From: arno (arno@zedat.fu-berlin.de)
Date: Sat Jan 05 2008 - 07:13:49 CST
Behnam wrote:
>> Or anybody with some idea of Persian!
> I guess I fit the second criteria and can give you some 'street
> knowledge' of Persian not academic one. But it's better than nothing!
> First of all, hamza (the letter) is only used in words we consider
> 'Arabic' within Persian text. Off the top of my head, I can't find a
> case in which hamza is used in the middle of a word, requiring the
> letters before and after to be disjoint. Chairless hamza is always at
> the end of the word as far as I can see. So technically yes, it does
> require disjoint characters before and after, but this can also be
> achieved by mere fact that hamza is placed at the end of the word,
> followed by a space, a zwnj or a line breaker.
> If your proposal doesn't affect the formation of a word such as:
> شیء-اشیاء
> as it is currently formed, I can't see a case that would be adversely
> affected by your proposal
Since there is no joining letter coming after the hamza,
my proposal would not interfere with that.
> but I do thing that suggestion of keeping this
> hamza as it is and re-defining another hamza with new behaviour as
> 'current' hamza is more sound.
Why?
I'm not dogmatic about redefining U+0621 rather than adding a new
ARABIC LETTER ARABIC CHAIRLESS HAMZA. So, I would like to know why you
dislike working with the existing char, since it is only insufficiently
defined -- not defined for a case not needed for normal Arabic but
desperately needed for the "standard" Qur'ân.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 05 2008 - 07:16:52 CST