Thanks for all the comments. My document was converted to Word
correctly, but there is some font problem on my computer.
Regards
Janusz
On 29 Jul 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Janusz S. Bie) wrote:
I try to convert a LaTeX document into Word through UTF-8 coded HTML.
When I import a small test
Jim Allan jallan at smrtytrek dot com wrote:
A shocking number of corporate data-bases in Canada, certainly the
majority, continue to maintain customer/subscriber/policy
holder/cardholder data only in uppercase and without diacritics.
It's not just the private sector, either. Canada Post
But is ZWJ actually required
within text, or only for display of joining forms in isolation? A simple
example would be of interest.
Yes, it is used in normal text. But the only frequent use is after a
single Heh, to make it appear in the initial form (which is by tradition
used to
On 30/07/2003 03:56, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
But is ZWJ actually required
within text, or only for display of joining forms in isolation? A simple
example would be of interest.
Yes, it is used in normal text. But the only frequent use is after a
single Heh, to make it appear in the
On 29/07/2003 06:30, Karljrgen Feuerherm wrote:
[The following was posted to the Biblical Hebrew list and I am forwarding it
as potentially helpful information regarding this issue, which was raised
here. Not sure whether I should post the name/source?]
I have not at hand now facsimiles of the L
Sorry, I was a bit confused.
But actually I need to see both the before and after canonical ordering
so I know both how to write the font and handle the conversion, Thanks for
the help.
Joan
shin hataf dagesh regular meteg shindot
-where do I put the ZWNJ or the CGJ to get a left meteg on
Joan, I am a little confused by your response which seems to be out of
order. It seems that I wrote:
Meteg to the right does not actually need an extra character, because if
CGJ is used to override canonical equivalence and reordering of vowel
sequences, the mechanism is already in place to use
On Wednesday, July 30, 2003 8:21 AM, Peter Kirk wrote:
... The vowel form,
Ted's holam male, is encoded as holam followed by vav, and the consonant
vav with holam is encoded simply as that.
Encoding 05B9 before the vav to create a kholam male can be a complicated
business. Consider the
Ted,
I agree 100% with your description of the characters that have not been
encoded in Unicode. There are certainly marks and consonants that mean two
completely different things, as you have so accurately described. But there
are two approaches to encoding. There is Code what you see and Code
On Wednesday, July 30, 2003 11:57 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree 100% with your description of the characters that have not been
encoded in Unicode. There are certainly marks and consonants that mean two
completely different things, as you have so accurately described. But
there
are two
Ted Hopp wrote:
When I first
saw it, I had assumed that FB4B was supposed to be used for
kholam male (and that's what we use it for in our code).
FB4B;HEBREW LETTER VAV WITH HOLAM;Lo;0;R;05D5 05B9N;
FB4B is *canonically* equivalent to 05D5, 05B9, so you cannot
expect a distinction
On Wednesday, July 30, 2003 12:39 PM, Kent Karlsson wrote:
Ted Hopp wrote:
When I first
saw it, I had assumed that FB4B was supposed to be used for
kholam male (and that's what we use it for in our code).
FB4B;HEBREW LETTER VAV WITH HOLAM;Lo;0;R;05D5 05B9N;
FB4B is *canonically*
Ted Hopp scripsit:
Besides, what's all this that I keep reading about Unicode encodes
characters, not glyphs? From Chapter 1: [T]he standard defines how
characters are interpreted, not how glyphs are rendered. The code what you
see approach, while probably the reality of Unicode, seems
Problem:
We have here one character sequence with two alternate renditions: the
common rendition, in which they are the same, and a distinguished rendition
which uses two separate glyphs for the separate meanings.
On paper, which is two-dimensional, it is a Vav with a Holam point somewhere
On 2003.07.07, 00:25, Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe originally U+044B (cyrillic y, yery) was two separate
letters,
It sure it (though I should provide some references to back this up? Hm,
later...)
but it is certainly considered and used as one letter in Cyrillic
languages
On 2003.07.29, 23:24, Jim Allan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A shocking number of corporate data-bases in Canada, certainly the
majority, continue to maintain customer/subscriber/policy
holder/cardholder data only in uppercase and without diacritics.
Yup, and not only in Canada, I'm sure. They
At 21:29 +0200 2003-07-30, Jony Rosenne wrote:
Problem:
We have here one character sequence with two alternate renditions: the
common rendition, in which they are the same, and a distinguished rendition
which uses two separate glyphs for the separate meanings.
