From: Peter Kirk (peterkirk@qaya.org)
Date: Wed Mar 02 2005 - 12:38:28 CST
On 02/03/2005 17:56, Peter Constable wrote:
>>From: Peter Kirk [mailto:peterkirk@qaya.org]
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>The accepted proposal for HOLAM HASER FOR VAV does change the meaning
>>
>>
>of
>
>
>>existing data, from correctly spelled to a spelling error.
>>
>>
>
>No; the existing character is ambiguous in usage contexts where no
>distinction is made: it is "holam", not "holam male". Existing data
>cannot have made a distinction as there was no separate character with
>which to make any distinction. That data is just as valid as it ever
>was.
>
>
>
The character is indeed ambiguous in Unicode 4.0. But it must no longer
be ambiguous in Unicode 4.1 or 5.0, because otherwise that would leave
two equally valid ways of spelling the same word. At the very least the
old representation, in this case Holam Haser on VAV represented as
HOLAM, should be clearly deprecated as an obsolete spelling no longer to
be supported.
Of course this lies at the heart of why disunification by adding new
characters is generally a bad idea - although I would accept that it
might in practice be the best way to go especially for obscure scripts
in which there is very little existing data.
The situation with QAMATS QATAN is a bit different, because this is an
optional distinction and a recent innovation, not a disunification of
two historically distinct characters which have sometimes been conflated.
-- Peter Kirk peter@qaya.org (personal) peterkirk@qaya.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.5.7 - Release Date: 01/03/2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 02 2005 - 12:39:54 CST