Talk:Rasm

dubious image
Maybe I'm mixed up, but the image appears to be irrelevant. The rasm are the 18 basic consonant forms, without the i'jam dots that distinguish the rest, correct? This kufic manuscript has i'jam, but they are thin black lines very close to the letters, not the large dots we're used to. — kwami (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Never mind, I found a different image. — kwami (talk) 06:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

encoding of Kaf
Can anyone tell my why the encoding of Kaf chosen is U+06AA swash kaf instead of regular kaf, U+0643? Thanks, Pimrietbroek (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The Arabic kaf ك ككك has an extra squiggle in the isolated and end forms, which I imagine Rasm omits? Kaf equivalents in Farsi (Persian) ک ککک and Urdu ک ککک omit this extra mark, but Rasm seems to be more of an Arabic thing than a Persian thing? But they used another urdu letter in the table (U+06BA noon ghunna) so maybe Persian / Urdu Kaf is an option? Irtapil (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

choice of unicode characters
Am I guessing correctly that there is no standard unicode for Rasm? - Are there any better options than the unicode characters listed? I'll add some footnotes on other uses of the characters, but I don't feel qualified to change any, and i don't really have any better ideas for nun or ya, but I wanted to highlight it as a point to discuss. Kaf ك - why swash kaf? would Farsi kaf be suitable? (see above "encoding of Kaf") Nun ن - In the table they seem to have used the Urdu vowel nasalisation mark ں ںـ ـںـ ـں (nūn g͟hunnah, unicode 06BA "ARABIC LETTER NOON GHUNNA"), which as stated in the footnote displays with a dot in the middle and final position in most fonts. There is no unicode middle or start character for the Urdu ں because it usually only appears at the ends of words. (But the only other option I can find is "U+08BD ARABIC LETTER AFRICAN NOON", which is included in very few fonts, tends to not connect properly even if it is included, and on the rare occasion it does connect, it shows dots in the final and middle position.) There was a proposal to "Encode a new DOTLESS NOON for Koranic and historic usage" in 2012, but it seems no character was added, unless if was "African noon"? https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2012/12381-dotless-noon.pdf Ya ي - The character in the table is ى ىـ ـىـ ـى Alif Maksura. It does at least display correctly in every font, but searching a dictionary for words written with it will treat it as Alif instead of Ya. Dotless ڡ and ٯ - "U+066F ARABIC LETTER DOTLESS QAF" and "U+06A1 ARABIC LETTER DOTLESS FEH" definitely the best options because the alternatives "U+08BB ARABIC LETTER AFRICAN FEH" and "U+08BC ARABIC LETTER AFRICAN QAF" don't join to other letters properly in any font i have tried. Irtapil (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

can Basmala be written in modern secular style?
I tried to add as example to "Digital example: Compare the Basmala" with the ijam but no vowel diacritics, to show the way most modern secular documents are written. But I am not Muslim and I am new to learning Arabic, so i think i am out of my depth. There are too many unusual diacritics, like the ــٰـ dagger alif and ٱ hamzatu l-waṣli. I'm not sure if these should be left in or removed? And it's probably not a phrase that would be written in the modern style? If it's appropriate and possible can someone more knowledgeable than me please add it? Or give an opinion on whether any of these are correct:


 * 1. بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
 * بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم Spell check likes that one. I based it on the version with full diacritics, removed everything, and replaced Allah with what i got automatically from ا ل ل ه (the usual way to type that ligature).


 * 2.  بسم ٱللَّٰه ٱلرحمٰن ٱلرحيم
 * بسم ٱللَّٰه ٱلرحمٰن ٱلرحيم Based on the full diacritics version, but leaving the alifs alone.


 * 3.  بسم ا‌لل‍ه الرحمن الرحيم
 * بسم ا‌لل‍ه الرحمن الرحيم Seems to be the same as the first, but this time i based it on the rasm version and added ب ن ي in place of the dotless forms. I wasn't sure what to do with اللہ but weirdly the version of اللہ changed automatically to the standard version when i pasted it here.

