On Friday 08 August 2003 08:59, Munzir Taha Obeid wrote: > On Monday 04 August 2003 10:08 am, Mohammed Yousif wrote: > > and it's ALWAYS ABOVE the letter, Shadda means to extend > > the haraka voice (as in Mohammed, why I put two m's? simply > > because there is a shadda on the m and when I transliterated it, > > I added another m to give a good approximation to the actual > > voice "should be read Moham-med, think of them as separated > > words"). > > So, if I typed a shadda then a fatha, I expect to see the letter in > > this order from below to above: > > 1- the letter itself > > 2- the shadda > > 3- the fatha > > (Qt unfortunately doesn't follow this order and when you type a > > complete word, bom, the haraka disappears and only the shadda > > is shown) > > I think this depends on the font chosen and the application. Odd things > happen here. kedit which is built on Qt with kacstqr font works perfectly > with me. >
No, it should be done right and there shoudn't be odd things like that > > What if I typed a fatha then a shadda? > > It doesn't matter, a fatha is always _above_ the shadda. > > What if I typed a kasra then a shadda or vice versa? > > Still doesn't matter, a fatha is always _below_ the shadda. > > TYPO: a kasra is always _below_ the shadda. You are right, sorry :-) > > > (Think of the shadda as a new little letter above the actual letter) > > So to summarize the shadda thing: > > * A Shadda is always above the letter. > > * Any haraka is applied to the letter before OR after the shadda > > is transferred to the shadda, that is, the shadda is now the > > letter that should have the haraka but above the actual letter. > > I don't agree that shadda is now the letter that should have the haraka, > especially in the case of kasra. See the comment below. > > > * Harakat applied to a shadda are: fatha, kasra, damma and tanween > > but this shouldn't be an issue, Qt may decide to ignore this and > > put any T character above the shadda except kasra and kasratan which > > should be below the shadda. > > Not necessarily below the shadda. In case of kasra it could be below the > letter or below the shadda both are correct but may be it's better to be > below the letter as is the case in Holy Quran and as implemented already in > kedit. > You are right again, sorry, I meant that but kasra came to my mind only after I had posted it :-) > > * In any arrangement, the shadda is ALWAYS ABOVE the letter even > > if it has kasra or kasratan applied to it, it should STAY ABOVE > > the letter. > > * A shadda without a haraka results in a FAULTY arabic, and this > > should be caught by spellcheckers, however this maybe ignored by the > > shaping engine. > > I am not sure from where did you bring this info!! I think if I write > Arabic without harakat it's not considered FAULTY. Also, if I typed some > harakat and left others it's also not FAULTY. Shadda can't stands alone is > something new for me!! Because a Shadda means to extend the haraka not the letter, so it makes less sense without a haraka, but we used to see a shadda alone assuming that we know which haraka to apply the shadda to but this is simply not good. And yeah, I see all arabic rules in the Holy Qur'an (although the reverse is not true, not all Qur'anic rules are Modern Arabic), although there are _indeed_ some letters without harakat, there is not a single shadda that is alone. Anyway, if you are not convinced, forget it, it shouldn't make any difference and this is why I noted spellcheckers, I meant that this is not an issue that bothers a rendering engine, it's rather a user oriented thing, so let's not waste time discussing this and concentrate on getting a rendering engine that is able to do harakat perfectly. -- Mohammed Yousif "Ich liebe ihr, weil ohne sie kann ich nicht bin!" We _will_ restore OUR Jerusalem. _______________________________________________ Developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.arabeyes.org/mailman/listinfo/developer
