Re: Hebrew Vav Holam

From: Ted Hopp (
Date: Thu Jul 31 2003 - 18:09:23 EDT

  • Next message: Peter Kirk: "Issues in Hebrew - a document"

    On Thursday, July 31, 2003 5:18 PM, John Cowan wrote:
    > Is not U+FB35 HEBREW LETTER VAV WITH DAGESH a shuruq?

    Only graphically. Different pronunciation, different names, different
    functions grammatically. Old typewriters used to have only a single key for
    the lower case letter 'l' and the digit '1'. (Change your font if you can't
    see the difference.) Sometimes, Unicode is an old typewriter.

    > > It seems wrong to be calling a base character a HEBREW MARK. It also
    seems a
    > > little odd to be calling a Hebrew vowel a HEBREW LETTER when every other
    > > HEBREW LETTER is a consonant. But if that's what convention requires....
    > Holam male would be more like a LETTER, since it is not a combining mark.

    Yes, if it has to be a choice between MARK or LETTER, I'd prefer LETTER. I
    was hoping for something else, though, like VOWEL or VOWEL SIGN, since
    that's really what it is, not what it's "more like".


    Ted Hopp, Ph.D.
    ZigZag, Inc.

    newSLATE is your personal learning workspace
       ...on the web at

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 31 2003 - 18:50:25 EDT