Please use other list (was Re: Hebrew Vav Holam)

From: Mark Davis (mark.davis@jtcsv.com)
Date: Fri Aug 01 2003 - 12:06:06 EDT

  • Next message: Karljürgen Feuerherm: "Re: [hebrew] Re: From [b-hebrew] Variant forms of vav with holem"

    I would remind the people interested in Hebrew issues that a list has
    been set up for their benefit, and recommend that they use it.

    Cf.
    > Darling Unicadetti...
    >
    > By popular demand, considering the deluge of Biblical
    > Hebrew issues cropping up recently on the Unicode list,
    > I have created a new hebrew@unicode.org list specifically
    > for this technical discussion and writing of proposals.
    >
    > Please direct all Hebrew-related technical traffic to that
    > list and remove the discussion from the main Unicode list.
    > Thank you.
    >
    > A number of people have been auto-subscribed to the new
    > list and they should have received a separate note to that
    > effect.
    >
    > The list is open to anyone. To subscribe to the new list,
    > just send e-mail to:
    > ecartis@unicode.org
    > with
    > subscribe hebrew
    > in the subject line. You will receive a confirmation.
    >
    > Regards from your,
    > -- Sarasvati
    >
    >

    Mark
    __________________________________
    http://www.macchiato.com
    ► “Eppur si muove” ◄

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Peter Kirk" <peter.r.kirk@ntlworld.com>
    To: "John Cowan" <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
    Cc: "Ted Hopp" <ted@newslate.com>; <unicode@unicode.org>
    Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 02:44
    Subject: Re: Hebrew Vav Holam

    > 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
    > peter.r.kirk@ntlworld.com
    > http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
    >
    >
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 01 2003 - 12:59:32 EDT