[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Volunteers for verifying the quran data

Gregg Reynolds wrote:
>> Thomas Milo wrote:
>>> I agree with Mete. This concept of encoding root morphemes
>>> separately from other Arabic letters, if ported to Indo-European
>>> languages (much more ...etc... 
>> Now, IMO a difficult design question is whether some true morphemes
>> should in fact be encoded.  Obvious examples: definite article, other
>> particles like laa, sawfa, sa-, direct object suffixes -hu, -ha, etc.
>> Unicode will never countenance something like that, but that doesn't
>> mean we shouldn't.  Such design decisions should be made strictly on
>> a costs/benefits basis, IMO.

Looking forward to exchange ideas.

>>> Even then, Arabic script does not fully cover the Arabic language
>>> from a linguistic perspective. A (or maybe /the/) striking example
>>> is the inserted vowel between the /n/ of tanween and any initial
>>> cluster of consonants, e.g., /muHammadu-ni r-rasuulu/: it has no
>>> orthographic expression (I found it described as kasra, bound to a
>>> small nuun in an Ottoman handbook, but I never attested it in a
>>> manuscript). 
>> (I think you mean /muHammadu-nu r-rasuulu/ ;)

Thanks. Are you sure this is the correct vowel harmony here?
>> I don't understand your argument here.  The "helper vowel" can be
>> inscribed using one of the ordinary vowel marks.  (I'm pretty sure
>> the grammarians address this explicitly.)  Scribes may choose not to
>> do this, but they can if they want to.  This occurs in many cases,
>> e.g. after the question particle hal.

I would like to see how you can add a vowel to a tanween mark.