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

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

> On Wednesday 16 June 2004 19:41, Thomas Milo wrote:
> > 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:
> >
>
>   That leaves us with another problem, you have to support BOTH behaviors.

The way I solved it is to treat both variants as equivalent. I consider it a
font problem Some modern fonts are designed to print fathatan on top, othere
only work well with trailing alif. For instance, the Ottoman Naskh that we
are working on corrects the order indernally since it can only print
fathatan against the alif.

However, grammatically speaking, dammatan, kasratan and fathatan all reside
on the letter that governs them.

>   BTW: This mamluki mushaf is not in popular use at all, the most popular
>           mushaf today is the one printed by QuranComplex as long as the
>           Shamarly and Haramain Masahef.

Indeed, but these, too, are written according to the rules of classical
Arabic grammar and never place fathatan on top of (i.e., logically
following) the trailing alif.

Wa s-salaam,

t