Re: The display of *kholam* on PCs

From: Chris Jacobs (
Date: Thu Mar 06 2003 - 12:02:26 EST

  • Next message: Dean Snyder: "Re: The display of *kholam* on PCs"

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Dean Snyder" <>
    To: "Unicode List" <>
    Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 3:29 PM
    Subject: Re: The display of *kholam* on PCs

    [ ... ]

    > Do you have an example of SIN with two dots? I have never seen it. This
    > would make for ambiguous orthography, which, of course, does occur, but
    > is usually, by design, avoided. But just to pull out one example, in the
    > Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, BoSeM, "balsam", is written with the
    > KHOLEM over the BET not the SIN - the SIN has one dot. And this pattern
    > is repeated everywhere there.

    BoSeM, is written with a SIN with two dots in

    Ben Yehuda's Pocket English-Hebrew Hebrew-English dictionary.
    It translates as perfume, spice there.

    I see the spelling in Ben Tehuda's is inconsistent.
    In the English-Hebrew section under perfume the dot is above the BETH, as you describe it.
    But under spice there is again the SIN with two dots, like in the Hebrew-English section.

    > >"shares the same dot" cannot only happen with SIN DOT, dot to the left,
    > >but also with SHIN DOT, dot to the right.
    > >I was thinking of the latter.
    > >As in MoSHeL. If the SHIN DOT here is a KHOLEM then clearly the KHOLEM
    > >belonging to the M is above the SH.
    > Again, I have never seen this. In the same edition mentioned above we
    > have MoSHeL, with two dots - the KHOLEM over the MEM (not the SHIN),
    > followed by the SHIN dot over the SHIN.

    In that same pocket dictionary MoSHeL, rule; resemblance, has no dot over the MEM.
    It has one dot over the SHIN.

    [ ... ]

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 06 2003 - 12:47:29 EST