Dear All, After re-reading the reference below and some thinking, I think here is my conclusion about hamza : Traditionally, there is only one type of hamza, and that normally has a chair that comes with it, either alef, waw, or yeh. It make perfect sense. The hamzah looses it's chair under the condition mention in the article, which resulted the isolated hamza and hamza over tatweel as we can see it visually. However, the chair is there, it is just that normally people don't write it. The example that given ealier, like shai-un , which seems like isolated hamza, which in turn actually, the hamza looses it's chair. The position of this hamza relative to it's chair, depends on the mark. If it has kasra, the hamza sits below the chair. However, hamza that lost it's chair alway sits "on a tatweel". What do you guys think. Does that make sense? Is this the answer or what?
There is one little thing that might need some consideration. There is one occurance on Madinah Mushaf of hamza sitting on top of small alef, in sura 2, aya 72. The above rules might explains it. I was wondering initially, why this aya uses hamza on small alef, why not just plain hamza isolated? From the above rules, I think, if the hamza were suppose to be there, then the chair should be there as well. However, since the chair has been deleted, I don't know for what reason, and the hamza still needs a chair, then they decided that small alef is the one to be the chair. That is just my theory. Anyone can confirm this? How is this aya being written in other mushaf? Regards. On 1/3/06, Meor Ridzuan Meor Yahaya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear all, > When I open up my mail this morning, I see the total number of mail is > 52 under this topic, so very long read indeed. > > Anyway, I would suggest to keep focus on the topic, please. It will be > difficult to keep track the discussion, and to conclude our dicsussion > this way. If necessary, start a new thread. > > Ok, about yeh with hamza. It seems that the hamza with a yeh chair and > the one without the chair is the same. Please refer to > http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Scribal/haleem.html . > Under certain condition, the hamzah loses it's chair. > > So, to me seems logical to use the same code for the 2 shapes of > hamza. In my text, one in encoded as 649 + hamza above/below and the > other is 640 (tatweel) + hamza above/below. Most people dislike the > tatweel, I can see why, but that is the most easiest and straight > forward solution the way I see it. Suggestions are welcome. However, > modifying 621 to have a different behaviour does not seems to be a > good choice, I think. > > Regards. >
_______________________________________________ General mailing list [email protected] http://lists.arabeyes.org/mailman/listinfo/general
