Re: More on Meteg and CGJ

From: Kenneth Whistler (
Date: Tue Jul 29 2003 - 18:16:05 EDT

  • Next message: Jony Rosenne: "Re: Back to Hebrew -holem-waw vs waw-holem"

    > Ken quoted me out of context, but perhaps I was unclear. At one point, I
    > said that I didn't think a medial meteg character was necessary for
    > rendering, because the ligation can be handled with the left meteg.
    > Earlier, we were discussing various options for solving the re-ordering
    > problem and I said that *if* this problem could be resolved without
    > changing the combining classes (which I really don't think is going to
    > happen), a right meteg might still be desirable.
    > >You would be able to handle the examples below?
    > >shin < hataf < dagesh < regular meteg < shindot
    > Yes, this works fine. The font itself does not require strict ordering in
    > all cases; in fact, the font can be remarkably flexible in this regard
    > because of the different anchor attachment points defined (note that this
    > is true for OT; other font technoligies might requires stricter ordering).
    > There is, however, a subset of cases in which strict mark ordering is
    > required for correct display. These have not all been documented yet
    > >shin < hataf < dagesh < shindot <new right meteg
    > Obviously I have not made this yet, but it would work in the same way as
    > above.
    > >shin < hataf < dagesh < regular meteg < shindot <
    > >-where do I put the ZWNJ or the CGJ to get a left meteg on hataf?

    How about:

       shin < regular meteg < CGJ < hataf < dagesh < shindot
    The CGJ prevents the reordering of the meteg around the hataf and
    dagesh, and the sequence <meteg, CGJ, hataf> gives the font
    a separate sequence to ligate, distinguishing it from
    <hataf, dagesh, meteg> above.

    Remember the whole rationale for introducing CGJ's in the first
    place is to make it possible to distinguish sequences, so they
    don't both end up the same when canonically reordered. It isn't
    necessary to attack the problem by taking the canonically
    reordered final sequence and then looking for a place to insert
    CGJ in *that* already reordered string.


    (providing more context, to ensure I'm not quoting out of context
    again... ;-) )

    > Okay, that one is ugly. ZWNJ breaks the dagesh and/or shindot positioning,
    > depending on whether it is positioned immediately after the hataf vowel or
    > the dagesh. A painted CGJ character might not cause the same problem or,
    > rather, the problem might be resolved in glyph space with some fancy
    > footwork.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 29 2003 - 18:59:50 EDT