Joan Wardell responded to:I understood that there were serious problems with John Hudson's proposal because ZWNJ as a non-combining character is not suitable for inhibiting ligation of a pair of combining characters. If this is true, we have the choice of using some combining character e.g. CGJ either to inhibit or to indicate ligation, or of defining three new characters for the three combinations of meteg in the middle of a hataf vowel.
That's what I'm saying. And I have no particular problem with the CGJ
suggestion, but
it doesn't go far enough. I don't think we can use it to fix meteg, a mark
which occurs in
three different positions around a low vowel, yet is canonically ordered
before the shin/sin
dots! Will we put one CGJ on the right to indicate a right meteg and one on
the left to indicate
a left meteg?
No. I have no objection to encoding one more meteg character,
as has been proposed, if it is reliably distinguished from
the existing meteg. John Hudson has already argued that
that is enough to enable dealing with the rest of the
rendering distinctions contextually.
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 it in exactly the same way for sequences of vowels and meteg.
-- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
