Re: Quranic Proposal - items 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12

[Mohammed Yousif <mhdyousif at gmx dot net>]

On ثلاثاء 15 يونيو 2004 02:10, Mete Kural wrote:
> Salaam again Mohammed,
>
> >   And what about the small alif (8 in the proposal)?
> >   I think it's now clear that it's like U+06E6.
>
> The floating superscript alif is in the same category
> as the floating hamza (found in al-aakhirat in the
> Quran).

 This is not correct. The last pages of any mushaf certified by Al-Azhar
 or by the Saudi Arabian authorities states this _clearly_.
 Here is a translation of it:

 "And small letters indicate the missing letters themselves in the Othmni
  Masahef but it must be pronounced, as in:
   ذَ"the proposed char 8"لِكَ ٱلۡكِتَـٰبُ .
   يَلۡوُۥنَ أَلۡسِنَتَهُم .
   إِنَّ وَلِــِّۧيَ ٱللَّهُ .
   إِۦلَفِهِمۡ رِحۡلَةَ ٱلشِّتَآءِ  .
   وَكَذَ"the proposed char 8"لِكَ نُـۨجِي ٱلۡمُؤۡمِنِينَ  .
"
Notice here that the sample given in the mushaf goes through the characters:
  Alef
  Waw
  Yeh
  Noon
 The Alef is in the first sample as the existing character in the second word
 and the proposed character 8 in the first word.

  So, Alef is in the category of small letters (which includes Yeh which is
  defined in Unicode as two characters 06E6 and 06E7)

  As such the rest of your paragraph is not valid since it's built on
  the basis of wrong information but it still contains interesting points
  that I would like to comment on.

> Its visual behaviour is predictable from the
> characters adjacent to it. 

  This is not so obvious as you might think.
  Please see below.

> This hamza is graphemically 
> the same as any other independent hamza. If you write
> aakhirat without "al" article preceding it, the hamza
> in the beginning of the word aakhirat is still the
> same hamza as the hamza in the word "al-aakhirat".
> Encoding this hamza different than any other regular
> chairless hamza is very illogical. Imagine you type
> the word aakhirat with a regular hamza in the
> beginning. And then you add Al in front of it. Now
> should you have to go and replace that hamza with a
> special code to trigger lam+hamza+alef visual
> behaviour found in the Quran? That would be
> contradictory to the principle of graphemic encoding.

  No question here. I agree, but since we agree on this one, let's
  concentrate on those which we disagree about.

> Similarly the special behaviour of superscript alif is
> triggered by a preceding fatha, therefore it would be
> against the principle of graphemic encoding to use a
> different code for superscript alif there than the
> superscript alif found in other places.
>

  This is won't work, simply because a small alef is essentially an alef
  and _MUST_ be preceded by a fatha in ALL cases, there is no single
  exception to this, this is SO basic and fundamental rule in Arabic.
  Whether in the Qur'an or in a regular text it is the same, alef
  MUST be preceded by a fatha and when the fatha is not written
  explicitly, it's implied.
  This is because Alef is a Madd letter, and you must have a haraka to
  lengthen it with the Alef (Alef is used to lengthen fatha, Yeh is used
  to lengthen kasra and Waw is used to lengthen damma).
  This applies to the Alef 0627 and the Alef Madd 0622.
  The small alef is used instead of the Alef 0627 but when a madda
  is added on top of that small alef, it becomes Small Alef Madd


> What needs to be done is that a proposal should be
> submitted to Unicode to add a new "contexual
> behaviour" to superscript alif U+0670. The added
> contexual behaviour would be that when a fatha
> precedes a superscript alif, the referred special
> visual behaviour is triggered. Insha'Allah this would
> be one of the items in our joint proposal to Unicode.
>

  As I noted, this won't work.
  See this example: 2 "Al-Baqara" verse 2
   ذَ"the proposed char 8"لِكَ ٱلۡكِتَـٰبُ .
  It contains both and as you see both of them are preceded by a fatha
  So it doesn't make any sense to request that when a fatha precedes a
  small alef, the "special" behavior is triggered.

  It rather makes much sense to add the proposed character 8 because it's
  in the same category as the small Madd Letter Yeh U+06E6 and the small
  Madd Letter Waw U+06E5

  And if the proposed character is not added for any reason, then U+06E6
  AND U+06E5 have to be removed.

>
> >   And what about 9,10,11 and 12?
>
> 9 and 10 are already covered by the proposed logical
> code to trigger sequential fathatan behaviour.
>

 Please comment on this:
  before asking for the use of a logical code for Arabic, by the
  same logic, they have to be used first by the Latin ranges.
  (28 characters for capital letters as opposed to only 3 charcters
   required by this type of Tanween ).
  That is, either we add the three tanween characters or we first remove
  the capital letters from Unicode and add a logical code then (and only
  then) add that logical code to Arabic.

> 11 and 12 are already covered by item 6 in your
> proposal.
>

  If you mean that they cannot be added because 6 cannot be added,
  then I agree, either add them all or remove them all.
-- 
Mohammed Yousif
Egypt