Peter Kirk scripsit: > Understood. But that is really what we have in the text. In the second > word we have consonant vav with vowel holam. In the first word we really > do have consonant dalet with vowel holam, and then a silent vav which > originated as a placeholder for a long vowel in an otherwise unvowelled > text. But the holam which really belongs with the dalet has become > shifted on to the right side of the silent vav as an orthographic > convention,
So let me see if I understand this. In the second case we have a glyph consisting of a vav with an ordinary (left side) holam. In the second case, we have a bare dalet glyph followed by a vav with a right-side holam. That sounds to me like an argument for encoding a second holam character, strictly for right-side uses. > just as it is shifted on to a following silent alef - > something which no one here seems to have questioned, or suggested to be > too complex to implement, although the algorithm is identical. Is this case also a right-side holam? -- If you have ever wondered if you are in hell, John Cowan it has been said, then you are on a well-traveled http://www.ccil.org/~cowan road of spiritual inquiry. If you are absolutely http://www.reutershealth.com sure you are in hell, however, then you must be [EMAIL PROTECTED] on the Cross Bronx Expressway. --Alan Feur, NYTimes, 2002-09-20
