The most reasonable way to achieve visible effects, as opposed to difference in text, is by markup.
Jony > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 10:31 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Back to Hebrew, was OT:darn'd fools > > > > I would really rather know whether there's any fundamental > Masoretic rationale for encoding holem>waw any differently > from waw-holem.... > > I think the question was asked earlier whether the holem > comes before or after the waw in holem-waw. I have been told > that there was no visible difference between holem-waw and > waw followed by holem in the original texts. However, after > checking Emanuel Tov's plate of the Leningrad codex (p.392), > it is clear to me that holem is clearly on the right of the > waw, yet not over the preceding consonant. This lends > credence to those of us who are BHS fans and would like to > see a visible difference between holem-waw and waw-holem. The > most reasonable means of achieving this is to encode the > holem before the waw when it is holem-waw. The font designers > can choose how they render this and the users can pick their > preference by picking the font. Or eventually by setting a > user feature, if this is ever incorporated into major software. > > Let's not go backwards by unencoding holem-waw. > > Joan Wardell > SIL > > > > > >
