Re: missing chars for Arabic (sequential tanween)

From: Mark E. Shoulson (
Date: Wed Dec 19 2007 - 15:04:13 CST

  • Next message: John Hudson: "Re: CLDR Usage of Gregorian Calendar Era Terms: BC and AD -- Can we please have "CE" and "BCE" ?"

    John Hudson wrote:
    > arno wrote:
    >> shows that the three
    >> sequential tanween signs are different from the normal signs and that
    >> they are basically tanween signs.
    > ...
    > In order to make a case for distinct encoding of sequential double
    > marks, you would need to show a contrastive use, i.e. a case in which
    > one character *meant* something other than the other character, not
    > just a different way of writing them. Most persuasive would be a
    > contrasted use in the same edition.
    I think that is precisely what arno is showing here. Note what he says
    just a paragraph down from what you quote:

    > Just to demonstrated that not ALL tanween signs look different in
    > Qahira1924 orthography, I have included one normal tranween from that
    > copy: circled blue for being Qahira1924, red for being normal.
    So *some* of the Qahira1924 tanweens are normal, some are sequential;
    they are being used contrastively. Moreover, there appears to be a
    meaning attached to them too, in the next paragraph of arno's letter:

    > Qahira1924 uses the sequential tanween signs both for idghâm
    > (assimilation) and ikhfa' (partial suppression) -- when there is no
    > assimilation and no partial suppression (hiding) Qahira1924 uses the
    > normal tanween signs. So it is not that these are glyph variants.
    So there is a semantic load to these signs as well; they indicate a
    particular grammatical effect (or two).


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 19 2007 - 15:05:50 CST