Re: Back to Hebrew - Vav Holam

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Tue Jul 29 2003 - 18:37:14 EDT

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

    On 29/07/2003 12:38, Michael Everson wrote:

    > At 22:21 +0200 2003-07-29, Jony Rosenne wrote:
    >> With Hebrew, it is not accepted that it is a different Vav - letters
    >> used as matres lectionis are not distinct from the same letters used
    >> otherwise. Neither is it accepted that this is a different Holam. The
    >> only thing established is that this artifact has been used in several
    >> manuscripts, one of many similar artifacts, to aid the understanding
    >> of the text. And the correct vehicle to convey such artifacts is markup.
    > Ink dots used to aid the understanding of the text are always encoded
    > as characters. Markup is the wrong way to handle them. Otherwise we
    > would write Karlj<fronted>u</fronted>rgen or the like.

    Also we are not talking about "several manuscripts" as if this is
    something rare. The limited evidence I have seen suggests that it has
    been used regularly in a large number, maybe even the majority, of
    manuscripts and printed Bibles over a period of 1000 years. It is no
    more an artefact than any letter form is an artefact.

    Peter Kirk

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 29 2003 - 19:07:54 EDT