Gregg Reynolds wrote: >> Thomas Milo wrote: >>> I agree with Mete. This concept of encoding root morphemes >>> separately from other Arabic letters, if ported to Indo-European >>> languages (much more ...etc... >> >> Now, IMO a difficult design question is whether some true morphemes >> should in fact be encoded. Obvious examples: definite article, other >> particles like laa, sawfa, sa-, direct object suffixes -hu, -ha, etc. >> Unicode will never countenance something like that, but that doesn't >> mean we shouldn't. Such design decisions should be made strictly on >> a costs/benefits basis, IMO.
Looking forward to exchange ideas. >>> Even then, Arabic script does not fully cover the Arabic language >>> from a linguistic perspective. A (or maybe /the/) striking example >>> is the inserted vowel between the /n/ of tanween and any initial >>> cluster of consonants, e.g., /muHammadu-ni r-rasuulu/: it has no >>> orthographic expression (I found it described as kasra, bound to a >>> small nuun in an Ottoman handbook, but I never attested it in a >>> manuscript). >> >> (I think you mean /muHammadu-nu r-rasuulu/ ;) Thanks. Are you sure this is the correct vowel harmony here? >> I don't understand your argument here. The "helper vowel" can be >> inscribed using one of the ordinary vowel marks. (I'm pretty sure >> the grammarians address this explicitly.) Scribes may choose not to >> do this, but they can if they want to. This occurs in many cases, >> e.g. after the question particle hal. I would like to see how you can add a vowel to a tanween mark. Cheers, t
_______________________________________________ General mailing list [email protected] http://lists.arabeyes.org/mailman/listinfo/general
