From: Khaled Hosny (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Dec 21 2007 - 08:31:14 CST
On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 03:19:04PM +0100, arno wrote:
> Khaled Hosny wrote:
>>> What is the problem?
>> The fact that all (except yeh with hamza above) are stylistic variations
>> of the same character, Arabic ya' always have dots in initial and medial
> > usually lose its dots in final and isolated forms (both are seen
>> in old manuscripts, but the dotted form is less common), and always lose
>> its dots with hamza above.
> But not always with hamza below
>> Alef maksura is usually undistinguished from ya'.
>> So, there is nothing as ya' with final dots and ya' without, all
>> are the same ya' with mere stylistic variations. Even the retroflex ya'
>> (yeh barre) is a variation of the regular ya' used by calligraphers on
>> artistic basis with no different semantics.
> This is true most of the time. I can even add to your argument: I have seen
> both manuscripts with "alef maqsura" having dots and those in which some
> end-ya's have nots other don't.
> But I have seen several masahif in which dots or retroflex tail are used to
> good purpose, either to distinguish between ī and ā or to distinguish
> between ī and i, so I am grateful that there are superfluous characters.
> And I still do not see the problem.
I'm not saying it is a problem, I used this as an example to justify my
proposal of having another hamza that have different behaviour from the
current chairless hamza, it is the same as having Arabic and Farsi ya'.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Dec 21 2007 - 08:34:16 CST