This supports the opinion that the placement of the Meteg is not material,
but an esthetic artifact of the scribe.
Jony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Kirk
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 8:18 PM
To: Ted Hopp
Cc: [EMAIL
is agreed upon, it must satisfy the needs of both classes
of users, for input, rendering and for searching.
Jony
-Original Message-
From: Ted Hopp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 9:39 PM
To: Jony Rosenne; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Hebrew Vav Holam
] On Behalf Of Ted Hopp
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 1:00 AM
To: Peter Kirk
Cc: John Cowan; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: SPAM: Re: Hebrew Vav Holam
On Thursday, July 31, 2003 6:32 PM, Peter Kirk wrote:
We mustn't forget that unusual combinations are sometimes
meaningful.
For example
On 01/08/2003 00:14, Jony Rosenne wrote:
The characters in the block FBxx are deprecated and are not needed. The are
equivalent to their decomposed sequence.
In Hebrew, there are basically three layers: The letters, which are
mandatory, the points, which are optional and indicate vowels and
On 31/07/2003 21:02, John Cowan wrote:
Ted Hopp scripsit:
On Thursday, July 31, 2003 5:18 PM, John Cowan wrote:
Is not U+FB35 HEBREW LETTER VAV WITH DAGESH a shuruq?
Only graphically. Different pronunciation, different names, different
functions grammatically. Old typewriters used
__
http://www.macchiato.com
Eppur si muove
- Original Message -
From: Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Ted Hopp [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 02:44
Subject: Re: Hebrew Vav Holam
On 31/07/2003 21:02, John
Mark Davis scripsit:
I would remind the people interested in Hebrew issues that a list has
been set up for their benefit, and recommend that they use it.
We are using it. There's just an occasional reply to an old posting
leaking through now.
--
John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
, 2003 09:35
Subject: Re: Please use other list (was Re: Hebrew Vav Holam)
Mark Davis scripsit:
I would remind the people interested in Hebrew issues that a list
has
been set up for their benefit, and recommend that they use it.
We are using it. There's just an occasional reply to an old
How would one encode an isolated aleph with a right holam over it, when
explaining fine Hebrew typographical rules?
I think should work.
On 01/08/2003 12:04, Chris Jacobs wrote:
How would one encode an isolated aleph with a right holam over it, when
explaining fine Hebrew typographical rules?
I think should work.
For the benefit of those who don't have the tools to hand, the relevant
part of what Chris wrote, between
Of Rick McGowan
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 2:25 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Hebrew Vav Holam
If I might stick my nose in here where I'm not too familiar... This
discussion reminds me of Left Holam or Holam Left, a
phrase which has
percolated up to my conscious brain
On 30/07/2003 21:53, Jony Rosenne wrote:
Peter,
I have not seen an answer to my question: Is the distinction from the Masora
or later.
Several sources have told me that it dates back at least to the
Leningrad codex, dated 1008/9 CE. As I wanted to check for myself, I
found a facsimile page
Message -
From: Jony Rosenne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 3:46 AM
Subject: RE: Hebrew Vav Holam
For the benefit of archiving and searching, may I suggest that we all use
the Unicode names of the characters we are discussing.
I.e.: Vav, rather than waw
On 30/07/2003 20:15, Ted Hopp wrote:
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",
On 31/07/2003 06:26, Ted Hopp wrote:
On Thursday, July 31, 2003 12:53 AM, Jony Rosenne wrote:
I have not seen an answer to my question: Is the distinction from the
Masora or later.
I don't know if there is a definite statement from the Masorites
specifically about the issue, but this page
On Thursday, July 31, 2003 10:00 AM, Peter Kirk wrote:
Ted, if we are to encode separately the dot in holam male, what would
you call that dot? We can't call it holam male because that is the name
of the combined vav and holam. But if that causes a difficulty, that
shows what the problem is.
Peter, thanks for the example of a medial meteg from BHS. I have one text
that shows the same meteg (Lev. 21:10) to the right of the hataf patah, and
several that have no meteg at all, but none where I've been able to find a
medial or left meteg on a hataf vowel.
I'm wondering: are there examples
Peter Kirk posted:
... if we are to encode separately the dot in holam male, what would
you call that dot? We can't call it holam male because that is the name
of the combined vav and holam.
Would HEBREW POINT HOLAM MALE INDICATOR do?
Jim Allan
On Thursday, July 31, 2003 11:46 AM, Jim Allan wrote:
Peter Kirk posted:
... if we are to encode separately the dot in holam male, what would
you call that dot? We can't call it holam male because that is the name
of the combined vav and holam.
