Jonathan Rosenne schrieb:
>
> Arno,
>
> So what?
>
> your arguments are correct but are barely relevant and misleading.
>
> "Almost no exceptions" is logically equivalent to "there are exceptions",
> as opposed to "there are no exceptions". The actual percentage is not
> important.
>
> Any list would be open ended - new words are constantly being added. As you
> say, any foreign word ending with a hard Pe or Kaf is a candidate, and any
> abbreviation ending with a final letter.
Not so, foreign words with /k/ at the end are written with kuf;
only Arabic words that share a common root with Hebrew (muBaRaK
blessed in Arabic, like Hebrew meVuraCH, BRaCHa, leVaReCH) take
kaf.
> By the same logic, there is no need for distinct upper and lower case
> letters in English. The rules are simple and the exceptions are rare.
>
Yes, Jony, but my comparison is with Arabic. In Arabic there
exceptions, that is one of the reasons for having ZWJ and ZWNJ in
Unicode.
Because the percentage of exceptions is small, it is more
economical to input and store (although this can be handled and
argued separately!) just KAF and let the rendering device take
care of the form - in Hebrew just like in Arabic.
Arno
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:54 EDT