From: Mark E. Shoulson (email@example.com)
Date: Wed May 05 2004 - 20:43:00 CDT
Peter Constable wrote:
>>>It would seem to me that it would be appropriate that this new
>>>character's canonical combining class should either be the same as
>>>that of QAMATS which is 18
>>That is correct. We overlooked the properties line in the proposal,
>>the template for which was the earlier ATNAH HAFUKH document. Sorry
>>about that. It should read:
>>05BA;HEBREW POINT QAMATS QATAN;Mn;18;NSM;;;;;N;;*;;;
>Well, of course, the effect of this is that a sequence of < qamats,
>qamats qatan > is not canonically equivalent to < qamats qatan, qamats
>>. No harm in that, but also not especially useful, I suspect.
>A value of 18 also means that sequences like < qamats qatan, munah > vs.
>< munah, qamats qatan > are canonically equivalent. Leaving it at 220
>would mean that these are *not* equivalent (while < qamats, qamats qatan
>>vs. < qamats qatan > are). This is probably more useful.
>I would probably leave the value at 220. That is what all of the Hebrew
>vowel points should have been, IMO. Though getting one right doesn't
>make a huge difference -- people are still going to be using CGJ to
>preserve particular sequences in the cases this will most likely be
Insofar as any of these cases makes sense (and that's not very far), I'd
*barely* hazard that it's better at 18, since I can *almost* see a
qamats qatan combined with a munah, but not with a qamats.
However, since qamats-qatans only occur in unstressed syllables, such a
thing would be rare.
Actually, no: some accents go on unstressed syllables. For example, a
dehi could coexist with a qamats-qatan. Psalms 4:2 has a qamats-qatan
on the same letter as GERESH MUQDAM, as do others. Psalms 9:14 has one
with a DEHI. Exodus 34:11 has one with a QADMA.
But a *pair* of qamatses, one of each sort? That wouldn't happen.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:26 CDT