On paper, which is two-dimensional,
On 30/07/2003 12:29, Jony Rosenne wrote:
Problem:
We have here one character sequence with two alternate renditions: the
common rendition, in which they are the same, and a distinguished rendition
which uses two separate glyphs for the separate meanings.
Or we could state it this way:
We have
On 30/07/2003 09:39, Kent Karlsson wrote:
Peter Kirk wrote:
The two forms of vav with holam are also distinguished in the alpha
release of The Unicode Leningrad Codex, available from
http://whi.wts.edu/WHI/Members/klowery/eL/index_html. The vowel form,
Ted's holam male, is encoded as
Peter Kirk scripsit:
Understood. But that is really what we have in the text. In the second
word we have consonant vav with vowel holam. In the first word we really
do have consonant dalet with vowel holam, and then a silent vav which
originated as a placeholder for a long vowel in an
On 30/07/2003 12:24, John Cowan wrote:
Peter Kirk scripsit:
Understood. But that is really what we have in the text. In the second
word we have consonant vav with vowel holam. In the first word we really
do have consonant dalet with vowel holam, and then a silent vav which
originated as a
On 30/07/2003 12:07, John Cowan wrote:
When you say it, which glyph do you mean? I would like a description
of what the two glyphs look like and how they are to be distinguished,
please.
See the reference glyph for U+FB4B. One form looks like this with the
dot above further to the left, the
On Wednesday, July 30, 2003 2:13 PM, Peter Kirk wrote:
... analogous to the the past tense, female, second person of
borrow: lamed-qamats-vav-vav-qamats-he.).
To me as a reader of biblical Hebrew, this form looks like an error. I
would expect either sheva under the first vav, or the two vavs
Michael Everson scripsit:
See the reference glyph for U+FB4B. One form looks like this with
the dot above further to the left, the other like it with the dot a
little further to the right. This glyph with the centred dot is a
compromise between the two.
A picture speaks a thousand
Peter Kirk scripsit:
Yes, graphically. The orthographic rules for shifting holam on to a
following alef are identical to those for shifting it on to a following
vav, except that because the alef is wide no one confuses the two
positions, and no one gives a special name to alef plus right
On 30/07/2003 13:22, Ted Hopp wrote:
On Wednesday, July 30, 2003 2:13 PM, Peter Kirk wrote:
... analogous to the the past tense, female, second person of
borrow: lamed-qamats-vav-vav-qamats-he.).
To me as a reader of biblical Hebrew, this form looks like an error. I
would expect either
Ted Hopp wrote on 07/29/2003 01:20:08 PM:
The two vowels kholam male and shuruq have nothing to do with the
consonant
vav (HEBREW LETTER VAV) other than that they are written with the same
glyph.
If they are written with the same glyph, then they are written with the
same character. Unicode
On 30/07/2003 13:46, John Cowan wrote:
Peter Kirk scripsit:
Yes, graphically. The orthographic rules for shifting holam on to a
following alef are identical to those for shifting it on to a following
vav, except that because the alef is wide no one confuses the two
positions, and no one
At 16:50 -0400 2003-07-30, John Cowan wrote:
Michael Everson scripsit:
See the reference glyph for U+FB4B. One form looks like this with
the dot above further to the left, the other like it with the dot a
little further to the right. This glyph with the centred dot is a
compromise between the
Ted Hopp wrote on 07/30/2003 11:43:10 AM:
One of the key points some of us are trying to make is that vav with
kholam
khaser is a different mark on the page than a kholam male. Different
semantics AND different appearance, but no separate Unicode encoding.
In your earlier message, to which I
On 30/07/2003 14:20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ted Hopp wrote on 07/29/2003 01:20:08 PM:
These different uses for the same (or approximately same) glyphs
Well, are the glyphs the same, or only approximately the same?
This is the moot point.
For qamats and sheva, the glyphs are usually
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
These different uses for the same (or approximately same) glyphs
Well, are the glyphs the same, or only approximately the same?
They are similar enough that they *can* be represented by the same glyph,
but that is not best practice. Best practice is to use
Where is a kholam attached to the right of an alef?
Ted
Ted Hopp, Ph.D.
