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 http://www.ccil.org/~cowan email@example.com 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