> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roozbeh Pournader [mailto:roozbeh@sina.sharif.ac.ir]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 1999 9:41 AM
> To: Unicode List
> Cc: Unicode List
> Subject: Re: Assimilating damma
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Gregg Reynolds wrote:
>
> > The "assimilating" form of these letters has the same
> grammatical and
> > lexigraphic meaning, but phonetically denotes the
> assimilation of the
> > /n/ with the following consonant, and has a slightly
> different visual
> > form.
>
> Wrong. But also when /n/ is pronounced lightly (I can't
> remember the right
> english word, so I have chosen `lightly').
"Wrong." doesn't help much. Do you mean "incorrect" or "incomplete" or ???
My account of the semantics is a loose translation of an Arabic source. The
key point is phonetic assimilation ("idghaam"); whether assimilation means
that /n/ completely disappears or becomes very faint is a side issue in my
opinion. What counts is that it have distinct semantics.
>
> > This occurs when the word is followed by a word beginning with
> > ya, ra, mee, lam, or nun.
>
> Wrong. But also when followed by other letters, like "FEH",
> or "TEH". Take
> a look at Qur'an, 110:3.
>
You write "Wrong"; surely you do not mean assimilation does not occur with
the yarmuloon letters. Again, proper usage of the letters is a side issue;
the important thing is that we have two sets of tanween marks, both in form
and in semantics.
Remember that the vast majority of readers of this list have no Arabic and
can't look things up in the Quran. I'm afraid a simple "Wrong" won't help
them form a judgement, and may mislead them.
Sincerely,
Gregg
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:48 EDT