Re: Sequential Fathatan Final Form (Items 9 and 10)

["Thomas Milo" <t dot milo at chello dot nl>]

Salaam Mohammed,

 

Regarding the logical or nominal order of the characters, it would help if you could explain a bit clearer why you think the Qur'an should be printed in modern spelling. I was not aware of this requirement.

 

I have only seen Mushafs in manuscript and the singular typeset edition from Cairo, that place the fathatan (Arabic for: "two fatha's") on top of the letter that governs the other two cases of tanween as well. Below is a striking example from the famous Suhrawardi Mushaf written in Mamluki style that leave no doubt that Suhrawardi did not even remotely associate the two fatha's with the trailing alif:

 

Wa s-salaam,

 

Thomas

 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Mete Kural" <metekural at yahoo dot com>

To: "General Arabization Discussion" <general at arabeyes dot org>

Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 6:07 PM

Subject: Re: Sequential Fathatan Final Form (Items 9 and 10)

> Salaam Mohammed,
> 
> >   I agree 
with you that since sequential fathatan
> > are only used
> 
>   in the Qur'an, the font can assume that the needed
> > 
character
> >   is the one in the image.
> 
>   But my point is that they have to consistent with
> > 
the regular
> >   fathatan.
> >   If I 
typed regular fathatan and then Alef, How can
> > the font
> 
>   decide if I want the form like in the image (where
> > 
the fathatan
> >   is as high as the end of the Alef), or 
the
> > expected form for
> >   regular text (where 
the fathatan is *just* above
> > the previous
> >   
character not as high as the end of the Alef).
> 
> The phenomenon 
you are referring to - the variance in
> the absolute positioning of 
superscript alef - is not
> a graphemic matter, it is a calligraphic 
matter. The
> typeface used in the King Fuad codex prefers to
> 
position the superscript alef there whereas in other
> codices the 
position the superscript alef may be
> slightly different, and in regular 
everyday Arabic
> text it can be just above the previous 
character.
> These are calligraphic style issues. Unicode does not
> 
encode calligraphic data, it encodes character data
> (or graphemic 
data).
> 
> Font designers design different fonts for 
different
> calligraphic styles. There are fonts for Naskh - and
> 
there are many variances of Naskh - Nastaliq, Riqaa,
> Kufic, and other 
calligraphic styles. The difference
> between these calligraphic styles is 
not recorded at
> the encoding level (i.e. Unicode level). These
> 
differences are recorded at the font level (i.e. the
> rendering domain). 
Unicode is not meant for encoding
> calligraphic data.
> 
> In 
order to render Unicode Quran text 'exactly' like
> the popular Quran 
mushaf that you find in your home
> (King Fuad or the handwritten clone 
printed by
> QuranComplex) you have to design a font typeface that
> 
is exactly like it. And this typeface will have
> differences from the 
typefaces found in the Ottoman,
> Maghribi, or Rushdi Quran 
mushafs.
> 
> Personally for me, it is not crucial to design 
a
> typeface that is exactly like the King Fuad mushaf.
> The Quran 
is not dependent on the calligraphic style
> used to write it, it is the 
content that matters most
> to me. But I also see value in designing a 
typeface
> that is like the King Fuad Quran since that is what
> 
people are familiar with.
> 
> >  But in anyway, I didn't 
mean to offend you, we are
> > all busy but
> >  this 
issue is extremely important to me and I want
> > my reply to
> 
>  be reasonable that's why they are long, if I write
> > short 
replies,
> >  you will find them incomplete.
> 
> I 
understand. Yes the need to encode the Quran in
> Unicode is also an 
extremely important issue for me
> too. Insha'Allah we can propose a 
proper solution to
> this problem together.
> 
> Kind 
regards,
> Mete
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
> General mailing 
list
> General at arabeyes dot org
> http://lists.arabeyes.org/mailman/listinfo/general