ZigZag, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1-301-990-7453
newSLATE is your personal learning workspace
...on the web at http://www.newSLATE.com/
I've posted an image at http://www.zigzagworld.com/holams.gif of two words
that illustrate one publisher's typographic distinction between vav with
kholam khaser and kholam male. The top image (kholam male) is the third word
of Exodus 12:15. The bottom (vav-kholam khaser) is the ninth word of
On Wednesday, July 30, 2003 4:44 PM, Peter Kirk wrote:
This depends on who you mean by we. It's not just you and me, Ted. If
in discussions on this list a consensus is reached that this is the best
way to go, then we have the top people in Unicode behind us and
convinced in advance. Someone
On 30/07/2003 14:55, John Cowan wrote:
Peter Kirk scripsit:
But there are other sequences which are
ambiguous between ending in a consonant or a vowel, notably yod
following hiriq, and vav with dagesh which may be shuruq.
Luckily there aren't positional variants of these, however,
Le mercredi, 30 jul 2003, à 23:55 Europe/Paris, John Cowan a écrit :
Specifically, in Yiddish -p is written with non-final pe, as I believe
is the case in Modern Hebrew also (in borrowings and abbreviations).
Elsewhere, Yiddish p is pe-dagesh, whereas f is pe-rafe.
Not exactly, in standard YIVO
On Wednesday, July 30, 2003 5:20 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ted Hopp wrote on 07/29/2003 01:20:08 PM:
The two vowels kholam male and shuruq have nothing to do with the
consonant
vav (HEBREW LETTER VAV) other than that they are written with the same
glyph.
If they are written with the
On 30/07/2003 15:28, Ted Hopp wrote:
Where is a kholam attached to the right of an alef?
Well, for a start in every occurrence of ro'sh head, lo' not, zo't
this (f.), vayyo'mer and he said and several other common words in
the Bible. And I understood these (not the last) were modern Hebrew
On 30/07/2003 15:51, Ted Hopp wrote:
On Wednesday, July 30, 2003 4:44 PM, Peter Kirk wrote:
This depends on who you mean by we. It's not just you and me, Ted. If
in discussions on this list a consensus is reached that this is the best
way to go, then we have the top people in Unicode behind us
This depends on who you mean by we. It's not just you and me, Ted.
If
in discussions on this list a consensus is reached that this is the
best
way to go, then we have the top people in Unicode behind us and
We should make sure that you all understand that this email list is an
open disucssion
On 30/07/2003 13:32, Michael Everson wrote:
At 13:01 -0700 2003-07-30, Peter Kirk wrote:
On 30/07/2003 12:07, John Cowan wrote:
When you say it, which glyph do you mean? I would like a description
of what the two glyphs look like and how they are to be distinguished,
please.
See the reference
Mark Davis wrote:
The UTC accepts and considers proposals from other parties (see
http://www.unicode.org/pending/proposals.html for submitting a
proposal for new characters). For complex matters (which this
definitely seems to be, based on the volumn of mail!), it is far and
away the best if
But, as you, Ted, have said several times, we must
support irregular spellings as well as regular ones.
Yes, of course, but there is a limit to how far this
desideratum can be carried forward in plain text. And
it tends to depend on the principles of the writing
system itself.
For an alphabet
On 30/07/2003 17:03, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
At 16:50 -0400 2003-07-30, John Cowan wrote:
Michael Everson scripsit:
See the reference glyph for U+FB4B. One form looks like this with
the dot above further to the left, the other like it with the dot a
little further to the right. This
On 30/07/2003 17:04, Mark Davis wrote:
We should make sure that you all understand that this email list is an
open disucssion list for anyone interested in Unicode.
Consensus on this list does *not* imply agreement by the Unicode
consortium technical committee (UTC), whose voting members are the
Bertrand Laidain scripsit:
Not exactly, in standard YIVO orthography, Yiddish p is pe (without
dagesh) and f is pe-rafe. In some yiddish books you will find pe-dagesh
for p but on the other hand f will be pe (without rafe).
Well, I was drawing on
Yes, if you can't attend, the best plan is to work closely with
someone who will be in attendance (ideally a voting member) so that
they have the background to educate others in the meeting as to the
important issues.
Mark
__
http://www.macchiato.com
Eppur si
On Wednesday, July 30, 2003 7:09 PM, Peter Kirk wrote:
On 30/07/2003 15:28, Ted Hopp wrote:
Where is a kholam attached to the right of an alef?
Well, for a start in every occurrence of ro'sh head, lo' not, zo't
this (f.), vayyo'mer and he said and several other common words in
the Bible.
Peter,
I have not seen an answer to my question: Is the distinction from the Masora
or later.
The evidence you present supports a claim that some manuscripts and printers
have been making the distinction for hundreds of years.
However, the distinction is rare, and common use does not make it.
50 matches
Mail list logo
