Re: Quranic Proposal - Logical Codes

[Mete Kural <metekural at yahoo dot com>]

Salaam Mohammed,

>  I didn't mean that. I meant that the tanween
> (dammatan)
>  doesn't look like two dammas next to each other at
> all.
>  so encoding it as damma+damma should return a new
> glyph
>  that looks really different (i.e. the damma glyph
> cannot be used
>  here)

Understood. You are pointing that using fatha+fatha is
not intuitive for the typist. We can discuss this
further and see if there is a better solution.

>   As I asked earlier, why this is not done first for
> the umlaut
>   german characters in the Latin range?
>   The Arabic range has to be consistent with the
> Latin ranges
>   and with the rest of the unicode standard.

German umlaut characters are different graphemes. When
you put an umlaut on top of "u" it changes both the
phonetic and phonemic affect of "u". Also in my native
language (Turkish) we use umlaut characters. Sometimes
putting the dots above changes the whole meaning of
the word. For example "kul" means "servant" (from
Arabic) but "kül" means "ash". But in the case of
sequential fathatan, the only difference is at the
"phonetic" level, phonemically it is still the same
character. Phonemic difference actually may change the
meaning of the word, whereas phonetic difference does
not have any affect on the meaning, only affects the
pronounciation of the same word. There is no phonemic
difference between fathatan and sequential fathatan.
The only difference is phonetic - it is the same word
but it is just pronounced a little differently.

Kind regards,
Mete