From: Mark E. Shoulson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Dec 19 2007 - 15:04:13 CST
John Hudson wrote:
> arno wrote:
>> http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~arno/seqTan.jpg 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 idghÃ¢m
> (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