Re: Standalone Superscript Alef (Item 8)

[Mohammed Yousif <mhdyousif at gmx dot net>]

On Tuesday 22 June 2004 09:42, Mete Kural wrote:
> Salaam Mohammed,
>
> I have been thinking about this superscript alef
> problem.
>
> >  This is a proof to my point, they are all correct,
> > no doubt here.
> >  Because it's not on the lam nor on the waw so every
> > mushaf tries
> >  to put it somewhere between them.
> >  It's a separate Alef letter, can you please
> > consider that?
>
> Yes now I understand your point. I was misguided by
> Unicode's description of superscript alef U+0670.
> Unfortunately superscript alef U+0670 is described in
> the Arabic code chart as:
>
> "ARABIC LETTER SUPERSCRIPT ALEF
> • actually a vowel sign, despite the name"
>
> http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0600.pdf
>
> This description by those who supplied the Arabic
> input into Unicode (which as far as I hear is mainly
> IBM Egypt) did not take into account the usage of
> superscript alef in Quran'ic orthographies.

  I can confirm that the description is correct.
  That is the description of SUPERSCRIPT ALEF not SMALL ALEF and
  it's indeed a correct one.
  The Qur'an uses both SUPERSCRIPT ALEF and SMALL ALEF.
  For example, the superscript alef is used on top of an Alef Maksura and
  it's indeed "a vowel sign, despite the name".
  But small alef is used elsewhere in the Qur'an.

> In 
> contemporary Quran orthography (King Fuad and
> manuscripts that are copied from it including the one
> printed by QuranComplex) superscript alef is not used
> as a vowel sign.  One rare example that is contrary to 
> this in Quran'ic orthography is in Ottoman spelling,
> where superscript alif is used in the same way as
> madda, also used in contemporary non-qur'anic
> spelling. 

  Correct, but when the superscript alef is not used as a vowel
  sign in the Qur'an, that's because it is not a Superscript Alef, it
  is a small Alef that denotes a missing Alef.
  The superscript alef doesn't denote a missing alef, it is only a vowel
  sign.


> Rather in the King Fuad codex full 
> vocalization is extended to superscript alif.

  Here, it's the small alef not the superscript alef.

> In 
> combination with another rule, the glottal stop
> followed by any long vowel is always rendered by a
> chairless hamza.
>
> In conclusion the description of U+0670 in the Arabic
> code chart should be changed. It is misleading. Once
> this description is changed to be compatible with
> Quran'ic usage then there is no need for a new
> superscript alef character anymore.
>

 They are TWO characters not one and they are both needed for the Qur'an
 and only superscript alef is needed for regular texts.

> So in this case it seems to me that Item 8 should be a
> proposal to change the description of U+0670
> superscript alef rather than a new character proposal.
> I don't think this change of description would break
> backwards compatibility so hopefully it is possible -

  No, the name is correct and any change to it would break compatibility
  because superscript alef is needed for regular texts and even the Qur'an
  itself on top of some Alef Maksura characters (here it's called superscript
  alef not small alef because a superscript alef on an Alef Maksura in the
  Qur'an for example does _not_ denote a missing alef, it rather denotes
  a vowel)

  we rather need another codepoint for the different small alef character.

  The thing is that the high small alef looks exactly like a superscript alef,
  so we don't need a separate character for high small alef, but the regular
  small alef is a standalone character and nothing in Unicode can be used for
  it.

  To give you an example from Unicode itself, look at the two characters:
    SMALL WAW  U+06E5
    DAMMA         U+064F

  As you can notice there is no SMALL HIGH WAW because the damma looks
  exactly like a SMALL HIGH WAW, so there is no need for another character
  for SMALL HIGH WAW and instead damma is used.
  They share the same look  property and even pronouncation but their name is
  different because one is used as a vowel, and the other to denote a missing
  WAW.
  (I can give you samples from the Qur'an where SMALL HIGH WAW is used but
   since it looks exactly like a damma, it can be encoded as a damma)


  A thought:
   If you changed the name, would it be SMALL ALEF or SMALL HIGH ALEF?
   Clearly, both are needed.

> unlike U+0621 where it is too late any more to change
> the description of the hamza character because it
> breaks existing Farsi texts.
>
> Please supply your thoughts.
>

  As I noted, the superscript alef is not a misnomer, it's used widely and its
  name is appropriate and most importantly it's different from SMALL ALEF.

  We have here two options:
     1. Propose a new character for SMALL ALEF and use the Superscript Alef on
         an Alef Maksura for example as a superscript alef and where the HIGH
         SMALL ALEF is needed (analogous to WAW and DAMMA).
     2. Forget about Superscript Alef and propose the characters
          SMALL ALEF ISOLATED and
          SMALL ALEF MEDIAL (or any other appropriate names)

  I go for the first, because it needs only one codepoint and it's consistent
  with the WAW and DAMMA case.

-- 
Mohammed Yousif
Egypt