Re: missing chars for Arabic (sequential tanween)]

From: arno (
Date: Wed Dec 19 2007 - 15:56:21 CST

  • Next message: 'Stephane Bortzmeyer': "Re: Directionality Standard"

    John Hudson wrote:

    > Since both editions follow the same reading, are these really distinct
    > characters or simply -- or not so simply, from a typographic perspective
    > -- variant ways of writing the same character?

    different characters

    > I have seen, for instance, one recent font that interpreted the dammatan
    > character, logically enough, as a double damma as shown in your
    > Qahira1924 examples. At the time, it struck me as strange, because I am
    > used to the other form, but I had no difficulty interpreting it as
    > dammatan.

    yes, dammatan, but one of THREE sorts of dammatan used in the same print

    > The 'sequential' positioning of marks in fathatan and dammatan is
    > certainly tricky, if one wants to follow Qahira1924 exactly, because the
    > horiontal distance varies according to identity and width of the base
    > letter. But that is a display issue that would present the same
    > challenges whether the marks were encoded using the existing mark
    > characters or your proposed new characters.

    this is not a encoding issue -- as you point out

    > The example you show of kasratan under final lam seems to me further
    > evidence that what we are looking at is variant display of a single
    > character, in which the two strokes are more or less vertically arranged
    > depending on the identity and width of the base letter.

    just the opposite it shows that Qahira1924 uses different frrom to
    As as wrote, the normal form is a/i/u + a fully pounced n,
    the sequential form denotes the n is hidden or assimilated to the
    following consonant

    > 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.

    If you open a Qahira1924 / Medina post 1968 print / most Egyptian/Syrian
      prints you will see that normal tanween and sequential tanween is used
    side by side, and when you read the explanation at the end of the book
    you will red that sequental tanween denotes idghâm or ikhfa'.
    What more could be needed?

    Arno Schmitt

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 19 2007 - 15:57:53 CST