12-08-2020, 02:51 PM
(12-08-2020, 01:36 PM)ReneZ wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It is immaterial whether one transliterates Sh as 'sh' or 'Sh'.That's an interesting question, and the real issue here is surprisingly EVA-h.
Using EVA-s both as standalone and as part of sh ligature is not extremely convenient, but normal parser can live with that: s before h - ligature, otherwise - standalone.
The question is how h is defined. If it is "ending symbol of a ligature" then the system works perfectly. Assuming that sh is "synonym" for Sh (just as we usually write ckh instead of more strict cKh) we get the required one-to-one correspondence between forms and notations. However defining h simply as "e with dash" or something like that we implicitly allow it to be standalone. And facing combination <EVA-s, then "e with dash"> we immediately get ambiguous notation.