On Wednesday 22 June 2005 14:21, Gregg Reynolds wrote: > > 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. >
If by implementers you mean the IT guys coding up fonts and font renderers, then I don't expect them to know modern english linguistic terms either. They will need clear instructions on how the encoding is to be used, whatever terminology is employed. If you are talking about those like yourself and myself, i.e. interested in arabic and the quran, then I should say that a few days spent learning the basics of tajweed would provide enormous benefit to them in terms of understanding the symbols they're looking at. This applies to arabs and non-arabs alike. wassalaam abdulhaq > 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 _______________________________________________ General mailing list [email protected] http://lists.arabeyes.org/mailman/listinfo/general
