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

From: Jony Rosenne (
Date: Tue Jul 29 2003 - 00:18:27 EDT

  • Next message: Jony Rosenne: "RE: Yerushala(y)im - or Biblical Hebrew"

    The most reasonable way to achieve visible effects, as opposed to difference
    in text, is by markup.


    > -----Original Message-----
    > From:
    > [] On Behalf Of
    > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 10:31 PM
    > To:
    > 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
    > SIL

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 28 2003 - 23:57:47 EDT