Irtapil (talk) 10:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

apparently yes بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم en.wiktionary Irtapil (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

لل‍ه ligature
I have added extension characters " ـ " between the two ل characters in the lines that are supposed to omit diacritics. So we get لـله with no diacritics instead of لله with the shada and dagger alif. (Just opening those sections for source editing was converting it to the ligature with diacritics.) I tried zero width joiners "&zwj;" ل&zwj;ل&zwj;ه a couple of ways ل&zwj;ل&zwj;ه but they didn't work in context, i still got the ligature with the diacritics or it didn't join. If someone has a better idea, please update it. Irtapil (talk) 06:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I fixed it, let me know what you think. — LissanX (talk) 09:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks, did you use the zero width joiner character? weirdly it displays as the ligature in the edit window, but then if i save it, it's unchanged, i checked on a different computer and got the same. Irtapil (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * yeah I used a zero width joiner. I’m editing on a mobile device and it displays the same on the edit page as it does the article page. — LissanX (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I tried changing it to a visible version &zwj; but it ended up all jumbled in the wrong order, so i just added a comment/note. It seems to be ok as long as i don't edit that word, goes back to non-ligature when i save. On the off chance anyone knows what's going on, both computers were running chrome on windows 10. Irtapil (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * @LissanX I solved it, it works if you add the extension character الـلـه on the keyboard on this device it's with the vowels. (But bizarrely ى isn't connecting in any of the examples when viewed on this phone.) Irtapil (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

it's unnecessary to use obscure fonts for examples?
For the examples, wouldn't Arial work? i've left it alone for now because of the warning message "" but as far as i can tell there's on need for obscure fonts, Arial is available on almost every computer and has dotless ba ٮ and joins it properly ٮٮٮ ٮهٮ لٮل. Arial also has the other dotless characters and swash kaf ڪ ڡ ٯ ں ڪں ڡڡڡ ٯٯٯ (but those aren't used in the examples). Tahoma does too, ڡٮٯٮٯ ٯٮڡٮڡ ڪٮڪ ٮڪٮ ڡ ٯ ٮٮٮ ٮعٮ ٮلٮ but Tahoma probably looks too modern? Irtapil (talk) 05:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

For nun gahunna at the middle and start positions Arial ں ںںں and Tahoma ں ںںں both dot it, but we don't use nun in those positions in either example, so that doesn't matter? If we needed it, we could use dotless ba ٮٮٮ or alif maksura ىىى because they are identical to properly rendered dotless nun at those positions. Irtapil (talk) 07:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Irtapil (talk) 08:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I personally think Arial looks better and more true to the kind of script used to actually write rasm. — LissanX (talk) 09:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * compared to tahoma, or compared to those defined in the current first "digital example"? Irtapil (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As in "font-family:Scheherazade, Lateef,'Iranian Sans'" should we changed to Arial since most readers will have that? Irtapil (talk) 09:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * For me the digital examples seems to be rendering in Arial, just larger. Personally, I’m in favor of going with Arial. — LissanX (talk) 09:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I added Arial font. I decided to leave most of the fonts there, i think sometimes fonts get installed with only a subset of characters? so they might have Arial but not the Arabic bit? Irtapil (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Quranic ornaments
What's wrong with the user:LissanX, insisting on the ornamental symbol, waṣlah to be used in Classical Arabic? [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rasm&oldid=prev&diff=980412603&diffmode=source] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rasm&diff=prev&oldid=980350992&diffmode=source] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rasm&diff=next&oldid=974435326&diffmode=source]

To your knowledge, the term Modern Standard Arabic is an invention by western scholars and only used by them to give a name for Classical Arabic as practically used by Arabic speakers.

Arabic, as we learn it in schools, is Classical Arabic, by the name fuṣḥā. And actually, Classical Arabic didn't use to have any diacritics or dots. That was later in the development of the written Arabic, along with the re-phonemicization of the Quran to fit older pronunciation norms, and upon writing or printing Quran, other special ornamental symbols have been added, such as the prostration symbol, the verse symbol, and the extra super-script alif, among others that include the waṣlah symbol... What does that have to do with the fully vocalized Classical Arabic?

Did you know that even the most conservative Quran books don't use the final dotted ي?

--Mahmudmasri (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you’re just making things up about Arabic that are outside your realm of knowledge using your perception. You think Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) is the same thing as Classical Arabic (CA), and that the concept of MSA was invented by Western scholars. You’re apparently confused because you are not a linguist and think because Modern Standard Arabic is called “Fusha”, it must be the same thing as Classical Arabic because that is also called “Fusha”.


