Re: Standalone Superscript Alef (Item 8)

[Mete Kural <metekural at yahoo dot com>]

Salaam Mohammed,

>   We have here two options:
>      1. Propose a new character for SMALL ALEF and
> use the Superscript Alef on
>          an Alef Maksura for example as a
> superscript alef and where the HIGH
>          SMALL ALEF is needed (analogous to WAW and
> DAMMA).
>      2. Forget about Superscript Alef and propose
> the characters
>           SMALL ALEF ISOLATED and
>           SMALL ALEF MEDIAL (or any other
> appropriate names)

After reading your response I can now clearly
understand the cause of the communication gap between
us. Your proposal does not take into account the
concept of graphemes vs. allographs. For that reason
while we are proposing that a single code point for
superscript/dagger/small alef is appropriate for all
instances of superscript/dagger/small alef because
there is really only one superscript/dagger/small alef
"grapheme", you are proposing two codes for
superscript/dagger/small alef because of there are two
superscript/dagger/small alef "allographs". This is
more of a philosophical problem between us in regards
to encoding theory which is not easily solvable within
one mailing list thread. You also have some
justification for your proposal by saying that what
you are proposing is consistent with the rest of the
Unicode Arabic block. I agree with you here, yes it
may be consistent with the rest of the Unicode Arabic
block, but the Unicode Arabic block is not based on a
purely graphemic encoding scheme either. "The fact
that the code is bad is no excuse to make it worse."

>   As you can notice there is no SMALL HIGH WAW
> because the damma looks
>   exactly like a SMALL HIGH WAW, so there is no need
> for another character
>   for SMALL HIGH WAW and instead damma is used.
>   They share the same look  property and even
> pronouncation but their name is
>   different because one is used as a vowel, and the
> other to denote a missing
>   WAW.

The above also points to a misunderstanding of
graphemes vs. allographs. If you are going to use two
seperate codepoints to encode superscript/dagger/small
alef, one for its usage on top of alef maksura and
another for its usage in words like haadha, dhaalika
and bura'aa'u, I would tell you that you should use
the same codepoint in haadha, dhaalika and bura'aa'u.
Do not use a different codepoint for bura'aa'u just
because it appears lower than the one used in haadha
and dhaalika. The difference between dhaalika and
bura'aa'u is only at the allograph level, it is really
the same grapheme. Otherwise you make an existing
problem even worse.

So in conclusion I would like to tell you that we will
not endorse a proposal to add a new additional
superscript/dagger/small alef codepoint in a joint
proposal. If you wish to propose this please do it in
a seperate individual proposal. 

