From: Peter Kirk (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Jul 28 2003 - 19:00:44 EDT
On 28/07/2003 15:32, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>Joan Wardell responded to:
>>That's what I'm saying. And I have no particular problem with the CGJ
>>it doesn't go far enough. I don't think we can use it to fix meteg, a mark
>>which occurs in
>>three different positions around a low vowel, yet is canonically ordered
>>before the shin/sin
>>dots! Will we put one CGJ on the right to indicate a right meteg and one on
>>the left to indicate
>>a left meteg?
>No. I have no objection to encoding one more meteg character,
>as has been proposed, if it is reliably distinguished from
>the existing meteg. John Hudson has already argued that
>that is enough to enable dealing with the rest of the
>rendering distinctions contextually.
I understood that there were serious problems with John Hudson's
proposal because ZWNJ as a non-combining character is not suitable for
inhibiting ligation of a pair of combining characters. If this is true,
we have the choice of using some combining character e.g. CGJ either to
inhibit or to indicate ligation, or of defining three new characters for
the three combinations of meteg in the middle of a hataf vowel.
Meteg to the right does not actually need an extra character, because if
CGJ is used to override canonical equivalence and reordering of vowel
sequences, the mechanism is already in place to use it in exactly the
same way for sequences of vowels and meteg.
-- Peter Kirk firstname.lastname@example.org http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 28 2003 - 19:29:10 EDT