Re: Biblical Hebrew (Was: Major Defect in Combining Classes of Tibetan Vowels)

From: Karljürgen Feuerherm (
Date: Fri Jun 27 2003 - 11:53:22 EDT

  • Next message: John Cowan: "Re: Biblical Hebrew (Was: Major Defect in Combining Classes of Tibetan Vowels)"

    Philippe said on June 27, 2003 at 10:25 AM

    > On Friday, June 27, 2003 3:23 PM, Karljürgen Feuerherm
    <> wrote:
    > > I REALLY think that option 1 [FIX the combining classes] should be
    beaten to death with a stick,
    > > then beaten to death again, before settling for one of the others.

    > Do you then propose to create a specific character, for use within the
    Hebrew script only, as a way to specify an alternate order for hebrew
    cantillation? In that case, it would be more appropriate to define new
    standard variants of these cantillation marks, and list them in the
    supported variants, to be used specially for Biblic Hebrew.

    To be honest, I'm out of my depth with the details of the technical
    solution, so I will leave it to the properly knowledgeable like e.g. John
    Hudson and so on to reply to your analysis of my general conception.

    Basically, I simply wanted to make a 'general principle' comment based on my
    experience in other areas of software development because at times one can
    get very involved in the gory details and I felt that a step back and global
    summary of what I'm hearing by and large might be helpful. (And one learns
    by interacting, at a certain point. I'm bound to make mistakes in the

    Essentially, I understand and appreciate John Cowan's concern/WG2's
    intransigeance (?) about stability, and the promises (however it was done)
    by Unicode in that regard and so on, and I don't deprecate that in the
    least. But, I agree with Michael that one should at least ask the
    appropriate persons if possible, and if there is no way to get concession
    (one should aim for a general principle, in case this sort of concern comes
    up in another area later, so as not to have to go to bat ANOTHER time), THEN
    one should go to one of these other, in principle less desirable
    'solutions'. (But one can still dialogue about them in the interim.)

    And in any case this should NOT muck things up which aren't broken, like MH.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 27 2003 - 12:31:41 EDT