From: arno (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Jan 05 2008 - 08:28:30 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 all of this I agree.
If my proposal will be accepted there will be a period for everybody to
raise objections before it become binding.
> On the other hand, a proposal for a Qur'ân specific hamza will not
> affect the status quo and any language at all.
Here I do not agree. Deliberately I do not call the proposed new
character 'Quranic Hamza' but 'Chairless Arabic Hamza'. We need NOT TWO
different chairless hamzas for Arabic, one for MSA and one for Q24, we
need only ONE with clear cut behaviour, it's just that MSA does not use
it between joining letters.
> 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.
No doubt about that. But John will take care .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 05 2008 - 08:31:16 CST