headers
Muhammad Asif | 1 Mar 2003 07:45
Picon

Re: Unicode Arabic Rendering Problem


It seems to be encoding problem, as mentioned by tang. If you choose 
Microsoft Sans Serif (or tahoma) fonts and encoding suggested by tang it 
will work fine.

Asif

At 10:05 AM 2/28/2003 -0800, Mete Kural wrote:
>Hello Folks,
>
>I wanted to ask a question to those of you who have
>Unicode Arabic knowledge. We have this website
>http://www.quranreader.org where we are trying to
>display the text of the Quran with accurately encoded
>Unicode text rather than the traditional images. Some
>of the characters in the Quran aren't rendered
>correctly. We are letting the browser to use its
>default Unicode font on the website, which is Times
>New Roman Unicode for the newer versions of Internet
>Explorer I think. If we used a high-quality Unicode
>font for Arabic, would this solve the problem? Or is
>this a bigger problem that has to do with the
>rendering engine provided by the operating system?
>
>I would like to give you an example. In Arabic when
>you have a Lam And Alef together, it is rendered in a
>unique way instead of the regular rendering for these
>letters that kind of looks like this:
>
>  \  /
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Anirban Mitra | 1 Mar 2003 08:17
Picon
Favicon

Virama after vowel in Indic

 It is difficult for non-indic thinking person to understand the
absurdity of the concept of virama sitting after a vowel. The
virama is meant to strip a consonant of its inherent vowel "a". As
a side effect of this it combines two consonants when it sits
between then. It is not an exclusive combining mark so that it can
combine a vowel (how can you strip a vowel of its inherent
vowel?)and a consonsnt as unicode FAQ asks its to be.
As per history of the letter A_YAPAHALAA_AA, there is no mention of
this composite in original "Varna Parichay- Part 2" by Iswarchandra
Vidyasagar, -unanimously considered by bengalies the original
alphabet of modern Bengali. This was probably added later to
tranliterrate words like Academic from English. It should not be
coded as a_virama-aakaar as for reasons mentioned above. Even ileap
- the iscii word processor considered it to be a separate moderen
vowel and placed it corrosponding to the chandra_a in Devanagari.

=====

Dr Anirban Mitra 

Email: mitra_anirban <at> yahoo.co.in

Web Page http://www.geocities.com/mitra_anirban 

________________________________________________________________________
Missed your favourite TV serial last night? Try the new, Yahoo! TV.
       visit http://in.tv.yahoo.com

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Rent DVDs Online-No late fees! Try Netflix for FREE!
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 13 comments |
headers
Michael Everson | 1 Mar 2003 16:34
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Virama after vowel in Indic

Anirban Mitra made some interesting points.

At 07:17 +0000 2003-03-01, Anirban Mitra wrote:
>It is difficult for non-indic thinking person to understand the 
>absurdity of the concept of virama sitting after a vowel.

That might be true, based on what you learned about writing in 
school. But the plain fact of the matter is that -- with regard to 
ya-phalaa -- this is exactly what you do.

>The virama is meant to strip a consonant of its inherent vowel "a". 
>As a side effect of this it combines two consonants when it sits 
>between then. It is not an exclusive combining mark so that it can 
>combine a vowel (how can you strip a vowel of its inherent 
>vowel?)and a consonsnt as unicode FAQ asks its to be.

It may not strip an inherent vowel, but it does attach itself to an 
independent vowel.

>As per history of the letter A_YAPAHALAA_AA, there is no mention of 
>this composite in original "Varna Parichay- Part 2" by Iswarchandra 
>Vidyasagar, -unanimously considered by bengalies the original 
>alphabet of modern Bengali. This was probably added later to 
>tranliterrate words like Academic from English.

This is not correct. For example, in Sanskrit and Bengali, we have 
the word pratyeka 'each, every'. This is derived from the Sanskrit 
root prati (expressing likeness or comparison) plus eka 'one'. In 
Sanskrit orthography i + e becomes ye and is so written. Now in 
Bengali this word also exists and in both languages what is written
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 12 comments |
headers
Andy White | 1 Mar 2003 19:05

RE: Virama after vowel in Indic

Michael Everson wrote:

> Anirban Mitra made some interesting points.
> 
> At 07:17 +0000 2003-03-01, Anirban Mitra wrote:
> >It is difficult for non-indic thinking person to understand the
> >absurdity of the concept of virama sitting after a vowel.
> 
> That might be true, based on what you learned about writing in 
> school. But the plain fact of the matter is that -- with regard to 
> ya-phalaa -- this is exactly what you do.

