Back to Hebrew, was OT:darn'd fools

Date: Mon Jul 28 2003 - 16:30:38 EDT

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: Yerushala(y)im - or Biblical Hebrew"

    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
    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
    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
    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

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 28 2003 - 17:07:29 EDT