[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Standalone Superscript Alef (Item 8)
- To: General Arabization Discussion <general at arabeyes dot org>
 
- Subject: Re: Standalone Superscript Alef (Item 8)
 
- From: Mohammed Yousif <mhdyousif at gmx dot net>
 
- Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 00:57:42 +0300
 
- Cc: 
 
- User-agent: KMail/1.6.1
 
On ثلاثاء 15 يونيو 2004 23:32, Mete Kural wrote:
> >   again wrong, the alef is not on the Waw at all, it
> > is before
> >   it (I can give you scans if you want).
> >
> >  Logically it cannot be on the Waw at all, it's a
> > small letter using
> >  instead of the missing Alef, would you put the alef
> > on the waw?
>
> If the superscript alif is shifted to the previous
> letter
 No, it's not shifted to the previous letter, it's between the Waw and
 the previous letter, exactly like the missing Alef.
> than you get the sequence fatha- superscript 
> alif anyway. This is because all examples write
> /aa/ with fatha and alif on top of the syriac rasm for
> /oo/ (with waw).
>
  That's exactly why it won't work:
   "you get the sequence fatha- superscript alif anyway"
  EVERY small Alef in the Qur'an has a fatha preceding it.
> However, this assumption is not correct: the function
> of the superscript alif in these cases is to indicate
> thet waw should be alif, therefore the superscript
> alif technically belongs to waw.
>
 Mete, what you call an assumption is a fundamental Arabic rule.
 I gave you a proof that the small alef is used instead of the alef,
 you cannot put and Alef on a Waw, Alef is not a haraka, it's a
 _standalone_ letter.
 And even if you are correct, it's still preceded by a fatha
 (look at any sample and notice the haraka on the prev char)
 Anyway, since you are rejecting Arabic rules without justification, I won't
 continue like that.
 The same problem from another angle:
   Take the samle I gave later 2 "Al-Baqara" 2
ذالِكَ ٱلۡكِتَـٰبُ .
  (The first Alef after the Thal is the proposed character 8)
  Note here that:
  1. the first small alef is preceded by a fatha and "ذَ"
  2. the second small is preceded TOO by a fatha "تَ"
  For 1, the alef must be rendered as a regular character (similar to U+06E6)
  For 2, the alef must be rendered high using the existing character U+0670
  See? I can list more samples where the 'fatha' indicator won't work
  (Actually, ALL of the Alef's in the Qur'an have a preceding fatha because
   this is a rule that has no exceptions)
-- 
Mohammed Yousif
Egypt