From: Jony Rosenne (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat May 15 2004 - 12:17:07 CDT
Qamats is both Qamats Gadol and Qamats Qatan. Thus, Qamats Qatan does not
have a different reading from Qamats, but is one of the two readings.
In response to an earlier comment: There are several common words where
there is no agreement whether the Qamats is Qamats Gadol or Qamats Qatan.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Michael Everson
> Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2004 3:20 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: RE: Qamats Qatan (was Majority of community
> important, inclusion not forcing people to do anything)
> At 10:14 +0200 2004-05-15, Jony Rosenne wrote:
> >Having Qamats Qatan as a regular Unicode character will have an
> >effect on the majority of users who do not know or care for the
> No greater than they effect that the QAMATS QATAN has on them when
> they make use of one of Shlomo Tal's 1976 Seder, or Jeffrey Shiovitz'
> 2001 B'kol Echad.
> >If anything, it should be some kind of glyph variant.
> It's not a glyph variant. It's a rarely-used character, attested in
> modern texts, which has its own name and shape, and which has a
> different reading from QAMATS.
> Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 15 2004 - 11:20:01 CDT