From: Jim Allan (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Jul 31 2003 - 15:56:35 EDT
Jony Rosenne posted:
> This argumentation applies equally well to th (which should be at least two
> Unicodes in English), gh (how many?), etc.
There is normally no difference in appearance of the text for the _th_
in _thin_, _then_ and _fronthand_. There is normally no difference in
apearance of _gh_ in _ghost_, _tough_ and _through_.
Accordingly the argumentation used for Hebrew variants of vav with holam
does not at all apply equally well.
The reason for the discussion is there *is* a traditional consistant
difference in the appearance of Hebrew vav with holam.
One expects any difference in appearance corresponding to a difference
in pronunciation to be encoded at the plain text level (unless the
difference can *always* be algorithmically derived).
If there were a language using the Latin alphabet that did make a
graphic distinction between _th_ with two different pronunciations then
I would expect Unicode to encode this, especially if the the distinction
for forms were found to have been practised for over a thousand years
and to still be observed in careful typography today.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 31 2003 - 16:53:43 EDT