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

From: John Hudson (
Date: Tue Jul 29 2003 - 13:46:50 EDT

  • Next message: John Hudson: "Re: Yerushala(y)im - or Biblical Hebrew"

    At 06:11 AM 7/29/2003, 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?

    A good question, and one for which I would like to know the answer. I have
    Unicode text from Libronix, derived from the Westminster Theological
    Seminary text, that clearly encodes holam_vav distinctly from vav_holam,
    indicating that someone thought it was important enough a distinction to
    carefully make during the original WTS transcription. Fonts for this kind
    of text encoding need complex contextual lookups to prevent the holam from
    attaching to the preceding consonant. The same fonts will also display the
    vav_holam encoding correctly, i.e. without a distinction. So from a display
    perspective, this is one issue that is already solved: the question is one
    of document encoding and comparison.

    John Hudson

    Tiro Typeworks
    Vancouver, BC

    The sight of James Cox from the BBC's World at One,
    interviewing Robin Oakley, CNN's man in Europe,
    surrounded by a scrum of furiously scribbling print
    journalists will stand for some time as the apogee of
    media cannibalism.
                             - Emma Brockes, at the EU summit

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 29 2003 - 15:07:48 EDT