> At 00:22 24/10/1999 -0700, Otfried Cheong wrote:
> >Long-s versus ordinary s is exactly the same distinction as KAF versus
> >FINAL KAF, TSADI versus FINAL TSADI, etc. in Hebrew, yet those do not
> >have a compatibility decomposition. Why?
> 1. Compatibility with existing standards, such as 8859-8.
> 2. Compatibility with a huge installed base.
> 3. It is not exactly the same, since in Hebrew there are many exceptions to
> the rule and it is quite complicated or even not possible to decide
> algorithmically which letter to use.
I don't see how that differs from the distinction between round-s and
long-s in German. You would have to do a pretty clever morphological
analysis to decide algorithmically.
Is there a minimal pair in Hebrew that shows that KAF/FINAL KAF are
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:54 EDT