19-02-2023, 12:52 AM
Having quickly gone through this document: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I have the impression that there is no "quick" way to convert the alphabet used here to Eva or back.
The following 'almost' works:
c -> {c
C -> {
h -> h}
H -> }
One issue is that probably not all variant characters exist in extended Eva. So far I have only
seen q1 as such an exception, but there may be more.
The bigger problem is that some character translations depend on context. The clearest case is the single
e
which converts to Eva-e when it is outside a ligature or to Eva-h when it is inside.
Both problems can be solved in a rigorous way by going to the STA alphabet, using long conversion tables.
However, the result may not be representable completely either in extended Eva or v101.
(I am having a similar issue with a new transliteration which is an automated merger of the ZL and GC files.)
I have the impression that there is no "quick" way to convert the alphabet used here to Eva or back.
The following 'almost' works:
c -> {c
C -> {
h -> h}
H -> }
One issue is that probably not all variant characters exist in extended Eva. So far I have only
seen q1 as such an exception, but there may be more.
The bigger problem is that some character translations depend on context. The clearest case is the single
e
which converts to Eva-e when it is outside a ligature or to Eva-h when it is inside.
Both problems can be solved in a rigorous way by going to the STA alphabet, using long conversion tables.
However, the result may not be representable completely either in extended Eva or v101.
(I am having a similar issue with a new transliteration which is an automated merger of the ZL and GC files.)