On 3/25/2015 10:14 PM, Jonathan Rosenne wrote:
“It's still a HEH, it just looks like another letter, right?” Wrong.
It’s a QOF. Just like the p in receipt is a p. Unicode should not
concern itself with the reasons words are spelt the way they are spelt.
Identifying deliberate misspellings as such is a matter of markup. In
other citations, one would use human readable mark-up (that is add
"[sic]"), but in other contexts it might be useful to make a term
searchable by providing identifying markup; what the protocol for that
would be, I don't know, but character encoding, as Jony suggests, is
surely the wrong level for dealing with issues of orthography.
A./
Best Regards,
Jonathan Rosenne
*From:*Unicode [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of
*Mark E. Shoulson
*Sent:* Thursday, March 26, 2015 4:31 AM
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Avoidance variants
So, not much in the way of discussion regarding the TETRAGRAMMATON
issue I raised the other week. OK; someone'll eventually get to it I
guess.
Another thing I was thinking about, while toying with Hebrew fonts.
Often, letters are substituted in _nomina sacra_ in order to avoid
writing a holy name, much as the various symbols for the
tetragrammaton are used. And indeed, sometimes they're used in that
name too, as I mentioned, usages like ידודor ידוהand so on. There's
an example in the paper that shows אלדיםinstead of אלהים. Much more
common today would be אלקיםand in fact people frequently even
pronounce it that way (when it refers to big-G God, in non-sacred
contexts. But for little-g gods, the same word is pronounced without
the avoidance, because it isn't holy. It's weird.)
I wonder if it makes sense maybe to encode not a codepoint, but a
variant sequence(s) to represent this sort of "defaced" or "altered"
letter HEH. It's still a HEH, it just looks like another letter,
right? (QOF or DALET or occasionally HET) That would keep some
consistency to the spelling. On the other hand, the spelling with a
QOF is already well entrenched in texts all over the internet. But
maybe it isn't right. And what about the use of ה׳or ד׳for the
tetragrammaton? Are they both HEHs, one "altered", or is one really a
DALET? Any thoughts?
(and seriously, what to do about all those tetragrammaton symbols?)
~mark
_______________________________________________
Unicode mailing list
[email protected]
http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
_______________________________________________
Unicode mailing list
[email protected]
http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
