RE:Holam (was Errors in TUS Figure 15.2?)

From: Jony Rosenne (rosennej@qsm.co.il)
Date: Tue Aug 03 2004 - 01:40:54 CDT

  • Next message: Peter Kirk: "Re: Holam (was Errors in TUS Figure 15.2?)"

    The same applies to recent arguments raised concerning the Holam and Vav and
    the philosophical nature of the ways they combine.

    Jony

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org
    > [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell
    > Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 8:53 AM
    > To: Peter Kirk; Antoine Leca
    > Cc: Unicode List
    > Subject: Re: Errors in TUS Figure 15.2?
    >
    >
    > Peter Kirk <peterkirk at qaya dot org> wrote:
    >
    > > The situation is even more confused in that some Unicode
    > characters,
    > > e.g. U+0152 LATIN CAPITAL LIGATURE OE, are called LIGATUREs
    > in their
    > > character names but are unambiguously single Unicode
    > characters (e.g.
    > > they have no decomposition even for compatibility). (These are in
    > > addition to the characters named LIGATURE in the Alphabetic
    > > Presentation Forms block, which mostly have compatibility
    > > decompositions.)
    >
    > The last thing you want to worry about is the correlation
    > between whether a character has the word LIGATURE in its name
    > and whether it is actually a ligature. That way lies madness.
    >
    > -Doug Ewell
    > Fullerton, California
    > http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 03 2004 - 01:41:51 CDT