新しいツイートを表示

会話

was it a common practice to insert a superscript alif before the alif in the early manuscripts?

خالد حسني @khaled@typo.social

返信先:

さん,

さん,

さん

The usuage of superscipt (and subscribt) alif here is different from Cairo Quran, here it denotes a long a or e vowel, not a missing alif (for missing alif it should usually come between two letters not above, or below, a single letter).

返信先:

さん,

さん,

さん

It's very similar to Ottoman practice though, where I would say this is the standard way of doing things. Its the first time I see such a system used in a manuscript written in 'New Style'.

返信先:

さん、

さん、他2人

Incidentally, the subscript alif is also nicely employed to write the ʾimālah of Ḥafṣ' maǧrē-hā (quran.com/10/41/) a place where the Cairo Quran innovates and uses a 'diamond shape' for it. Notice that red marks Šuʿbah's mugřā-hā! gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv

返信先:

さん、

さん、他2人

It's also neat to see how a superscript 'number 2' is used to mark the red here is supposed to denote a separate reading. Also seen in the verse before it. I also love their solution of tanwīn before an ʾalif al-waṣl. Wonder why the Cairo Quran didn't pick that up.

返信先:

さん、

さん、他2人

Just some more stuff because I'm enjoying this now. Here's ṯamūda (with non-Uthmanic rasm in black!) and ṯamūdan for Šuʿbah's reading in red. Šuʿbah's fa-lammā reʾēē ʾaydiya-hum; imālah marked with kasrah and subscript alif. Finally: Marking of idġām: wa-ttaxattumū-hu.

返信先:

さん、

さん、他2人

Okay not actually finally. Looks like the author got confused. Here Red marks Ḥafṣ' reading muʾṣadatun and black marks Šuʿbah's mūṣadatun. But on the same page it's Šuʿbah's ʾadrē-ka marked as secondary. Okay now I think I'm officially done; until I find some more cool stuff

返信先:

さん,

さん,

さん

Wait! I have something for you

返信先:

さん、

さん、他2人

regarding this thread twitter.com/PhDniX/status/ BTW I came through this reading of Warš and Qunbul of the Q43:84 وَهُوَ الَّذِي فِي السَّمَاءِ إِلَٰهٌ

引用ツイート

Marijn van Putten

@PhDniX

2018年11月26日

liʾayyi (Q77:12) is regularly spelled لايى, rather than لاى. This presumably representing loss of the hamzah: /li-yayy/. This is often missed in text editions of manuscripts. You also see it regularly spelled this way for biʾayyi بايى and fa-bi-ʾayyi فبايى.

このスレッドを表示

返信先:

さん,

さん,

さん

Incidentally this image is an amazing showcase that the madd sign was not originally a wavy stroke, but in fact the word "madd" written in a cursive hand.