Hi Abdulhaq, Are you sure you are reflecting on the idea of encoding distinctive shaddas depending on their use?
Or may I assume you are endorsing the idea to encode a single vowel followed by any of three modulators? Cheers, t Abdulhaq Lynch wrote: > On Wednesday 22 June 2005 13:42, Gregg Reynolds wrote: > >>> In that transcription your first sample reads as follows: >>> >>> kitaabu-n (DMG: kitābu-n) >>> >>> The qur'anic assimilation of second one is not yet supported, but >>> it will read like this: >>> khushubu- m:usannadätu-n (DMG: ḫušubu- m:usannadätu-n) >>> As you can see, initial compensatory shaddä is treated differently >>> from morphological shaddä. >> >> 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 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. > > I teach arabic here in the UK and those students who have learned > arabic via latin grammatical terms (nominative, accusative, cognate > accusative etc) are at an immense disadvantage in studying the > subject compared to those who know the far better suited arabic > terms. To repeat that orientalist disaster here would be extremely > negligent. > > wassalaam > abdulhaq > >>> What's the objection? It would be just as transparent as you >>> solution. >> >> I have to think some more about the paired vowels idea. >> >>> Anyway, I like your approach. If it is to find any acceptance, there >>> needs to be canonical equivalence with legacy encoding accoding to >>> this formula: >>> >>> TANWEEN = <vowel><small >>> noon> = conventional tanween >>> TAMWEEM = <vowel><small meem> >>> IDGHAM = <vowel><idgham >>> code> >> >> But I wouldn't call it <small noon>; we want to retain the semantics >> of tanween explicitly in the encoding element so that software >> doesn't have to infer tanween based on two codepoints. This is the >> kind of thing I mean when I say intelligence should be migrated from >> software to the encoding as much as possible. >> >> -g >> _______________________________________________ >> General mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.arabeyes.org/mailman/listinfo/general > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.arabeyes.org/mailman/listinfo/general _______________________________________________ General mailing list [email protected] http://lists.arabeyes.org/mailman/listinfo/general