Would HEBREW POINT HOLAM MALE INDICATOR do?
: Re: Hebrew Vav Holam
...
I think of holam male as an indivisible glyph that happens to
look like a vav with a dot centered above it (or above its
stem, if you will, but that's just how it might vary from
font to font). It's much the same as a lower-case 'i' not
being a dotless i
On 31/07/2003 07:57, Ted Hopp wrote:
Peter, thanks for the example of a medial meteg from BHS. I have one text
that shows the same meteg (Lev. 21:10) to the right of the hataf patah, and
several that have no meteg at all, but none where I've been able to find a
medial or left meteg on a hataf
I was under the impression that old English manuscripts did use different
glyphs for the two sounds of th.
Jony
-Original Message-
From: Peter Kirk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 8:30 PM
To: Jony Rosenne
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Hebrew Vav Holam
Ted Hopp wrote on 07/31/2003 12:12:34 PM:
I'd propose something that would look like this in the UCD (with 'nn' to
be
determined, but it should be in the Hebrew block):
05nn;HEBREW VOWEL HOLAM MALE;Lo;0;R;compat 05D5 05B9N;
I don't understand at all why you'd want to encode a
At 05:03 PM 7/30/2003, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
But how about:
U+05C4 HEBREW MARK UPPER DOT
What the heck is *that* thing for, and how would it be distinguished
if it isn't this holam? Note that U+05C4 does not participate in
any decomposition, so that isn't an issue here.
The identity of this
At 13:12 -0400 2003-07-31, Ted Hopp wrote:
For reasons I posted earlier, I don't think encoding the dot is the right
approach.
I despair of following this thread.
I'd propose something that would look like this in the UCD (with 'nn' to be
determined, but it should be in the Hebrew block):
At 01:32 PM 7/30/2003, Michael Everson wrote:
A picture speaks a thousand words.
Here is a picture. These are the last three words of Genesis 3:14, as
rendered by v1.04 (unreleased) of the SBL Hebrew font. In the first word,
the holam is encoded before the vav, and so is positioned on the right
Jony Rosenne scripsit:
I was under the impression that old English manuscripts did use different
glyphs for the two sounds of th.
Two glyphs, thorn and eth, were both in use, but not consistently distinguished.
Modern editions often normalize both to thorn.
--
Income tax, if I may be
On Thursday, July 31, 2003 2:31 PM, Jony Rosenne wrote:
This argumentation applies equally well to th (which should be at least
two
Unicodes in English), gh (how many?), etc.
Jony
How so? Holam male has different semantics, different pronunciation, and
different typography from consonantal
At 21:57 +0200 2003-07-31, Jony Rosenne wrote:
I was under the impression that old English manuscripts did use different
glyphs for the two sounds of th.
Thorn and eth.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
On 31/07/2003 12:12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ted Hopp wrote on 07/31/2003 12:12:34 PM:
I'd propose something that would look like this in the UCD (with 'nn' to
be
determined, but it should be in the Hebrew block):
05nn;HEBREW VOWEL HOLAM MALE;Lo;0;R;compat 05D5 05B9N;
I
On 31/07/2003 12:57, Jony Rosenne wrote:
I was under the impression that old English manuscripts did use different
glyphs for the two sounds of th.
Jony
If you refer to U+00D0/U+00F0 and U+00DE/U+00FE, they are in Unicode
already. If you refer to something which is not in Unicode already,
On Thursday, July 31, 2003 3:12 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ted Hopp wrote on 07/31/2003 12:12:34 PM:
I'd propose something that would look like this in the UCD (with 'nn' to
be
determined, but it should be in the Hebrew block):
05nn;HEBREW VOWEL HOLAM MALE;Lo;0;R;compat 05D5
At 08:15 PM 7/30/2003, Ted Hopp wrote:
Oh dear. That's what I was afraid you meant. In all those cases, I believe
the correct interpretation is that the kholam is attached to the left of the
preceding consonant (resh, lamed, zayin, yod, etc.), not to the alef. That
the point appears to be over
Jony Rosenne posted:
This argumentation applies equally well to th (which should be at least two
Unicodes in English), gh (how many?), etc.
It doesn't.
There is normally no difference in appearance of the text for the _th_
in _thin_, _then_ and _fronthand_. There is normally no difference in
Ted Hopp scripsit:
So we can just shrug our shoulders and say that nobody should care and so be
it. Or we can look to a solution. The cleanest one (to my way of thinking)
is to add a character to Unicode.
