Fine, so we need a separate Unicode for each usage of gh in English. Jony
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ted Hopp > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 8:20 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: SPAM: Re: Back to Hebrew -holem-waw vs waw-holem > > > Okay -- there are two Hebrew vowels that are not encoded in > Unicode. Their > (transliterated) Hebrew names are (caps indicate syllable > accent): khoLAM maLE and shuRUQ. The kholam male LOOKS like a > "vav with holam" [05D5.05B9] or the alphabetic presentation > form FB4B (HEBREW LETTER VAV WITH HOLAM) and the shuruq LOOKS > like a vav with dagesh [05D5.05BC] or the alphabetic > presentation form FB35 (HEBREW LETTER VAV WITH DAGESH). (For > the record, the Unicode HEBREW POINT HOLAM [05B9] is usually > called khoLAM khaSER in > Hebrew.) > > 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. In unpointed Hebrew text, > the vav glyph is used to represent these vowels but, outside > of ketiv male, the use is often optional (although sometimes > strictly determined by tradition). (For instance, the name > Aharon appears in Hebrew bible scrolls sometimes with a vav > glyph after the resh and sometimes without. It would be nice > if I could search for all occurrences of the name by doing a > "match consonants only" search instead of having to resort to > regular expressions.) In some texts (e.g., many of the books > published by ArtScroll), the kholam male and vav with kholam > are rendered differently--the former with the dot centered > above the vav and latter with the dot somewhat more to the > left. I have not seen a text that renders a shuruq > differently than a vav with dagesh. (However, a dagesh has > nothing to do with a shuruq, despite the nice little note in > the Unicode code chart. A consonantal vav with a dagesh is > NOT a shuruq.) > > Furthermore, context cannot be used to distinguish vav with > kholam vs. kholam male. As I posted once before, at least one > major dictionary uses a single consonant with both a patah > and a kholam male (NOT a consonantal vav with kholam) to > transliterate foreign words. Hebrew characters are used for > much more than spelling Hebrew words. > > These different uses for the same (or approximately same) > glyphs cannot, as far as I know, be distinguished in Unicode. > (Putting a HEBREW POINT HOLAM in front of a HEBREW LETTER VAV > would just associate the kholam with the preceding letter.) > It might be nice if there were different code points for > them. Alphabetic presentation forms don't quite do the trick. > 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). Of course, I could have assumed that it was intended > for (consonantal) vav with kholam. However, that sequence > automatically renders with the dot more to the left, so (for > us) a presentation form was unnecessary in that case. Will > all font designers who include Hebrew alphabetic presentation > forms conform to my assumptions? Can anyone authoritatively > say what was intended? I don't think so. This is a problem. > > Other typographic curiosities: The HEBREW POINT QAMATS [05B8] > is used for two Hebrew vowels: qamats katan (pronounced in > Israeli Hebrew like the 'o' in American English 'corn', as is > kholam male) and qamats gadol (pronounced like 'a' in > American English 'father', as is patah when not under a final > HE, HET, or AYIN). Dictionaries usually list the two as > separate vowels but render them identically. HOWEVER, some > text publishers now distinguish these two vowels > typographically (e.g., Revised Siddur Sim Shalom published by > the Rabbinical Assembly). Perhaps there should be an > alphabetic presentation form for qamats katan. > > The same comment goes for HEBREW POINT SHEVA [05B0]: in > pronunciation it comes in two flavors, called sheva na > ("moving sheva" -- pronounced something like the vowel segol) > and sheva nakh ("resting sheva" -- silent). Again, most > dictionaries list these as separate vowels but render them > identically, while some publishers now distinguish them > typographically (e.g., Tikkun Korim Simanim, published by > Feldheim). Again, should there be an alphabetic presentation > form for sheva na? > > With that, I'll leave off. > > Ted (not content with a focussed discussion) > > 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/ > > > > >