Kind Regards,
Mete



--- Mohammed Yousif <mhdyousif at gmx dot net> wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 June 2004 09:42, Mete Kural wrote:
> > Salaam Mohammed,
> >
> > I have been thinking about this superscript alef
> > problem.
> >
> > >  This is a proof to my point, they are all
> correct,
> > > no doubt here.
> > >  Because it's not on the lam nor on the waw so
> every
> > > mushaf tries
> > >  to put it somewhere between them.
> > >  It's a separate Alef letter, can you please
> > > consider that?
> >
> > Yes now I understand your point. I was misguided
> by
> > Unicode's description of superscript alef U+0670.
> > Unfortunately superscript alef U+0670 is described
> in
> > the Arabic code chart as:
> >
> > "ARABIC LETTER SUPERSCRIPT ALEF
> > • actually a vowel sign, despite the name"
> >
> > http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0600.pdf
> >
> > This description by those who supplied the Arabic
> > input into Unicode (which as far as I hear is
> mainly
> > IBM Egypt) did not take into account the usage of
> > superscript alef in Quran'ic orthographies.
> 
>   I can confirm that the description is correct.
>   That is the description of SUPERSCRIPT ALEF not
> SMALL ALEF and
>   it's indeed a correct one.
>   The Qur'an uses both SUPERSCRIPT ALEF and SMALL
> ALEF.
>   For example, the superscript alef is used on top
> of an Alef Maksura and
>   it's indeed "a vowel sign, despite the name".
>   But small alef is used elsewhere in the Qur'an.
> 
> > In 
> > contemporary Quran orthography (King Fuad and
> > manuscripts that are copied from it including the
> one
> > printed by QuranComplex) superscript alef is not
> used
> > as a vowel sign.  One rare example that is
> contrary to 
> > this in Quran'ic orthography is in Ottoman
> spelling,
> > where superscript alif is used in the same way as
> > madda, also used in contemporary non-qur'anic
> > spelling. 
> 
>   Correct, but when the superscript alef is not used
> as a vowel
>   sign in the Qur'an, that's because it is not a
> Superscript Alef, it
>   is a small Alef that denotes a missing Alef.
>   The superscript alef doesn't denote a missing
> alef, it is only a vowel
>   sign.
> 
> 
> > Rather in the King Fuad codex full 
> > vocalization is extended to superscript alif.
> 
>   Here, it's the small alef not the superscript
> alef.
> 
> > In 
> > combination with another rule, the glottal stop
> > followed by any long vowel is always rendered by a
> > chairless hamza.
> >
> > In conclusion the description of U+0670 in the
> Arabic
> > code chart should be changed. It is misleading.
> Once
> > this description is changed to be compatible with
> > Quran'ic usage then there is no need for a new
> > superscript alef character anymore.
> >
> 
>  They are TWO characters not one and they are both
> needed for the Qur'an
>  and only superscript alef is needed for regular
> texts.
> 
> > So in this case it seems to me that Item 8 should
> be a
> > proposal to change the description of U+0670
> > superscript alef rather than a new character
> proposal.
> > I don't think this change of description would
> break
> > backwards compatibility so hopefully it is
> possible -
> 
>   No, the name is correct and any change to it would
> break compatibility
>   because superscript alef is needed for regular
> texts and even the Qur'an
>   itself on top of some Alef Maksura characters
> (here it's called superscript
>   alef not small alef because a superscript alef on
> an Alef Maksura in the
>   Qur'an for example does _not_ denote a missing
> alef, it rather denotes
>   a vowel)
> 
>   we rather need another codepoint for the different
> small alef character.
> 
>   The thing is that the high small alef looks
> exactly like a superscript alef,
>   so we don't need a separate character for high
> small alef, but the regular
>   small alef is a standalone character and nothing
> in Unicode can be used for
>   it.
> 
>   To give you an example from Unicode itself, look
> at the two characters:
>     SMALL WAW  U+06E5
>     DAMMA         U+064F
> 
>   As you can notice there is no SMALL HIGH WAW
> because the damma looks
>   exactly like a SMALL HIGH WAW, so there is no need
> for another character
>   for SMALL HIGH WAW and instead damma is used.
>   They share the same look  property and even
> pronouncation but their name is
>   different because one is used as a vowel, and the
> other to denote a missing
>   WAW.
>   (I can give you samples from the Qur'an where
> SMALL HIGH WAW is used but
>    since it looks exactly like a damma, it can be
> encoded as a damma)
> 
> 
>   A thought:
>    If you changed the name, would it be SMALL ALEF
> or SMALL HIGH ALEF?
>    Clearly, both are needed.
> 
> > unlike U+0621 where it is too late any more to
> change
> > the description of the hamza character because it
> > breaks existing Farsi texts.
> >
> > Please supply your thoughts.
> >
> 
>   As I noted, the superscript alef is not a
> misnomer, it's used widely and its
>   name is appropriate and most importantly it's
> different from SMALL ALEF.
> 
>   We have here two options:
>      1. Propose a new character for SMALL ALEF and
> use the Superscript Alef on
>          an Alef Maksura for example as a
> superscript alef and where the HIGH
>          SMALL ALEF is needed (analogous to WAW and
> DAMMA).
>      2. Forget about Superscript Alef and propose
> the characters
>           SMALL ALEF ISOLATED and
>           SMALL ALEF MEDIAL (or any other
> appropriate names)
> 
>   I go for the first, because it needs only one
> codepoint and it's consistent
>   with the WAW and DAMMA case.
> 
> -- 
> Mohammed Yousif
> Egypt
> _______________________________________________
> General mailing list
> General at arabeyes dot org
> http://lists.arabeyes.org/mailman/listinfo/general
>