From: Behnam (behnam.rassi@gmail.com)
Date: Sat Jan 05 2008 - 08:16:40 CST
I'm not dogmatic either. I can go along with the suggestion of re-
defining the behaviour of current letter hamza. But only because I,
with my limited knowledge, can't see an adverse affect. And I think
this is a risky business.
If hamza is used in Persian for Arabic words, as they are, in many
other languages it is used to express the phonetic needs of their own
native tongues. I have no knowledge of that and I don't know how it
is being used and how it affects those languages... if hamza doesn't
stop the joining behaviour of characters.
So at least, this proposal requires a much more profound study of the
role of hamza in all languages of Arabic script.
On the other hand, a proposal for a Qur'ân specific hamza will not
affect the status quo and any language at all. And if this option is
considered, maybe we should also consider to resolve this issue at
font level, since for Koranic expression, a very fine tuned and
heavily tailored font (and/or application) is often needed anyway.
Behnam
On 5-Jan-08, at 8:13 AM, arno wrote:
>
> 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 - 08:20:10 CST