Re: Back to Hebrew -holem-waw vs waw-holem

Date: Wed Jul 30 2003 - 17:35:38 EDT

  • Next message: Peter Kirk: "Re: Back to Hebrew -holem-waw vs waw-holem"

    Ted Hopp wrote on 07/30/2003 11:43:10 AM:

    > One of the key points some of us are trying to make is that vav with
    > khaser is a different mark on the page than a kholam male. Different
    > semantics AND different appearance, but no separate Unicode encoding.

    In your earlier message, to which I responded, you spoke of two things
    written with the same glyph; that sounds to me like one character. But now
    you're talking about different appearances for combinations of certain
    characters. That distinction does need to be representable in Unicode, so
    how. It might involve an addional character, though it might also be done
    some other way.

    > Besides, what's all this that I keep reading about Unicode encodes
    > characters, not glyphs?

    True, but characters are not the same as phonemes. Your examples earlier of
    qamats and shewa were very clearly phonemic differences and not character

    - Peter

    Peter Constable

    Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
    7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
    Tel: +1 972 708 7485

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 30 2003 - 18:32:42 EDT