From: Jony Rosenne (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Jul 29 2003 - 00:18:27 EDT
The most reasonable way to achieve visible effects, as opposed to difference
in text, is by markup.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Joan_Wardell@sil.org
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 10:31 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Back to Hebrew, was OT:darn'd fools
> 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 28 2003 - 23:57:47 EDT