Re: Hebrew hataf vowels (was: About CGJ)

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Thu Jul 24 2003 - 14:10:53 EDT

  • Next message: John Hudson: "Re: Hebrew hataf vowels (was: About CGJ)"

    On 24/07/2003 10:49, John Hudson wrote:

    > At 02:34 AM 7/24/2003, Peter Kirk wrote:
    >> ... Is this is a valid use of CGJ?
    > No, this is a valid use of ZWNJ.
    > This is what currently works:
    > Left meteg follows vowel (excepting hataf vowel, see below)
    > Right meteg precedes vowel (including hataf vowel)*
    > Hataf medial meteg follows vowel but is automatically ligated in the
    > font lookups (this is the default behaviour because it is the most
    > common case)
    > If you want the meteg to appear to the left of a hataf vowel you
    > insert a ZWNJ to prevent the ligation: hataf vowel + ZWNJ + meteg
    > * Of course, this gets screwed up by Unicode normalisation, but that's
    > just another example of what we've been talking about all along.
    > Personally, I would rather see a 'right meteg' character encoded than
    > use CGJ or another mechanism to force right positioning. I think the
    > user community would be much more comfortable with this approach.
    > John Hudson
    Thanks for the clarification. I hope that at some time soon these things
    will be recorded in a proper document, for Unicode and not just for a
    particular font. Otherwise I foresee chaos as one font does what you
    say, another does not ligate by default but expects ZWJ when the
    ligature is required, yet another expects CGJ, etc etc, so we end up in
    the state where each encoded text can only be viewed with the one font
    it is tailored for. Actually I don't need to foresee this, it is
    happening already, as there is already one Hebrew Bible text available
    which displays properly only with Ezra SIL, another which requires
    FrankRuehl, and another which has a different preference. We need to put
    an end to this kind of situation as soon as possible.

    Peter Kirk

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 24 2003 - 14:45:54 EDT