It isn't so simple, because the statement that they have different
typography isn't true, in the sense that it isn't the whole truth. In common
use they have the same typography, in rare use they have different
typography, and most users do not know about the difference.
Whatever solution is agree
This supports the opinion that the placement of the Meteg is not material,
but an esthetic artifact of the scribe.
Jony
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Kirk
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 8:18 PM
> To: Ted Hopp
> Cc: [EMAIL P
Ted Hopp scripsit:
> On Thursday, July 31, 2003 5:18 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> > Is not U+FB35 HEBREW LETTER VAV WITH DAGESH a shuruq?
>
> Only graphically. Different pronunciation, different names, different
> functions grammatically. Old typewriters used to have only a single key for
> the lower
Ted,
> Weingreen is right, but "vowel-letters" isn't standard terminology that I
> know of.
I would have thought it was standard enough, but then I studied from
Weingreen. However, it is basically just a convenient English equivalent for
beginning students to mater lectionis ('Mother of reading'
Darling Unicadetti...
By popular demand, considering the deluge of Biblical
Hebrew issues cropping up recently on the Unicode list,
I have created a new [EMAIL PROTECTED] list specifically
for this technical discussion and writing of proposals.
Please direct all Hebrew-related technical traffic t
Ted,
> > Is not U+FB35 HEBREW LETTER VAV WITH DAGESH a shuruq?
>
> Only graphically. Different pronunciation, different names, different
> functions grammatically. Old typewriters used to have only a single key
for
> the lower case letter 'l' and the digit '1'. (Change your font if you
can't
> see
On 31/07/2003 16:13, Kent Karlsson wrote:
Peter Kirkwrote:
Kent Karlsson wrote:
No, I think ZWJ may be exactly the way to go here.
for making a 'ligature'
(of sorts, in a technical sence) where the holam is displayed on the
alef or vav. Without the ZWJ, the holam would be displayed on
Peter Kirkwrote:
> Kent Karlsson wrote:
>
> >No, I think ZWJ may be exactly the way to go here.
> >
> > for making a 'ligature'
> >(of sorts, in a technical sence) where the holam is displayed on the
> >alef or vav. Without the ZWJ, the holam would be displayed on the
> > to which it logically
On Thursday, July 31, 2003 6:32 PM, Peter Kirk wrote:
> We mustn't forget that unusual combinations are sometimes meaningful.
> For example, there are languages which use Hebrew base characters with
> Arabic vowel points. We mustn't make these illegal sequences in Unicode
> without very good reason
On 31/07/2003 15:02, Ted Hopp wrote:
On Thursday, July 31, 2003 4:56 PM, John Cowan wrote:
Unicode allows any combining character to be attached to any base
character
whatsoever. However, putting a dagesh into a DEVANAGARI KA, or placing a
circumflex over an ARABIC MEEM, is pretty cert
I have written a draft document "Issues in the Representation of Pointed
Hebrew in Unicode", which describes the issues which have been discussed
on this list and elsewhere in the last month or so, and some which
haven't. This includes examples of unusual forms scanned from BHS. I
would be grat
On Thursday, July 31, 2003 5:18 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> Is not U+FB35 HEBREW LETTER VAV WITH DAGESH a shuruq?
Only graphically. Different pronunciation, different names, different
functions grammatically. Old typewriters used to have only a single key for
the lower case letter 'l' and the digit '1
On Thursday, July 31, 2003 5:06 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> Ted Hopp scripsit:
> > 1. It corresponds to standard Hebrew grammar.
> > 2. It would be simple and easy to explain to users, edit, handle in
> > keyboards, etc.
>
> It would be no problem to have a "holam male" key that generated two
> consec
On Thursday, July 31, 2003 4:56 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> Unicode allows any combining character to be attached to any base
character
> whatsoever. However, putting a dagesh into a DEVANAGARI KA, or placing a
> circumflex over an ARABIC MEEM, is pretty certain to cause bad rendering,
and
> may screw
On 31/07/2003 14:18, John Cowan wrote:
Ted Hopp scripsit:
There are exactly two Hebrew vowels that are spacing glyphs: holam male and
shuruq.
Is not U+FB35 HEBREW LETTER VAV WITH DAGESH a shuruq?
Yes. It is also a doubled or strengthened consonant V - the same
graphics used as a vowe
Ted Hopp scripsit:
> There are exactly two Hebrew vowels that are spacing glyphs: holam male and
> shuruq.
