Dear Mr Cowan,
since Mr. Rosenne never answers my questions, never gives an
argument (other than "this has been discussed") and contradicts
himself all the time, I take the liberty to put your argument into
perspective.
You wrote:
> The trouble is that there's evidence that the Hebrew final forms
> aren't used merely contextually. Robert Hetzron's article on
> Hebrew in _The World's Major Languages_ (Comrie, ed.; ISBN
> 0-19-630632-9 hbk, 0-19-506511-5 pbk) states that non-final
> PEH is often used to indicate final [p] in non-native words, as
> final PEH normally denotes [f].
1.) If this is true for feh/peh, why should the other four final
shape have separate codepoints?
2.) There are two inaccuracies in "final PEH normally denotes [f]"
a) not normally, but always
b) therefore it makes no sense to talk of "final PEH", it
should be "final FEH"
3.) In PEH/FEH and CAF/CHAF two phenomena get mixed up:
dagesh and final shape.
a) The dagesh turns feh and chaf into peh and caf respectively.
b) No letter takes a dagesh, when it stands at the end of a
syllable.
a+-b) there are no final peh and caf
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:46 EDT