[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Tanween variants and Unicode
- To: General Arabization Discussion <general at arabeyes dot org>
- Subject: Re: Tanween variants and Unicode
- From: "Mete Kural" <metek at touchtonecorp dot com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 10:33:20 -0700
From: Gregg Reynolds <gar at arabink dot com>
>- Tanween ending
>> in meem: fathatan+superscript meem will trigger the "tamweem" symbol,
>> and so forth for kasratan+superscript meem and dammatan+superscript
>> meem. No new character code is needed, just a protocol that explains
>> that the combination will trigger the corresponding glyph.
>I must respectfully but vehemently object. You can't just merrily
>redefine the semantics of codepoints that are already well-defined.
>Fathatan means fathatan; any software that does not display it correctly
> is broken, by definition. Ditto for superscript meem. If the one
>follows the other, they must both be displayed.
Well that is an interesting argument but I'm wondering what the practicality of it is. The only use case I can think of where someone would type a tanween and then a superscript meem would be when he is writing a document that lists various symbols used in Arabic. If he wants to simply write these letters next to each other, then it would be wise for him to put a space in between anyways since some of these symbols would be stacked on top of each other otherwise. So if the user puts a space between the tanween character and superscript meem he can display these characters next to each other. Other than this what else use case can you think of?
>> Silent/sequential tanween: fathatan+sukuun code will trigger the
>> silent tanween/sequential tanween glyph, and so forth for
>> kasratan+sukuun and dammatan+sukuun. Sukuun is a good choice for a
>> codepoint here since the noon sound of the tanween is in a way
>> silenced. No new character code is needed, just a protocol that
>> explains that the combination will trigger the corresponding glyph.
>Same objection. What if the author *wants* a sukuun over an -atan? By
>the way, what exactly is a "silent/sequential" tanween? All tanween
>variants have names in Arabic that translate quite well into English;
>why not use them? By my reading, there is no such thing as a "silent
>tanween"; there is an assimilated tanween, but assimilation and silence
>are not the same thing. "Sukun" is definitely the wrong term.
>See section 1.10 of http://www.arabink.com/patacode/encoding.pdf; see
>also the bottom of p. 31 / top of p. 32.
Yes I mean the assimilated tanween. I used the word sequential because in this list the word sequential has been used most commonly to refer to this character so I wanted to make sure list participants understand what character I'm talking about. Thanks for the cue for using the word "assimilated". Sounds good to me.
>> New canonical equivalences (this one is not absolutely needed for the
>> Madinah Mushaf): ---------------------- - Basic tanween canonical
>> equivalence: fatha+fatha needs to be made canonically equivalent to
>> fathatan, and so on for kasratan and dammatan.
>Here's the problem with this: why stop there? You can use precisely the
>same argument to say that two consecutive vowels within a word should be
>interpreted as one vowel + vowel lengthener. E.g. kitAb spelled kitaab.
> Technically speaking, the alif in kitAb in fact denotes a lengthening
>of the preceding fath, just as the second vowel in -atan denotes /n/.
>Now consider kitaabaa - should the final aa be an alif or a fathatan?
>Plus, what does this do for searching and sorting? A search for e.g.
>fathatan won't find two consecutive fathas. So if you do this sort of
>thing you'll get surprised users. OTOH, nothing says an editor can't
>map two consecutive punches of the fatha key to the fathatan codepoint.
This canonical equivalence of fathatan with fatha+fatha, etc. is personally not very important for me. This is one of the things Tom wants to propose and feels strongly about. At this point I haven't comprehended the real importance for this canonical equivalence so I would suggest you direct your questions about this one to Tom.