Peter,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 at http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/wsrp/educational_site/biblical_manuscripts/Leningradf.40b.shtml. The resolution even of the enlarged image is barely sufficient to tell. But, looking at the centred words in the second line of text, 'eyley mo'av yo'xazemo ra`ad from Exodus 15:15, there are clearly two holams each positioned between mem and vav, so definitely to the right side of the vav, where modern spelling is with holam male. There are many more examples on this page.
I have not seen an answer to my question: Is the distinction from the Masora
or later.
The holam before weak alef in yo'xazemo is also positioned above the gap between the letters, but in bigdol in the centred section of the fourth line of text it is shifted to the left, although this is not normal in modern typography.
The second word on the first line of text and the second word on the third line, both yoshvey from 15:14,15, show that holam was not merged with shin dot.
Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a case of vav followed by holam on this one page. But I think I can safely say that it would not have been written like the holam plus vav in mo'av, with the holam definitely to the right of the right edge of the vav. I am sure it would be positioned above and to the right of yod just like the holam in yo'xazemo and yoshvey above and to the left of yod.
So the general picture I get here is of a clear distinction between holam pronounced before or after a base letter, but that the rules are less fixed than in modern typography. If holam is to be pronounced between base letters A and B, it may be positioned between A and B, above the left of A, or above the right of B, in fairly free variation. But if it is to be pronounced after B, its position is distinct, above the left of B or further left. I would suggest that holam male as a distinct character is a later innovation, that at this stage it was written simply as a regularly positioned holam, roughly above the base character boundary, followed by a vav.
Yes, it does predate computers. I apologise for any suggestion that it doesn't. It may be common use now, though far from universal, but the goal of Unicode is to encode Hebrew (and other languages) from all periods, and not just current common practice.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. This
common use somewhat predates computers, and the disparaging remark is out of
order.
Jony
-- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
