From: Karljürgen Feuerherm (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Jul 29 2003 - 09:11:21 EDT
Well, that was precisely the question. Are we talking about a mere
preference of visual effect or an actual difference in (original) text--that
is, an intended semantic differentiation?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jony Rosenne" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 12:18 AM
Subject: RE: Back to Hebrew, was OT:darn'd fools
> The most reasonable way to achieve visible effects, as opposed to
> 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
> > SIL
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 29 2003 - 09:45:03 EDT