Re: Questions about yeh, hamzah on yeh, alef maksura and dotless ba

[Meor Ridzuan Meor Yahaya <meor dot ridzuan at gmail dot com>]

Tom,
Since I never really studied grammer of any language in dept, it is
very difficult for me to follow you discussion. I think I sort of get
it, but not to sure.

 Anyway, let me try to understand you.

> >>
> >> 1. this funny alif-in-dotless-yeh-clothing (Quranic and contemporary);
> >> 2. a dotless-yeh *form* that has no meaning and is used solely as a seat
> of hamza/small alef/etc. (Quranic and contemporary)
> >> 3. a true yeh that sometimes loses its spots (Quranic and occasionally
> contemporary);
> >> 4. a true yeh that always keeps its dots (contemporary usage)>>
>
> Nrs 1 and 2 are one and the same grapheme. (Unicode character
> Yeh_Hamza-Above is a of course a non-existent ligature in this approach).
> Nrs 3 and 4 flavours are of the same grapheme.
>
> >> This is why I think the best approach would be to encode all four of
> >> these cases with the same yeh codepoint.
>
> I fully agree. 1/2 and 3/4 are all a single grapheme. They look like ducks,
> the quack like a ducks, they are b-y ducks. And like the hamza, the twindots
> are also to be encoded as a separate character
>

So, you are suggesting to encode everything using a single code, which
probably something like 649.Then, encode the 2 dots, hamza, small
alefs seperately, right? Could you explain what is the benefit of
using this approach? First impression, I think it will make it more
difficult, especially for searching. For example, if I were to search
for normal yeh, I need to include the dot as well in my searching for
initial and medial form. But for standalone and final form, it is not
necessary, right?


Regards.