Abdulhaq Lynch wrote:
Yes; this is an example where a very useful codepoint is unlikely to be
endorsed by unicode. We could use two shaddas, one phonotactic and one
lexical. I think there might even be a third case but I can't think of
it at the moment.
By using an idghaam codepoint they could be easily distinguished.
I don't follow you; what do you have in mind? Why would one use
"idgham" to indicate tashdeed? Wouldn't that mean a divergence between
the encoding structure and the written text structure?
I feel compelled to say (to everyone here, not just you Gregg, and not
particularly in terms of this thread) that the arabs already have conducted
an immensely rich analysis of the arabic language and its morphology,
phonetics etc in respect of the quran. To abandon that (probably out of
ignorance rather than deliberately) would be an immense mistake.
We should stick to the time-honoured names that all good arab and muslim
scholars are already familiar with. To try and come up with a new lexicon
based on western phonetic and morphological terms is a big mistake.
By all means; but I'm not sure why you bring it up. If the traditional
grammarians distinguished between the phonotactic shadda (i.e. the
purely phonological one that has lexical significance) and the lexical
shadda (which denotes lexical variance), by all means we should adduce
that as evidence of the need and use the traditional terminology. I'm
just not aware that that was ever done. (Anyway, such codepoints are
probably in the "nice to have but not essential" category.)
But we also should not hesitate to use the purely descriptive
terminology of modern linguistics. Remember most of the implementers
who look at the encoding will have little or no Arabic. Terms like
"idgham" are definitely preferred as official names, but they should be
accompanied by a precise English-language definition.
Or, maybe not. Maybe we should write the encoding design and rational
in Arabic as the primary reference, and then translate to English.
Modern Arabic has modern linguistic terminology too. I rather prefer
this approach, myself.
-g
_______________________________________________
General mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arabeyes.org/mailman/listinfo/general
