From: Peter Kirk (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Aug 01 2003 - 05:44:17 EDT
On 31/07/2003 21:02, John Cowan wrote:
>Ted Hopp scripsit:
>>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.
>Well, hardly. The 1 and l were squeezed onto the same key on the
>typewriter because there weren't enough keys, but in handwriting and
>book fonts they have always been different. Whereas AFAIK the geminated
>vav and the shuruq have always looked the same, like English consonantal
>"y" and vowel "y".
The analogy would be a much better one for the two positions of holam on
vav, though these were unified probably not for the sake of computers or
typewriters (as they were unified by at least some before 1850) but very
likely for the convenience of printers.
-- Peter Kirk email@example.com http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 01 2003 - 06:34:19 EDT