Re: Hebrew Vav Holam

From: John Hudson (
Date: Thu Jul 31 2003 - 16:02:05 EDT

  • Next message: Jim Allan: "RE: Hebrew Vav Holam"

    At 08:15 PM 7/30/2003, Ted Hopp wrote:

    >Oh dear. That's what I was afraid you meant. In all those cases, I believe
    >the correct interpretation is that the kholam is attached to the left of the
    >preceding consonant (resh, lamed, zayin, yod, etc.), not to the alef. That
    >the point appears to be over the alef is a typesetter's (or font designer's)
    >decision based on aesthetics, or just irregular typography. It should
    >certainly not be coded that way. (What I mean is: if we had a "right kholam"
    >vowel that combined with its *preceding* base character on the right
    >side--like shin dot--it would still be wrong to encode rosh as
    ><resh-alef-right kholam-shin-shin dot>.)

    I agree. A potential 'right holam' mark should not be used for the weak
    alef or for shin. There are already perfectly good mechanisms for handling
    the repositioning of holam relative to the consonant preceding these and,
    as Ted notes, the precise positioning relative to the two consonants is
    discretionary but the holam is definitely understood to belong to the first
    consonant, not the following alef or shin.

    This is a different case from the vav, although until now we've been trying
    to tackle the latter in the same way.

    John Hudson

    Tiro Typeworks
    Vancouver, BC

    The sight of James Cox from the BBC's World at One,
    interviewing Robin Oakley, CNN's man in Europe,
    surrounded by a scrum of furiously scribbling print
    journalists will stand for some time as the apogee of
    media cannibalism.
                             - Emma Brockes, at the EU summit

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 31 2003 - 16:52:42 EDT