From: Gregg Reynolds (unicode@arabink.com)
Date: Tue Jun 14 2005 - 16:06:06 CDT
Peter Constable wrote:
>>From: Mete Kural [mailto:metek@touchtonecorp.com]
>
>
>
>>Peter, IMHO, your comparison is not fair at all. Coloring the dot of
>
> an i could obviously
>
>>be more fairly compared to coloring the dot of an Arabic letter beh or
>
> a jim, etc. And
>
>>probably coloring the crossbar of a t would be better compared to
>
> coloring the
>
>>overstrike of an Arabic kaf :) These are not what we are talking about
>
> here. Coloring
>
>>the lam or alef or lam-alef is comparable to coloring the f or i of
>
> the Latin fi ligature.
>
> Think about it: why does someone want to colour part of a ligature
> differently than the remainder of the ligature? Probably because they
> are discussing something to do with the letterform itself. There's just
> as much likelihood, I think, of someone talking about the cross-bar of a
> t, etc.
Now why would you take your own inability to imagine something as
evidence that there is nothing to be imagined? Tsk. To anybody who
knows Arabic the usefulness of such coloring is quite obvious; M.
Kural's response is correct. I've seen elementary school texts that use
such coloring.
-g
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 14 2005 - 16:08:00 CDT