Is not U+FB35 HEBREW LETTER VAV WITH DAGESH a shuruq?
> It seems wrong to be calling a base character a HEBREW MARK. It also seems a
> little odd to be calling a Hebrew vowel a HEBREW LETT
On Thursday, July 31, 2003 4:58 PM, John Hudson wrote:
> At 01:18 PM 7/31/2003, Ted Hopp wrote:
>
> >There are exactly two Hebrew vowels that are spacing glyphs: holam male
and
> >shuruq. Neither one is encoded in Unicode. Neither one is a Hebrew letter
> >(in the traditional sense) nor is either a
On 31/07/2003 13:58, John Hudson wrote:
Weingreen, _A practical grammar for classical Hebrew_ (2nd ed.,
Oxford, 1959, pp.6-7) records yod, vav and he sometimes being used for
common vowel prior to the development of the point system, in addition
to their usual consonantal role:
he = short a
yo
On 31/07/2003 13:22, Ted Hopp wrote:
On Thursday, July 31, 2003 2:17 PM, Peter Kirk wrote:
I'm wondering: are there examples of individual texts where metegs on
hataf
vowels vary in position? For instance, in BHS, which clearly uses a
medial
meteg, does the meteg also appear
Ted Hopp scripsit:
> So would this new right-holam character be a combining character?
Just so.
> If so, its
> use should be highly restricted, similar to what is done with shin dot and
> sin dot. Applying a right-holam character to anything other than a bare vav
> should be considered an error
Ted Hopp scripsit:
> 1. It corresponds to standard Hebrew grammar.
> 2. It would be simple and easy to explain to users, edit, handle in
> keyboards, etc.
It would be no problem to have a "holam male" key that generated two
consecutive Unicode characters.
> 3. A combining mark for holam male wou
On 31/07/2003 13:02, John Hudson wrote:
I agree. A potential 'right holam' mark should not be used for the
weak alef or for shin. There are already perfectly good mechanisms for
handling the repositioning of holam relative to the consonant
preceding these and, as Ted notes, the precise position
At 01:18 PM 7/31/2003, Ted Hopp wrote:
There are exactly two Hebrew vowels that are spacing glyphs: holam male and
shuruq. Neither one is encoded in Unicode. Neither one is a Hebrew letter
(in the traditional sense) nor is either a combining mark. I thought some
new nomenclature was in order. Sinc
On Thursday, July 31, 2003 4:04 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> Ted Hopp scripsit:
> > I strongly prefer adding a holam male
> > (base) character as opposed to adding a new combining mark.
>
> For what reasons?
1. It corresponds to standard Hebrew grammar.
2. It would be simple and easy to explain to user
At 16:18 -0400 2003-07-31, Ted Hopp wrote:
On Thursday, July 31, 2003 3:03 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
We do not encode any HEBREW VOWELs. We encode LETTERs and combining marks.
I agree with the "do not" if it's descriptive of current practice. If it's
prescriptive, I'd have to ask why. (And please
On 31/07/2003 12:39, Ted Hopp wrote:
... We'd also need to figure out how to handle creating a holam male
at the start of a line, surrounded by spaces, etc. We'd have to give up on
the possibility of writing one holam male after another in any simple way.
If it can be made to work under those cond
On Thursday, July 31, 2003 3:03 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
> We do not encode any HEBREW VOWELs. We encode LETTERs and combining marks.
I agree with the "do not" if it's descriptive of current practice. If it's
prescriptive, I'd have to ask why. (And please don't say "stability policy"!
:))
There
On Thursday, July 31, 2003 2:17 PM, Peter Kirk wrote:
> >I'm wondering: are there examples of individual texts where metegs on
hataf
> >vowels vary in position? For instance, in BHS, which clearly uses a
medial
> >meteg, does the meteg also appear at times on the right or the left of a
> >hataf vow
Jony Rosenne posted:
I was under the impression that old English manuscripts did use different
glyphs for the two sounds of th.
Not that I am aware of.
The two sounds normally indicated by _th_ in modern English were spelled
interchangeably with thorn (_þ_) and eth (_ð_) in Old English and
of
Ted Hopp scripsit:
> So we can just shrug our shoulders and say that nobody should care and so be
> it. Or we can look to a solution. The cleanest one (to my way of thinking)
> is to add a character to Unicode.
I agree.
