From: Peter Kirk (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Jul 29 2003 - 18:37:14 EDT
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 firstname.lastname@example.org http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 29 2003 - 19:07:54 EDT