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

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Tue Jul 29 2003 - 10:31:36 EDT

  • Next message: Karljürgen Feuerherm: "Re: Back to Hebrew, was OT:darn'd fools"

    On 29/07/2003 06:11, Karljürgen Feuerherm wrote:

    >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?
    I don't agree that ancient history should necessarily determine this.
    It's a bit like the distinction between U and V in English, in fact
    closely analogous phonetically. As originally used in English they were
    one character. But I don't think that would justify an argument that
    they should now be encoded as one character and distinguished only by
    context or markup. In current usage they are clearly distinct, and that
    should be decisive.

    Unfortunately it is not quite so clear for Hebrew as usage varies. But
    the fact that many do not make the distinction is not an argument that
    others who prefer to make the distinction should not be allowed to. K, I
    don't think you French Canadians would be very happy if accented upper
    case vowels were removed from Unicode because they are not used in
    France. (I must find some way to divide you from the real French :-) )

    Peter Kirk

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 29 2003 - 11:21:15 EDT