From: Karljürgen Feuerherm (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Jul 28 2003 - 17:33:25 EDT
> I think the question was asked earlier whether the holem comes before or
> after the waw in holem-waw <...> 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
> eventually by setting a user feature, if this is ever incorporated into
> major software.
> Let's not go backwards by unencoding holem-waw.
Er... wasn't suggesting it. I'd taken to encoding holem-waw precisely as
holem followed by waw (rendered by Ezra SIL as you say was found in the
Leningrad Codex) and consonantal waw with holem as waw followed by holem.
Was just wondering whether that was justified or a BHS fiction.
(I argued earlier in the Yerushalayim issue that we shouldn't 'improve' on
the text, and felt we should be consistent here. Apparently there is at
least *some* justification for the above practice beside our modern
Many thanks for the info.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 28 2003 - 18:20:32 EDT