 * The Arabic you’re erroneously referring to as “Classical Arabic” is Modern Standard Arabic, known as “Fusha Al-Asr”. Real Classical Arabic is known as “Fusha At-Turath”. They each use different grammar, spelling, vocabulary, writing formats, etc. This difference was not invented by any Westerners, as you mistakenly like to believe. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the “Fusha” you learned in school is different from the Classical Arabic Fusha spoken centuries ago. No Arab countries teach Classical Arabic in regular schooling, they teach MSA. You don’t know Classical Arabic, you known Modern Standard Arabic. I shouldn’t have to educate you on such a simple subject.


 * Quranic Arabic is a specific kind of Classical Arabic with specific orthography. The Quran in the Classical Arabic era was not written with the diacritics you described. Originally, the Quran was not written with vocalizations at all. Then, Classical Arabic was vocalized using the dot system established by Abu al-Aswad al-Du'ali. It was this system which was used to teach people how to properly vocalize the Quran This is the Quran of Uthman. This is a later Quranic manuscript with Quran-era diacritics.


 * Later, the modern stroke system was established by Al-Khalil al-Farahidi. This system was expanded to include further diacritics. This is when the Waslah was implemented. This system was used not only for the Quran, but also for hadiths, poems and other classical literature.


 * I find it amusing that you think mentioning something as basic as “Did you know that even the most conservative Quran books don't use the final dotted ي?” was supposed to demonstrate the extent of your profound knowledge on this subject.


 * I know you like to think you speak Classical Arabic because you took MSA in school, but the unfortunate reality is that you don’t. If you’d like to demonstrate you know Classical Arabic, feel free to try an translate the sentence “The Catholic Bishop came from Sri Lanka” to Classical Arabic. — LissanX (talk) 23:51, 26 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The whole article contains erroneous spelling according to traditional Arabic spelling. ى is to be undotted, for instance. The photo at the intro mistakenly has the kasrah after a shaddah underneath the letter when it should have been under the shaddah, those are basic Arabic rules! The kāf is demonstrated in its two styles, yet the yā' is shown in one style, the modernized style that is not even universal nor traditional, so it is wrong to leave it with the dots in the separate and final forms. The article contained erroneous images of diacriticized text that were left for a very long time, till I noted that.
 * Since you controversially assert that the maddah is part of the traditional spelling (in your words, Classical Arabic) not only in religious texts, primarily the Quran, then please cite it in the article!
 * Classical Arabic as practically used by Arabic speakers, does not make a different language, since prescriptive Arabic always relies on traditional rules, the rules of Classical Arabic. How is that a different language to you? If contemporary Arabic speakers casually mix the traditional Arabic with their spoken dialects, does that make a new language? The terms you misunderstand, فصحى العصر, فصحى التراث, merely mean how much to favor equally correct lexicon and grammatical constructs that are not exclusive to Classical Arabic, but also appear in a spoken dialect. In other words, to use traditional rules, but the ones that are closer to spoken dialects, making it "easier".
 * Rasm is an archaic writing style for Classical Arabic.
 * And to your knowledge, in schools we also took classical literature, including poetry, sacred texts, in addition to Quran.
 * --Mahmudmasri (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing you said makes any sense whatsoever. I never said anything about a Maddah. I changed the erroneous spelling in the article without your comments on the talk original, which I was not a part of. The difference between فصحى العصر and فصحى التراث are not just in vocabulary, which I already stated, it’s also different in grammar, spelling, etc. I assume you’re just purposely sidestepping the actual points made at this point, especially considering you avoided saying a simple sentence in Classical Arabic. I’m reverting your erroneous edits. If you can actually prove anything you say, such as MSA and Classical Arabic being the same thing, your claims about diacritics, etc, which have already been debunked above, then feel free to research it and post some evidence. Personal POV is not a valid argument. — LissanX (talk) 04:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

ى not connecting
This character ى we are using in a few examples is not connecting properly when displayed on the Wikipedia ap my phone. It's just an Arabic terminal Alef, so there is no good reason it shouldn't, it's not even connecting to the letter before. Is anyone else having issues? Is there anything we can do to improve it, it's fine in most fonts and my phone doesn't have any touble dissiplaying this character in other aps. It seems to be picking a Persian or Urdu font to display it maybe? Irtapil (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)