Jony Rosenne wrote on 06/26/2003 06:26:02 AM: > It may look, silly, but it is correct. What you see are letters according to > the writing tradition, which does not include a Yod, and vowels according to > the reading tradition which does.
I understand that. My point was, you were talking about phonology, but in terms of the text, it was not correct: there *are* multiple vowels on a single consonant. > There are in the Bible other, more extreme > cases. I'd be interested on whatever info you can provide in that regard. > I don't think we need any new characters, ZERO WIDTH SPACE would do and it > requires no new semantics. No, that's a terrible solution: a space creates unwanted word boundaries. > Moreover, everybody who knows his Hebrew Bible > knows the Yod is there although it isn't written. But the point is, how to people encode the text? The yod is not there in the text. How does a publisher encode text in the typesetting process? How do researchsers encode the text they want to analyze? Saying, "everybody knows there's a yod there" doesn't provide a solution, particular given that the researchers know in point of fact that the consonantal text explicitly does not include a yod. > The Meteg is a completely different issue. There is a small number of places > were the Meteg is placed differently. Since it does not behave the same as > the regular Meteg, and is thus visually distinguishable, it should be > possible to add a character, as long as it is clearly named. That is a potential solution, thought it would have to be *two* additional metegs. - Peter --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Constable Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA Tel: +1 972 708 7485
