From: Joan_Wardell@sil.org
Date: Mon Jul 28 2003 - 16:30:38 EDT
KF>> This is rather enjoyable, but I think maybe getting a bit silly, and
I would really rather know whether there's any fundamental Masoretic
rationale for encoding holem>waw any differently from waw-holem....
I think the question was asked earlier whether the holem comes before or
after the waw in holem-waw. I have been told that there was no visible
difference
between holem-waw and waw followed by holem in the original texts. However,
after checking
Emanuel Tov's plate of the Leningrad codex (p.392), it is clear to me that
holem
is clearly on the right of the waw, yet not over the preceding consonant.
This lends credence
to those of us who are BHS fans and would like to see a visible difference
between
holem-waw and waw-holem. The most reasonable means of achieving this is to
encode the holem before the waw when it is holem-waw. The font designers
can choose
how they render this and the users can pick their preference by picking the
font. Or
eventually by setting a user feature, if this is ever incorporated into
major software.
Let's not go backwards by unencoding holem-waw.
Joan Wardell
SIL
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 28 2003 - 17:07:29 EDT