Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 19:02:15 +0200
Philippe,
what you say about "no exception" is wrong,
as you can see from the attachments.
Philippe> I was told long ago that the normative placement of kasra below the
Philippe> letter was also requiring it to go below the shadda (above the letter)
Philippe> when there was one, and this suffered no exception, at least in
Philippe> Koranic texts: the shadda effectively modifies the consonnant, not the
Philippe> vowel, and defines the new higher baseline of the consonnant cluster,
Philippe> under which the kasra is simply position
Philippe> So the case is similar here, going in the reverse direction for the
Philippe> placement of hamza, relative to kasra that logically comes after the
Philippe> hamza and that may be omitted if vowel precision is not needed.
Philippe> Both exceptions are highly related to the logical order of binding for
Philippe> those hamza and shadda diacritics.
since hamza never is shaddad/geminated/doubled,
I do not see what this means concretely.
Philippe> The rule relative to the shadda is so strong that this is even one of
Philippe> the very first thing you're taught in some didactic tutorials on how
Philippe> to read Arabic.
the rule is not valid for most orthographies of the Koran
Arno
