Re: Quranic Proposal - Logical Codes

[abdulhaq <al-arabeyes at alinsyria dot fsnet dot co dot uk>]

assalaamu `alaykum Mete

>Phonemic difference actually may change the
> meaning of the word, whereas phonetic difference does
> not have any affect on the meaning, only affects the
> pronounciation of the same word. There is no phonemic
> difference between fathatan and sequential fathatan.
> The only difference is phonetic - it is the same word
> but it is just pronounced a little differently.

But we are not just talking about carrying the meaning of the word, but also 
the meanings of the  wuquuf, mudood and other symbols.

It is an accepted principle in unicode to accept distinct quranic markings 
with specific and unique meaning as code points. A number of these have been 
overlooked such as the variations in tanween. If these variations were 
simply visual affectations then of course they should not be coded. However, 
they have a _meaning_ that is not indicated by any other code point.

If the unicode body did not accept quranic symbols as codepoints, then what 
is the sajda mark doing there for instance? They could have just said that 
we should use two consecutive sukoons or some other magic code sequence.

wassalaam
abdulhaq


On Tuesday 15 June 2004 00:27, Mete Kural wrote:
> Salaam Mohammed,
>
> >  I didn't mean that. I meant that the tanween
> > (dammatan)
> >  doesn't look like two dammas next to each other at
> > all.
> >  so encoding it as damma+damma should return a new
> > glyph
> >  that looks really different (i.e. the damma glyph
> > cannot be used
> >  here)
>
> Understood. You are pointing that using fatha+fatha is
> not intuitive for the typist. We can discuss this
> further and see if there is a better solution.
>
> >   As I asked earlier, why this is not done first for
> > the umlaut
> >   german characters in the Latin range?
> >   The Arabic range has to be consistent with the
> > Latin ranges
> >   and with the rest of the unicode standard.
>
> German umlaut characters are different graphemes. When
> you put an umlaut on top of "u" it changes both the
> phonetic and phonemic affect of "u". Also in my native
> language (Turkish) we use umlaut characters. Sometimes
> putting the dots above changes the whole meaning of
> the word. For example "kul" means "servant" (from
> Arabic) but "kül" means "ash". But in the case of
> sequential fathatan, the only difference is at the
> "phonetic" level, phonemically it is still the same
> character. Phonemic difference actually may change the
> meaning of the word, whereas phonetic difference does
> not have any affect on the meaning, only affects the
> pronounciation of the same word. There is no phonemic
> difference between fathatan and sequential fathatan.
> The only difference is phonetic - it is the same word
> but it is just pronounced a little differently.
>
> Kind regards,
> Mete
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> General mailing list
> General at arabeyes dot org
> http://lists.arabeyes.org/mailman/listinfo/general