No. No one has ever written a Virama after a vowel, never ever. You will
not find it in any printed matter, except in the Indic FAQ, and in
articles discussing the FAQ. 

*You will however find a Ya-phalaa after a vowel*.

> >The virama is meant to strip a consonant of its inherent vowel "a".
> >As a side effect of this it combines two consonants when it sits 
> >between then. It is not an exclusive combining mark so that it can 
> >combine a vowel (how can you strip a vowel of its inherent 
> >vowel?)and a consonsnt as unicode FAQ asks its to be.
> 
> It may not strip an inherent vowel, but it does attach itself to an 
> independent vowel.

You are muddled here. Dr Mitra is talking about 'Virama'. You seem to be
talking about Ya-phalaa.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 11 comments |
headers
Andy White | 1 Mar 2003 21:53

RE: Virama after vowel in Indic

I think that one of my explanations got a bit muddled in my last post -
so I am reiterating it here - sorry!

Anitra wrote:
 > > >As per history of the letter A_YAPAHALAA_AA, there is no 
> > > mention of this composite in original "Varna 
> > > Parichay- Part 2" by Iswarchandra Vidyasagar,
> > > -unanimously considered by bengalies the original 
> > >alphabet of modern Bengali. This was probably added later to 
> > >tranliterrate words like Academic from English.

And then Michael Everson wrote in reply:
> > This is not correct. For example, in Sanskrit and Bengali, we have
> > the word pratyeka 'each, every'. This is derived from the Sanskrit 
> > root prati (expressing likeness or comparison) plus eka 'one'. In 
> > Sanskrit orthography i + e becomes ye and is so written. Now in 
> > Bengali this word also exists and in both languages what is written 
> > is PA + VIRAMA + RA + TA + VIRAMA + YA + E + KA.

Michael, you are mistaken here, Anitra was referring to the composite
letter ' A_YAPAHALAA_AA' and not the composite letter sign
'YAPAHALAA_AA' which - yes - has been around for *quite some time*)

Viramas and vowels should not & do not mix in the Unicode encoding
scheme. That is why we have Vowel Signs.
E.g. The syllable 'KU' is semantically equivalent to a composite of 'Ka'
and the Full-Vowel letter 'U'.
It is encoded as 'Ka' + 'VowelSignU' in the Unicode scheme.
It could also be said that 'KU' can be encoded as 'Ka'+'Virama'+
'Full-Vowel letter U'  In fact that is just the way it *is* done in some
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Michael Everson | 1 Mar 2003 22:06
Favicon
Gravatar

RE: Virama after vowel in Indic

At 18:05 +0000 2003-03-01, Andy White wrote:

>No one has ever written a Virama after a vowel, never ever. You will
>not find it in any printed matter, except in the Indic FAQ, and in
>articles discussing the FAQ.
>
>*You will however find a Ya-phalaa after a vowel*.

Ya-phalaa can be found after a vowel, and after a consonant. It is a 
conjunct form of YA, and is produced by the sequence VIRAMA + YA.

>  > >The virama is meant to strip a consonant of its inherent vowel "a".
>>  >As a side effect of this it combines two consonants when it sits
>>  >between then. It is not an exclusive combining mark so that it can
>>  >combine a vowel (how can you strip a vowel of its inherent
>>  >vowel?)and a consonsnt as unicode FAQ asks its to be.
>>
>>  It may not strip an inherent vowel, but it does attach itself to an
>>  independent vowel.
>
>You are muddled here. Dr Mitra is talking about 'Virama'. You seem to be
>talking about Ya-phalaa.

