>Here are my suggestions for Really Stoopid but unquestionably conformant, needs-no-new-characters-can-be >made-to-work-today, alternatives: > >Medial meteg: < CGJ, hataf patah, CGJ, meteg > >or >Medial meteg: <hataf patah, CGJ, CGJ, meteg >
I should probably know better than to jump into this discussion, especially since I really don't know anything about Biblical Hebrew, but I could have sworn that this had been discussed here before. I thought what I remembered people saying was that the medial meteg was the high-runner case and the versions with the meteg on either side were the exceptions. If that were true, you'd get Medial meteg: < hataf patah, meteg > Left meteg: < hataf patah, CGJ, meteg > Right meteg: < meteg, CGJ, hataf patah > Simple enough, if it makes any sense linguistically. The discussion here seems to be suggesting that the left meteg is the high-runner case. If this is the case, my own uninformed opinion would be that you'd probably have to encode a new character. Using CGJ to encode the distinction in either of the ways shown above seems to be stretching the use of CGJ a little too far, and sticking ZWJ in the middle of a combining character sequence seems to open the door to bad things. You could, I guess, encode left meteg as <hataf patah, meteg> and medial meteg as <hataf patah, CGJ, meteg>, but this doesn't seem very intuitive. I'll shut up now... --Rich Gillam Language Analysis Systems, Inc.
