From: Jony Rosenne (rosennej@qsm.co.il)
Date: Tue Jul 29 2003 - 19:27:01 EDT
Fine, so we need a separate Unicode for each usage of gh in English.
Jony
> -----Original Message-----
> From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org
> [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org] On Behalf Of Ted Hopp
> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 8:20 PM
> To: unicode@unicode.org
> Subject: SPAM: Re: Back to Hebrew -holem-waw vs waw-holem
>
>
> Okay -- there are two Hebrew vowels that are not encoded in
> Unicode. Their
> (transliterated) Hebrew names are (caps indicate syllable
> accent): khoLAM maLE and shuRUQ. The kholam male LOOKS like a
> "vav with holam" [05D5.05B9] or the alphabetic presentation
> form FB4B (HEBREW LETTER VAV WITH HOLAM) and the shuruq LOOKS
> like a vav with dagesh [05D5.05BC] or the alphabetic
> presentation form FB35 (HEBREW LETTER VAV WITH DAGESH). (For
> the record, the Unicode HEBREW POINT HOLAM [05B9] is usually
> called khoLAM khaSER in
> Hebrew.)
>
> The two vowels kholam male and shuruq have nothing to do with
> the consonant vav (HEBREW LETTER VAV) other than that they
> are written with the same glyph. In unpointed Hebrew text,
> the vav glyph is used to represent these vowels but, outside
> of ketiv male, the use is often optional (although sometimes
> strictly determined by tradition). (For instance, the name
> Aharon appears in Hebrew bible scrolls sometimes with a vav
> glyph after the resh and sometimes without. It would be nice
> if I could search for all occurrences of the name by doing a
> "match consonants only" search instead of having to resort to
> regular expressions.) In some texts (e.g., many of the books
> published by ArtScroll), the kholam male and vav with kholam
> are rendered differently--the former with the dot centered
> above the vav and latter with the dot somewhat more to the
> left. I have not seen a text that renders a shuruq
> differently than a vav with dagesh. (However, a dagesh has
> nothing to do with a shuruq, despite the nice little note in
> the Unicode code chart. A consonantal vav with a dagesh is
> NOT a shuruq.)
>
> Furthermore, context cannot be used to distinguish vav with
> kholam vs. kholam male. As I posted once before, at least one
> major dictionary uses a single consonant with both a patah
> and a kholam male (NOT a consonantal vav with kholam) to
> transliterate foreign words. Hebrew characters are used for
> much more than spelling Hebrew words.
>
> These different uses for the same (or approximately same)
> glyphs cannot, as far as I know, be distinguished in Unicode.
> (Putting a HEBREW POINT HOLAM in front of a HEBREW LETTER VAV
> would just associate the kholam with the preceding letter.)
> It might be nice if there were different code points for
> them. Alphabetic presentation forms don't quite do the trick.
> When I first saw it, I had assumed that FB4B was supposed to
> be used for kholam male (and that's what we use it for in our
> code). Of course, I could have assumed that it was intended
> for (consonantal) vav with kholam. However, that sequence
> automatically renders with the dot more to the left, so (for
> us) a presentation form was unnecessary in that case. Will
> all font designers who include Hebrew alphabetic presentation
> forms conform to my assumptions? Can anyone authoritatively
> say what was intended? I don't think so. This is a problem.
>
> Other typographic curiosities: The HEBREW POINT QAMATS [05B8]
> is used for two Hebrew vowels: qamats katan (pronounced in
> Israeli Hebrew like the 'o' in American English 'corn', as is
> kholam male) and qamats gadol (pronounced like 'a' in
> American English 'father', as is patah when not under a final
> HE, HET, or AYIN). Dictionaries usually list the two as
> separate vowels but render them identically. HOWEVER, some
> text publishers now distinguish these two vowels
> typographically (e.g., Revised Siddur Sim Shalom published by
> the Rabbinical Assembly). Perhaps there should be an
> alphabetic presentation form for qamats katan.
>
> The same comment goes for HEBREW POINT SHEVA [05B0]: in
> pronunciation it comes in two flavors, called sheva na
> ("moving sheva" -- pronounced something like the vowel segol)
> and sheva nakh ("resting sheva" -- silent). Again, most
> dictionaries list these as separate vowels but render them
> identically, while some publishers now distinguish them
> typographically (e.g., Tikkun Korim Simanim, published by
> Feldheim). Again, should there be an alphabetic presentation
> form for sheva na?
>
> With that, I'll leave off.
>
> Ted (not content with a focussed discussion)
>
> Ted Hopp, Ph.D.
> ZigZag, Inc.
> ted@newSLATE.com
> +1-301-990-7453
>
> newSLATE is your personal learning workspace
> ...on the web at http://www.newSLATE.com/
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 29 2003 - 19:03:06 EDT