I agree.
I strongly prefer adding a holam male
(base) character as opposed to adding
Jony Rosenne posted:
I was under the impression that old English manuscripts did use different
glyphs for the two sounds of th.
Not that I am aware of.
The two sounds normally indicated by _th_ in modern English were spelled
interchangeably with thorn (__) and eth (__) in Old English and
On Thursday, July 31, 2003 2:17 PM, Peter Kirk wrote:
I'm wondering: are there examples of individual texts where metegs on
hataf
vowels vary in position? For instance, in BHS, which clearly uses a
medial
meteg, does the meteg also appear at times on the right or the left of a
hataf vowel? I'm
On Thursday, July 31, 2003 3:03 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
We do not encode any HEBREW VOWELs. We encode LETTERs and combining marks.
I agree with the do not if it's descriptive of current practice. If it's
prescriptive, I'd have to ask why. (And please don't say stability policy!
:))
There are
On 31/07/2003 12:39, Ted Hopp wrote:
... We'd also need to figure out how to handle creating a holam male
at the start of a line, surrounded by spaces, etc. We'd have to give up on
the possibility of writing one holam male after another in any simple way.
If it can be made to work under those
At 16:18 -0400 2003-07-31, Ted Hopp wrote:
On Thursday, July 31, 2003 3:03 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
We do not encode any HEBREW VOWELs. We encode LETTERs and combining marks.
I agree with the do not if it's descriptive of current practice. If it's
prescriptive, I'd have to ask why. (And please
On Thursday, July 31, 2003 4:04 PM, John Cowan wrote:
Ted Hopp scripsit:
I strongly prefer adding a holam male
(base) character as opposed to adding a new combining mark.
For what reasons?
1. It corresponds to standard Hebrew grammar.
2. It would be simple and easy to explain to users,
On 31/07/2003 13:02, John Hudson wrote:
I agree. A potential 'right holam' mark should not be used for the
weak alef or for shin. There are already perfectly good mechanisms for
handling the repositioning of holam relative to the consonant
preceding these and, as Ted notes, the precise
Ted Hopp scripsit:
1. It corresponds to standard Hebrew grammar.
2. It would be simple and easy to explain to users, edit, handle in
keyboards, etc.
It would be no problem to have a holam male key that generated two
consecutive Unicode characters.
3. A combining mark for holam male would be
Ted Hopp scripsit:
So would this new right-holam character be a combining character?
Just so.
If so, its
use should be highly restricted, similar to what is done with shin dot and
sin dot. Applying a right-holam character to anything other than a bare vav
should be considered an error (no
On 31/07/2003 13:22, Ted Hopp wrote:
On Thursday, July 31, 2003 2:17 PM, Peter Kirk wrote:
I'm wondering: are there examples of individual texts where metegs on
hataf
vowels vary in position? For instance, in BHS, which clearly uses a
medial
meteg, does the meteg also
On 31/07/2003 13:58, John Hudson wrote:
Weingreen, _A practical grammar for classical Hebrew_ (2nd ed.,
Oxford, 1959, pp.6-7) records yod, vav and he sometimes being used for
common vowel prior to the development of the point system, in addition
to their usual consonantal role:
he = short a
On Thursday, July 31, 2003 4:58 PM, John Hudson wrote:
At 01:18 PM 7/31/2003, Ted Hopp wrote:
There are exactly two Hebrew vowels that are spacing glyphs: holam male
and
shuruq. Neither one is encoded in Unicode. Neither one is a Hebrew letter
(in the traditional sense) nor is either a
Ted Hopp scripsit:
There are exactly two Hebrew vowels that are spacing glyphs: holam male and
shuruq.
Is not U+FB35 HEBREW LETTER VAV WITH DAGESH a shuruq?
It seems wrong to be calling a base character a HEBREW MARK. It also seems a
little odd to be calling a Hebrew vowel a HEBREW LETTER
On 31/07/2003 14:18, John Cowan wrote:
Ted Hopp scripsit:
There are exactly two Hebrew vowels that are spacing glyphs: holam male and
shuruq.
Is not U+FB35 HEBREW LETTER VAV WITH DAGESH a shuruq?