> I strongly prefer adding a holam male
> (base) character as opposed to add
TH: >I'm wondering: are there examples of individual texts where metegs on
hataf
vowels vary in position? For instance, in BHS, which clearly uses a medial
meteg, does the meteg also appear at times on the right or the left of a
hataf vowel?
There are examples of all 3 placements for meteg, as use
Jony Rosenne posted:
This argumentation applies equally well to th (which should be at least two
Unicodes in English), gh (how many?), etc.
It doesn't.
There is normally no difference in appearance of the text for the _th_
in _thin_, _then_ and _fronthand_. There is normally no difference in
a
At 08:15 PM 7/30/2003, Ted Hopp wrote:
Oh dear. That's what I was afraid you meant. In all those cases, I believe
the correct interpretation is that the kholam is attached to the left of the
preceding consonant (resh, lamed, zayin, yod, etc.), not to the alef. That
the point appears to be over the
On Thursday, July 31, 2003 3:12 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ted Hopp wrote on 07/31/2003 12:12:34 PM:
>
> > I'd propose something that would look like this in the UCD (with 'nn' to
> be
> > determined, but it should be in the Hebrew block):
> >
> > 05nn;HEBREW VOWEL HOLAM MALE;Lo;0;R; 05D5 05B9;
On 31/07/2003 12:57, Jony Rosenne wrote:
I was under the impression that old English manuscripts did use different
glyphs for the two sounds of th.
Jony
If you refer to U+00D0/U+00F0 and U+00DE/U+00FE, they are in Unicode
already. If you refer to something which is not in Unicode already,
On Thursday, July 31, 2003 2:31 PM, Jony Rosenne wrote:
> This argumentation applies equally well to th (which should be at least
two
> Unicodes in English), gh (how many?), etc.
>
> Jony
How so? Holam male has different semantics, different pronunciation, and
different typography from consonantal
At 21:57 +0200 2003-07-31, Jony Rosenne wrote:
I was under the impression that old English manuscripts did use different
glyphs for the two sounds of th.
Thorn and eth.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
On 31/07/2003 12:12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ted Hopp wrote on 07/31/2003 12:12:34 PM:
I'd propose something that would look like this in the UCD (with 'nn' to
be
determined, but it should be in the Hebrew block):
05nn;HEBREW VOWEL HOLAM MALE;Lo;0;R; 05D5 05B9N;
I don't
Jony Rosenne scripsit:
> I was under the impression that old English manuscripts did use different
> glyphs for the two sounds of th.
Two glyphs, thorn and eth, were both in use, but not consistently distinguished.
Modern editions often normalize both to thorn.
--
Income tax, if I may be pardo
At 01:32 PM 7/30/2003, Michael Everson wrote:
A picture speaks a thousand words.
Here is a picture. These are the last three words of Genesis 3:14, as
rendered by v1.04 (unreleased) of the SBL Hebrew font. In the first word,
the holam is encoded before the vav, and so is positioned on the right
At 13:12 -0400 2003-07-31, Ted Hopp wrote:
For reasons I posted earlier, I don't think encoding the dot is the right
approach.
I despair of following this thread.
I'd propose something that would look like this in the UCD (with 'nn' to be
determined, but it should be in the Hebrew block):
05nn;HE
At 05:03 PM 7/30/2003, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
But how about:
U+05C4 HEBREW MARK UPPER DOT
What the heck is *that* thing for, and how would it be distinguished
if it isn't this holam? Note that U+05C4 does not participate in
any decomposition, so that isn't an issue here.
The identity of this ma
Ted Hopp wrote on 07/31/2003 12:12:34 PM:
> I'd propose something that would look like this in the UCD (with 'nn' to
be
> determined, but it should be in the Hebrew block):
>
> 05nn;HEBREW VOWEL HOLAM MALE;Lo;0;R; 05D5 05B9N;
I don't understand at all why you'd want to encode a
compatibi
I was under the impression that old English manuscripts did use different
glyphs for the two sounds of th.
Jony
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Kirk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 8:30 PM
> To: Jony Rosenne
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Hebrew Vav
On 31/07/2003 11:31, Jony Rosenne wrote:
This argumentation applies equally well to th (which should be at least two
Unicodes in English), gh (how many?), etc.
