From: Dean Snyder (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon May 23 2005 - 16:37:33 CDT
Gregg Reynolds wrote at 4:23 PM on Monday, May 23, 2005:
>Dean Snyder wrote:
>> Buckwalter's transliteration of Arabic <http://www.qamus.org/
>> transliteration.htm> is, as are all transliterations, lossy. You cannot
>> tell, for example, from this transliteration that Arabic r & z are
>> differentiated only by a tiny dot. THAT is pertinent information in many
>Huh? Latin "r" denotes the Arabic letter called ??? and Latin "z"
>denotes the letter called ???; where's the confusion?
Latin r in no way resembles Latin z; Arabic "r" & "z" are exactly alike
except for the tiny dot above "z".
>Can you tell that difference from the integers x0631 and x0632?
You can when they're rendered; and I have been talking all along about
loss of GLYPHIC correspondences in transliterations.
Dean A. Snyder
Assistant Research Scholar
Manager, Digital Hammurabi Project
Computer Science Department
Whiting School of Engineering
218C New Engineering Building
3400 North Charles Street
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218
office: 410 516-6850
cell: 717 817-4897
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 23 2005 - 16:45:13 CDT