Re: Back to Hebrew, was OT:darn'd fools

From: Joan_Wardell@sil.org
Date: Mon Jul 28 2003 - 17:35:52 EDT

Next message: Karljürgen Feuerherm: "Re: Back to Hebrew -holem-waw vs waw-holem"

Previous message: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: Yerushala(y)im - or Biblical Hebrew"
In reply to: John Cowan: "Re: Back to Hebrew, was OT:darn'd fools"
Next in thread: Peter Kirk: "Re: Back to Hebrew, was OT:darn'd fools"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

>>There may be very good reasons for encoding holem-waw as
other than a holem followed by a waw.

I agree, but I don't think we have options other than holem first or holem
last. In SIL Ezra, we encoded
the entire holem-waw as a single glyph - a vowel. But then found out later
there was disagreement
about whether one could *know* if a waw with a holem above it really was a
consonant or a vowel.
Is this your concern?

Joan Wardell
NRSI-SIL

Next message: Karljürgen Feuerherm: "Re: Back to Hebrew -holem-waw vs waw-holem"
Previous message: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: Yerushala(y)im - or Biblical Hebrew"
In reply to: John Cowan: "Re: Back to Hebrew, was OT:darn'd fools"
Next in thread: Peter Kirk: "Re: Back to Hebrew, was OT:darn'd fools"
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 : Mon Jul 28 2003 - 18:15:56 EDT