Jony
-Original Message-
From: Ted Hopp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 4:58 PM
To: Peter Kirk
Cc: Jon
On 31/07/2003 07:57, Ted Hopp wrote:
Peter, thanks for the example of a medial meteg from BHS. I have one text
that shows the same meteg (Lev. 21:10) to the right of the hataf patah, and
several that have no meteg at all, but none where I've been able to find a
medial or left meteg on a hataf vowe
This argumentation applies equally well to th (which should be at least two
Unicodes in English), gh (how many?), etc.
Jony
> -Original Message-
> From: Ted Hopp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 4:58 PM
> To: Peter Kirk
> Cc: Jony Rosenne; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sub
On Thursday, July 31, 2003 11:46 AM, Jim Allan wrote:
> Peter Kirk posted:
>
> > ... if we are to encode separately the dot in holam male, what would
> > you call that dot? We can't call it holam male because that is the name
> > of the combined vav and holam.
>
> Would HEBREW POINT HOLAM MALE INDI
Peter Kirk posted:
... if we are to encode separately the dot in holam male, what would
you call that dot? We can't call it holam male because that is the name
of the combined vav and holam.
Would HEBREW POINT HOLAM MALE INDICATOR do?
Jim Allan
Peter, thanks for the example of a medial meteg from BHS. I have one text
that shows the same meteg (Lev. 21:10) to the right of the hataf patah, and
several that have no meteg at all, but none where I've been able to find a
medial or left meteg on a hataf vowel.
I'm wondering: are there examples
On Thursday, July 31, 2003 10:00 AM, Peter Kirk wrote:
> Ted, if we are to encode separately the dot in holam male, what would
> you call that dot? We can't call it holam male because that is the name
> of the combined vav and holam. But if that causes a difficulty, that
> shows what the problem is
On 31/07/2003 06:26, Ted Hopp wrote:
On Thursday, July 31, 2003 12:53 AM, Jony Rosenne wrote:
I have not seen an answer to my question: Is the distinction from the
Masora or later.
I don't know if there is a definite statement from the Masorites
specifically about the issue, but this page
On 31/07/2003 03:55, Kent Karlsson wrote:
No, I think ZWJ may be exactly the way to go here.
for making a 'ligature'
(of sorts, in a technical sence) where the holam is displayed on the
alef or vav. Without the ZWJ, the holam would be displayed on the
to which it logically belongs. (alef and v
On 30/07/2003 20:15, Ted Hopp wrote:
On Wednesday, July 30, 2003 7:09 PM, Peter Kirk wrote:
On 30/07/2003 15:28, Ted Hopp wrote:
Where is a kholam attached to the right of an alef?
Well, for a start in every occurrence of ro'sh "head", lo' "not", zo
On Thursday, July 31, 2003 12:53 AM, Jony Rosenne wrote:
> I have not seen an answer to my question: Is the distinction from the
> Masora or later.
I don't know if there is a definite statement from the Masorites
specifically about the issue, but this page from the Leningrad codex is all
the state
The suggestion is certainly practical. Unfortunately acquiring new
vocabulary may involve a fair amount of time expenditure on the part of some
of us who regularly use alternate (known) terminology. I would happily
comply if I could but cannot afford to at the moment. Sorry.
K
- Original Messa
Bertrand Laidain scripsit:
> No sorry, you're right about YIVO, I made a confusion with "beys" and
> "veys". But the second part of the sentence is still valid...
It is kind of strange that YIVO decided to use both pe-dagesh and pe-rafe,
but never plain pe ("jam yesterday and jam tomorrow", etc.
Peter Kirk wrote:
> This gets us
> back into the complex algorithm I looked at before, which can
> almost but
> not quite disambiguate these cases but may need more processing power
> than can be put into a font. Then there is Ted's point that
> we shouldn't
> assume that all words which an
On 30/07/2003 21:53, Jony Rosenne wrote:
Peter,
I have not seen an answer to my question: Is the distinction from the Masora
or later.
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
No sorry, you're right about YIVO, I made a confusion with "beys" and
"veys". But the second part of the sentence is still valid...
Bertrand
Le jeudi, 31 jul 2003, à 03:30 Europe/Paris, John Cowan a écrit :
Bertrand Laidain scripsit:
Not exactly, in standard YIVO orthography, Yiddish p is pe (wi
For the benefit of archiving and searching, may I suggest that we all use
the Unicode names of the characters we are discussing.
I.e.: Vav, rather than waw, Holam, rather than holem or kholam.
Jony
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R
61 matches
Mail list logo
