[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Proposal for the Basis of a Codepoint Extension toUnicodeforthe Encoding of the Quranic Manuscripts

Abdulhaq Lynch wrote: 

Yes; this is an example where a very useful codepoint is unlikely to be
endorsed by unicode.  We could use  two shaddas, one phonotactic and one
lexical.  I think there might even be a third case but I can't think of
it at the moment.



By using an idghaam codepoint they could be easily distinguished.

I don't follow you; what do you have in mind? Why would one use "idgham" to indicate tashdeed? Wouldn't that mean a divergence between the encoding structure and the written text structure?


I feel compelled to say (to everyone here, not just you Gregg, and not particularly in terms of this thread) that the arabs already have conducted an immensely rich analysis of the arabic language and its morphology, phonetics etc in respect of the quran. To abandon that (probably out of ignorance rather than deliberately) would be an immense mistake.

We should stick to the time-honoured names that all good arab and muslim scholars are already familiar with. To try and come up with a new lexicon based on western phonetic and morphological terms is a big mistake.

By all means; but I'm not sure why you bring it up. If the traditional grammarians distinguished between the phonotactic shadda (i.e. the purely phonological one that has lexical significance) and the lexical shadda (which denotes lexical variance), by all means we should adduce that as evidence of the need and use the traditional terminology. I'm just not aware that that was ever done. (Anyway, such codepoints are probably in the "nice to have but not essential" category.)

But we also should not hesitate to use the purely descriptive terminology of modern linguistics. Remember most of the implementers who look at the encoding will have little or no Arabic. Terms like "idgham" are definitely preferred as official names, but they should be accompanied by a precise English-language definition.

Or, maybe not. Maybe we should write the encoding design and rational in Arabic as the primary reference, and then translate to English. Modern Arabic has modern linguistic terminology too. I rather prefer this approach, myself.

-g