[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
- To: General Arabization Discussion <general at arabeyes dot org>
- Subject: Re: Proposal for the Basis of a Codepoint Extension toUnicodeforthe Encoding of the Quranic Manuscripts
- From: Abdulhaq Lynch <al-arabeyes at alinsyria dot fsnet dot co dot uk>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 14:40:03 +0100
- User-agent: KMail/1.8.1
On Wednesday 22 June 2005 14:21, Gregg Reynolds wrote:
> 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?
For instance, if we say "min warathati" then the nuun is pronounced as a waaw
and assimilated with the following waaw, which is idghaam. By having an
idghaam codepoint after the nuun it would be clear that the shadda on the
waaw is as a consequence of the idghaam of the nuun. From a theoretical point
of view the shadda would actually be redundant. Likewise for n/l n/r d/t etc.
I'm not suggesting that we drop the shadda but for certain encodings it might
be a good idea.
> 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.)
I bring it up (and I stress, not in reaction to anyone or anything particular
in this list) because of how awful the orientalist version of arabic grammar
is, and I don't want anything similar to happen here.
The scriptural representation of the quran that we have now is a direct
representation of the rules of tajweed and these signs are there as an aid to
the reader to perform idghaam, iqlaab, ikhfaa, madd, waqf etc. If we encode
theses things as a small meem or a phototastic quadrilateral lingo squirly
then we've missed the whole point and are putting a millstone around the neck
of those who have to use it.