Mike Forgey wrote:
>OK. So back to my earlier question, do you know if the correct
>Unicode for Uyghur HEH is 0647? Thomas Milo says yes, and I
>think he is right. The reason I had the question was because
>in Uyghur HEH evidently does not exihibit the "usual" shaping
>behavior.
Tom Milo wrote:
>This is not what I meant. HEH U+0647 has exactly the same (continuous)
>pattern in Uyghur as in Arabic.
>It is the similar looking ("HEH-type") AE U+06D5 that we should
>concentrate upon. By its discontinuous pattern it distinguishes itself
>from HEH.
I think I was not clear on what I meant here. I do understand that in
Uyghur HEH does follow the same connecting pattern as in Arabic.
When I said "does not exhibit the usual shaping behavior", I was not
referring to the pattern of how it connects to other letters. I was referring
to the image of the glyphs used for the isolate and final HEH; (i.e.,
in the Uyghur character charts I have the seen, isolate HEH uses the
same glyph as the initial HEH, and the final HEH uses the same glyph
as the middle HEH (yes?)). So that was a poor choice of words on my part.
So it seems that from a Unicode perspective this phenomenon does
not really matter. The correct Unicode for Uyghur HEH is 0647. And if
one uses codes from the Compatibility Zone for contextual forms it
would be as usual; i.e., isolate = FEE9, final = FEEA, initial =FEEB,
medial = FEEC. Yes?
At this point I would assume this phenomenon occurs so that isolate
and final HEH are not confused with isolate and final AE. Is that true?
In one of my previous messages I mentioned that the Unicode manual
seems to say that AE 06D5 does not connect at all. But this does not
seem to be true. Is the Unicode manual in error on this point?
regards,
mike
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
Michael Forgey
2201 W. William Cannon Dr. #224
Austin, TX 78745
Tel: (512) 441-7390
Fax: (512) 441-7742
Email: 75252.1523@compuserv.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:31 EDT