Re: 5 Hebrew Consonances Shaping

From: John Cowan (
Date: Thu Jun 03 1999 - 13:43:05 EDT

Arno Schmitt wrote:

> 1.) If this is true for feh/peh, why should the other four final
> shape have separate codepoints?

I have no evidence on their distribution, but evidence of absence
is not absence of evidence.

> 2.) There are two inaccuracies in "final PEH normally denotes [f]"
> a) not normally, but always

Since the orthography of Hebrew (like that of English) is established
by convention only, with no specific authority, I hesitate to say
"always" about any such point.

> b) therefore it makes no sense to talk of "final PEH", it
> should be "final FEH"

I use the term PEH here as an ASCII equivalent of the basic letter,
nominal or final, with or without dagesh. (So does my source.)

> a+-b) there are no final peh and caf

In your sense of the term you are correct. However, common
convention and the Unicode Standard both speak of "final pe(h)."

John Cowan
	You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
	You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
		Clear all so!  'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:46 EDT