Re: Quranic Proposal - Conclusions - Error correction

[Mete Kural <metekural at yahoo dot com>]

Salaam Mohammed, Nadim, and Abdulhaq,

I apologize that I made a few mistakes in my email
with proposed changes to the Quranic Characters
Proposal. I am going to document these mistakes below.

> Items 4,5, and 6:
> I am assuming that we have agreed on what we should
> do
> about these items. The agreement was that the
> already
> existing small meem in the Arabic code block can be
> used together with damma, fatha and kasra to
> represent
> the glyphs in 4, 5, and 6. In this case, we need to
> change the proposal for 4,5,6 and instead of
> requesting that new characters be added, we should
> request that the sequences fatha+small_meem,
> damma+small_meem, and kasra+small_meem be defined to
> represent the allographs in items 4,5, and 6
> respectively.

In the above paragraph, replace all mentions of fatha,
damma and kasra with fathatan, dammatan, and kasratan
respectively. So the proposed sequences would be
fathatan+small_meem, dammatan+small_meem, and
kasratan+small_meem. This is because the referenced
glyphs in items 4, 5, and 6 are simply "tanweens" or
rather "tamweems" and the meem simply denotes that
this tanween should be pronounced with a meem sound
rather than a noon sound. But it is still a tanween.
The difference in its visual appearance from a regular
tanween (ex: there is only one strike rather than two
strikes for fathatan with small meem in contrast to a
regular fathatan) is caused by calligraphic and
typographic decisions made by the scribes and
typesetters.

> Items 11 and 12:
> These items should be removed from the proposal.
> Similar to the above, these Items are covered by
> Item
> 4, fatha with small meem. These two items are simply
> contexual instances of the fatha with small meem
> allograph proposed in joint proposal for Item 4.

Similarly in the above paragraph, "fatha with small
meem" should be replaced with "fathatan with small
meem".

Thank you,
Mete