Re: Quranic Proposal - Logical Codes

[Mohammed Yousif <mhdyousif at gmx dot net>]

On ثلاثاء 15 يونيو 2004 02:27, Mete Kural wrote:
> >  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.
>

 No, I mean that if you took two tiny pieces of paper and drawed on
 each of them a damma with a pen and then throwed the pen away,
 you cannot create a dammatan tanween with these two pieces at all.

> >   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".

 It's still the same letter with the same name and the same meaning.
 And yes, it's like the sequential fathatan (it's even a vowel).
 Anyway, even if I'm wrong here, the Unicode code charts are
 full of such characters.
 See for example 00C0..00C5, they are all about 'A'
 00C3 (A with Tilde) could be encoded by A then a Tilde
 and it will look good and not even a logical code is needed
 Howeven, it's there in Unicode.
 Now why should we complicate the tanween types we need,
 although 00C3 (which doesn't have any complications or
 problems encoding as A + Tilde) is included?



> 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.
>

 Not a little, they are either pronounced or not, quite different. but that is
 not the issue, as long as Unicode contains those characters in the Latin
 ranges and other ranges as well and as long as the regular tanween exists
 we need characters for the other types of tanween OR we remove all
 these characters (including all captital letters A-Z since by your logic,
 they are not needed and are redundant "Note they are 26 letters
 and we are asking for only 3")


 So far I need your comments and remarks on:
  + The proposed character 8
  + The proposed characters 1,2,3
 (taking this post and the previous one into accont, of course)

 So we can continue discussing the rest.

 Thanks,

-- 
Mohammed Yousif
Egypt