No, I said what I meant. I will say it again. The virama when 
attached to a consonant kills the inherent vowel. It is also used to 
alter the glyph shape of the preceding consonant, or the following 
consonant, or both. In the case of TA + VIRAMA + YA, the YA takes the 
squiggly ya-phalaa form. Unusually, the VIRAMA + YA can follow an 
independent vowel, in which case there is no "vowel killing" per se, 
but in which the the YA takes the squiggly ya-phalaa form. Same
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 8 comments |
headers
Michael Everson | 1 Mar 2003 22:10
Favicon
Gravatar

RE: Virama after vowel in Indic

At 20:53 +0000 2003-03-01, Andy White wrote:

>Michael, you are mistaken here, Anitra was referring to the composite
>letter ' A_YAPAHALAA_AA' and not the composite letter sign
>'YAPAHALAA_AA' which - yes - has been around for *quite some time*)

Ya-phalaa is a special shape formed originally when YA was combined 
with a preceding consonant, which acquired a new sound, and which 
practice was extended to use with independent vowels to allow this 
new sound to be represented when word-initial.
--

-- 
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: unicode-unsubscribe <at> yahooGroups.com

This mailing list is just an archive. The instructions to join the true Unicode List are on http://www.unicode.org/unicode/consortium/distlist.html

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Andy White | 1 Mar 2003 23:19

RE: Virama after vowel in Indic

Michael Everson tries hard to understand my point of view, but really he
does not :-(

Amongst many things I said:
>> Viramas and vowels should not & do not mix in the
>>  Unicode encoding scheme. That is why we have
>>  Vowel Signs. E.g. The syllable 'KU' is semantically
>>  equivalent to a composite of 'Ka' and the Full-Vowel
>>  letter 'U'. It is encoded as 'Ka' + 'VowelSignU' in the
>>  Unicode scheme. It could also be said that 'KU' can
>>  be encoded as 'Ka'+'Virama'+ 'Full-Vowel letter U'
>>   In fact that is just the way it *is* done in some existing
>>  input methods :- but that would not be in line with the
>>  Unicode Indic encoding scheme, would it.

And Michael Everson said: 
> This isn't the same. YA is a consonant, not a vowel sign,

Actually Ya is a semi-vowel. That is why it behaves like a vowel

>  and it is 
> affected by the preceding VIRAMA.

Well, that’s where people with an in-depth understanding of the script
do not agree.

As I see it, this is your and my line of thinking combined:

1.
When Yaphalaa occurs after a consonant it is semantically equivalent to
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
Michael Everson | 1 Mar 2003 23:45
Favicon
Gravatar

RE: Virama after vowel in Indic

At 22:19 +0000 2003-03-01, Andy White wrote:
>Michael Everson tries hard to understand my point of view, but really he
>does not :-(

Actually I try to get you to understand our point of view.

>And Michael Everson said:
>>  This isn't the same. YA is a consonant, not a vowel sign,
>
>Actually Ya is a semi-vowel. That is why it behaves like a vowel

Irrelevant to the question at hand. It is classed among the 
consonants, as opposed to the independent vowels or the vowel signs. 
Of course, its semivocalic nature is why original [bja:] came to be 
pronounced [bæ].

Where we differ is in understanding that what is in question here is 
not the intrinsic encoding, but rather the READING RULES. We write 
B-Y-AA and A-Y-AA and we say [bæ] and [æ]. The B is consonant BA, 
killed by virama but not changing its shape. The A is independent 
vowel, not really "killed" by virama but serving as a non-consonantal 
placeholder so that [æ] can be written in word-initial position. The 
Y is consonant YA, taking a squiggly form as a conjunct with the 
previous letter. VIRAMA produces that conjunct. The AA is a vowel 
sign, which needs no further explanation.

>  > and it is affected by the preceding VIRAMA.
>
>Well, that’s where people with an in-depth understanding of the script
>do not agree.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Andy White | 2 Mar 2003 00:36

RE: Virama after vowel in Indic

Michael Everson wrote:

> Well, golly,...

I do not see any point in discussing this subject further as I see no
progress in either direction. Especially as you have now become
sarcastic.

I wish all you all the best in a successful writing of the Unicode
Standard 4.0

Thanks
Andy

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
New Yahoo! Mail Plus. More flexibility. More control. More power.
Get POP access, more storage, more filters, and more.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Hcb0iA/P.iFAA/46VHAA/8FfwlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: unicode-unsubscribe <at> yahooGroups.com

This mailing list is just an archive. The instructions to join the true Unicode List are on http://www.unicode.org/unicode/consortium/distlist.html

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |

Gmane