Salaam Mohammed, Nadim, and Abdulhaq, I apologize that I made a few mistakes in my email with proposed changes to the Quranic Characters Proposal. I am going to document these mistakes below.
> Items 4,5, and 6: > I am assuming that we have agreed on what we should > do > about these items. The agreement was that the > already > existing small meem in the Arabic code block can be > used together with damma, fatha and kasra to > represent > the glyphs in 4, 5, and 6. In this case, we need to > change the proposal for 4,5,6 and instead of > requesting that new characters be added, we should > request that the sequences fatha+small_meem, > damma+small_meem, and kasra+small_meem be defined to > represent the allographs in items 4,5, and 6 > respectively. In the above paragraph, replace all mentions of fatha, damma and kasra with fathatan, dammatan, and kasratan respectively. So the proposed sequences would be fathatan+small_meem, dammatan+small_meem, and kasratan+small_meem. This is because the referenced glyphs in items 4, 5, and 6 are simply "tanweens" or rather "tamweems" and the meem simply denotes that this tanween should be pronounced with a meem sound rather than a noon sound. But it is still a tanween. The difference in its visual appearance from a regular tanween (ex: there is only one strike rather than two strikes for fathatan with small meem in contrast to a regular fathatan) is caused by calligraphic and typographic decisions made by the scribes and typesetters. > Items 11 and 12: > These items should be removed from the proposal. > Similar to the above, these Items are covered by > Item > 4, fatha with small meem. These two items are simply > contexual instances of the fatha with small meem > allograph proposed in joint proposal for Item 4. Similarly in the above paragraph, "fatha with small meem" should be replaced with "fathatan with small meem". Thank you, Mete _______________________________________________ General mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.arabeyes.org/mailman/listinfo/general