Yes. It is also a doubled or strengthened consonant V - the same
graphics used as a
On Thursday, July 31, 2003 4:56 PM, John Cowan wrote:
Unicode allows any combining character to be attached to any base
character
whatsoever. However, putting a dagesh into a DEVANAGARI KA, or placing a
circumflex over an ARABIC MEEM, is pretty certain to cause bad rendering,
and
may screw up
On Thursday, July 31, 2003 5:06 PM, John Cowan wrote:
Ted Hopp scripsit:
1. It corresponds to standard Hebrew grammar.
2. It would be simple and easy to explain to users, edit, handle in
keyboards, etc.
It would be no problem to have a holam male key that generated two
consecutive
On Thursday, July 31, 2003 5:18 PM, John Cowan wrote:
Is not U+FB35 HEBREW LETTER VAV WITH DAGESH a shuruq?
Only graphically. Different pronunciation, different names, different
functions grammatically. Old typewriters used to have only a single key for
the lower case letter 'l' and the digit
On 31/07/2003 15:02, Ted Hopp wrote:
On Thursday, July 31, 2003 4:56 PM, John Cowan wrote:
Unicode allows any combining character to be attached to any base
character
whatsoever. However, putting a dagesh into a DEVANAGARI KA, or placing a
circumflex over an ARABIC MEEM, is pretty
On Thursday, July 31, 2003 6:32 PM, Peter Kirk wrote:
We mustn't forget that unusual combinations are sometimes meaningful.
For example, there are languages which use Hebrew base characters with
Arabic vowel points. We mustn't make these illegal sequences in Unicode
without very good reason.
Ted,
Is not U+FB35 HEBREW LETTER VAV WITH DAGESH a shuruq?
Only graphically. Different pronunciation, different names, different
functions grammatically. Old typewriters used to have only a single key
for
the lower case letter 'l' and the digit '1'. (Change your font if you
can't
see the
Ted,
Weingreen is right, but vowel-letters isn't standard terminology that I
know of.
I would have thought it was standard enough, but then I studied from
Weingreen. However, it is basically just a convenient English equivalent for
beginning students to mater lectionis ('Mother of reading'
Ted Hopp scripsit:
On Thursday, July 31, 2003 5:18 PM, John Cowan wrote:
Is not U+FB35 HEBREW LETTER VAV WITH DAGESH a shuruq?
Only graphically. Different pronunciation, different names, different
functions grammatically. Old typewriters used to have only a single key for
the lower case
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
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 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
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
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
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 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 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
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 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.
At 22:21 +0200 2003-07-29, Jony Rosenne wrote:
With Hebrew, it is not accepted that it is a different Vav - letters
used as matres lectionis are not distinct from the same letters used
otherwise. Neither is it accepted that this is a different Holam.
The only thing established is that this
Otherwise we
would write Karljfrontedu/frontedrgen or the like.
Actually, that would have been preferable to the way some of my official id
actually appears :(
K
Jony Rosenne wrote on 07/29/2003 03:21:08 PM:
The only thing established is that this artifact has been used in
several manuscripts, one of many similar artifacts, to aid the
understanding of the text. And the correct vehicle to convey such
artifacts is markup.
You say this as if it's
At 15:41 -0500 2003-07-29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jony Rosenne wrote on 07/29/2003 03:21:08 PM:
The only thing established is that this artifact has been used in
several manuscripts, one of many similar artifacts, to aid the
understanding of the text. And the correct vehicle to convey such
On 29/07/2003 12:38, Michael Everson wrote:
At 22:21 +0200 2003-07-29, Jony Rosenne wrote:
With Hebrew, it is not accepted that it is a different Vav - letters
used as matres lectionis are not distinct from the same letters used
otherwise. Neither is it accepted that this is a different Holam.
On 29/07/2003 13:03, Karljrgen Feuerherm wrote:
Otherwise we
would write Karljfrontedu/frontedrgen or the like.
Actually, that would have been preferable to the way some of my official id
actually appears :(
K
And probably to what some software does with it. One of your recent
Peter Kirk wrote:
On 29/07/2003 13:03, Karljrgen Feuerherm wrote:
Otherwise we
would write Karljfrontedu/frontedrgen or the like.
Actually, that would have been preferable to the way some of my official
id
actually appears :(
And probably to what some software does with it. One
On 29/07/2003 16:37, Karljrgen Feuerherm wrote:
Peter Kirk wrote:
And probably to what some software does with it. One of your recent
messages to this list came with the following line in its source:
From: =?8859_1?B?S2FybGr8cmdlbg==?= Feuerherm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and Mozilla renders that
78 matches
Mail list logo
