On 30/07/2003 20:15, Ted Hopp wrote:Thanks for the clarification. I entirely agree. The problem is that, as I have realised even more clearly now that I have looked at the facsimile page from L, exactly the same originally applied to holam with vav, and the compound form holam male is logically equivalent to alef with holam above the right i.e. the holam doesn't really belong to the base character.On Wednesday, July 30, 2003 7:09 PM, Peter Kirk wrote: I am now thinking that we need to treat holam as something like the double diacritics 035D - 0362, which are positioned over two base characters and are, if I remember right, encoded between the two base characters. The main difference with holam is that it doesn't appear over both base characters at the same time; rather, it is a rendering choice whether to position it above the left of the first charater, above the right of the second character, or in the middle. In BHS this occurs about 78 times. One example is in Leviticus 21:10:Consonants without vowels may be less common, but alef in particular occurs quite often that way. (The name Issachar is spelled with a vowel-less shin.) Certain words just have irregular spelling. Also, if I may ask, where is an example of a medial meteg in a khataf vowel? Ted 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/ -- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/ |
<<inline: Lev 21-10 centre meteg.jpg>>

