From: Mark Davis (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Aug 01 2003 - 12:06:06 EDT
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.
> Darling Unicadetti...
> By popular demand, considering the deluge of Biblical
> Hebrew issues cropping up recently on the Unicode list,
> I have created a new email@example.com 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
> The list is open to anyone. To subscribe to the new list,
> just send e-mail to:
> subscribe hebrew
> in the subject line. You will receive a confirmation.
> Regards from your,
> -- Sarasvati
âº âEppur si muoveâ â
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Kirk" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "John Cowan" <email@example.com>
Cc: "Ted Hopp" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
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,
> >>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
> >>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
> >book fonts they have always been different. Whereas AFAIK the
> >vav and the shuruq have always looked the same, like English
> >"y" and vowel "y".
> The analogy would be a much better one for the two positions of
> vav, though these were unified probably not for the sake of
> typewriters (as they were unified by at least some before 1850) but
> likely for the convenience of printers.
> Peter Kirk
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 01 2003 - 12:59:32 EDT