Re: Biblical Hebrew

From: Karljürgen Feuerherm (cuneiform@rogers.com)
Date: Fri Jun 27 2003 - 14:07:16 EDT

Next message: Karlj�rgen Feuerherm: "Fw: Biblical Hebrew (Was: Major Defect in Combining Classes of Tibetan Vowels)"

Previous message: John Cowan: "Re: Yerushala(y)im - or Biblical Hebrew"
In reply to: Jony Rosenne: "Biblical Hebrew"
Next in thread: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: Biblical Hebrew"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Jony Rosenne said on June 27, 2003 at 2:17 PM

> > 1. Everyone is more or less agreed that the present combining
> > class rules as they apply to BH contain mistakes.
>
> I don't. I do agree that are some cases that are not handled.

Well, ok, 'omissions,' then. If BH was intended to be covered in the first
place then that is still a mistake of sorts.

But I take your point. This was why I added the postscript at a certain
point about not breaking MH in the process.

Next message: Karlj�rgen Feuerherm: "Fw: Biblical Hebrew (Was: Major Defect in Combining Classes of Tibetan Vowels)"
Previous message: John Cowan: "Re: Yerushala(y)im - or Biblical Hebrew"
In reply to: Jony Rosenne: "Biblical Hebrew"
Next in thread: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: Biblical Hebrew"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 27 2003 - 14:41:07 EDT