http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex

More information about the XeTeX mailing list