jophola

The jophola at the end is not actually given its own codepoint[0].

> the characters that are required to type a jophola have no semantic, phonetic, or orthographic connection to the jophola.

> whereas the characters that are required to type a jophola have no obvious semantic, phonetic, or orthographic connection to the jophola.

The difference between the jophola and an English ligature, though, is English ligatures are purely aesthetic.

As far as I know, there hasn't been any such claim about jophola from the language bodies.

I have literally never once heard the jophola referred to as a viram and a য, except in contexts such as this one.

Just out of curiosity - I would be interested to know more about your learning experience that you feel is not well aligned with the representation of jophola as it is currently.

If anything, your comment makes a stronger argument for consolidating ই and ি (they are literally the same letter and phoneme, but written differently in different contexts) than for combining the viram and য into the jophola.

> I have literally never once heard the jophola referred to as a viram and a য Interesting - I guess we have somewhat different mental models.

> The Bengali fonts that you have installed happen to render it as a jophola It's not only the Bengali font - the text rendering framework of my operating system also needs to have a bunch of complex rules to figure out that a jophola needs to be rendered.

> Just out of curiosity - I would be interested to know more about your learning experience that you feel is not well aligned with the representation of jophola as it is currently.

Especially since the jophola creates a vowel sound (instead of the consonant য), and especially since the jophola isn't even pronounced like "y".

Typing two "f" characters in a row has the same obvious semantic meaning as the ff ligature, whereas the characters that are required to type a jophola have no obvious semantic, phonetic, or orthographic connection to the jophola.

I always thought about jophola as a "yuktakshar", and if it's a "yuktakshar", I always mentally broke it down to its constituents.

The Bengali fonts that you have installed happen to render it as a jophola, the way some fonts happen to render "ff" as "ff" but that's not the same thing as saying that it actually is a jophola (according to the Unicode standard).