From root@unicode.org Thu Jul 31 19:58:37 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Thu, 31 Jul 2003 19:58:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h6VNwbQ09027 for hebrew@unicode.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 19:58:37 -0400 Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 19:58:37 -0400 From: Sarasvati Message-Id: <200307312358.h6VNwbQ09027@unicode.org> To: hebrew@unicode.org Subject: [hebrew] New Unicode Mail List for Hebrew Issues X-archive-position: 1 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: root@unicode.org Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew By popular demand, considering the deluge of Biblical Hebrew issues cropping up recently on the Unicode list, I have created a new hebrew@unicode.org list. Please direct all Hebrew-related technical traffic to that list and remove the discussion from the main Unicode list. Thank you. The list of subscribers currently to this new Hebrew list is: peter.r.kirk@ntlworld.com jcowan@reutershealth.com tiro@tiro.com ted@newslate.com jallan@smrtytrek.com Joan_Wardell@sil.org rosennej@qsm.co.il kenw@sybase.com A note will go out shortly on the Unicode list inviting others to join the new list to continue the technical discussion. Regards from your, -- Sarasvati From root@unicode.org Thu Jul 31 20:07:03 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Thu, 31 Jul 2003 20:07:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h71073I10685 for hebrew@unicode.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 20:07:03 -0400 Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 20:07:03 -0400 From: Sarasvati Message-Id: <200308010007.h71073I10685@unicode.org> To: hebrew@unicode.org Subject: [hebrew] Archival X-archive-position: 2 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: root@unicode.org Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew For the archives of this list. Forwarded from the main Unicode list -- Sarasvati ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > From: Peter Kirk > Date: 2003-07-31 18:26:18 -0700 > To: Unicode List I have written a draft document "Issues in the Representation of Pointed Hebrew in Unicode", which describes the issues which have been discussed on this list and elsewhere in the last month or so, and some which haven't. This includes examples of unusual forms scanned from BHS. I would be grateful for any comments, corrections etc - probably off list unless they are of general interest - so that I can tidy this up. In the final version I am likely to reduce the number of options in line with the developing consensus on the Unicode list. I have uploaded this draft document as a Word document to http://www.qaya.org/academic/hebrew/Issues-Hebrew-Unicode.doc, and as a web page (with some loss of formatting detail, but the images are all there) to http://www.qaya.org/academic/hebrew/Issues-Hebrew-Unicode.html. As www.qaya.org has been set up within the last 48 hours, it is possible that these pages will not yet be available to you, but they should be available tomorrow. (Sent to the Unicode list, with blind copies to a few who have been involved in off list discussions.) -- Peter Kirk peter.r.kirk@ntlworld.com http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/ From ted@newslate.com Thu Jul 31 20:55:19 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Thu, 31 Jul 2003 20:55:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h710tJ216493 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 20:55:19 -0400 Received: from 216-164-48-205.c3-0.gth-ubr1.lnh-gth.md.cable.rcn.com ([216.164.48.205] helo=Xerxes) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with smtp (Exim 3.35 #4) id 19iOCU-00005T-00; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 20:55:18 -0400 Message-ID: <066001c357c7$936abc20$deeefea9@Xerxes> From: "Ted Hopp" To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Karlj=FCrgen_Feuerherm?= , References: <3F2939D7.9010703@smrtytrek.com> <043301c35786$ef2a0b10$deeefea9@Xerxes> <048301c357a0$f74f2950$deeefea9@Xerxes> <20030731211857.GJ9926@skunk.reutershealth.com> <058301c357b0$666d3700$deeefea9@Xerxes> <015401c357c0$02635ef0$24c4fed8@kgfeuerherm> Subject: [hebrew] Re: Hebrew Vav Holam Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 20:55:17 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-archive-position: 3 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: ted@newslate.com Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew On Thursday, July 31, 2003 8:01 PM, Karljürgen Feuerherm wrote: > Ted, > > > Is not U+FB35 HEBREW LETTER VAV WITH DAGESH a shuruq? > > > > Only graphically. Different pronunciation, different names, different > > 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 you > can't > > see the difference.) Sometimes, Unicode is an old typewriter. > > That's not a particularly good analogy, unless you can demonstrate that the > two are at times clearly visually different as well (as are lowercase 'l' > and '1'). If they are not, there's no particularly good reason to create a > new 'shureq'. At most, it might be an argument to create some dot alongside > dagesh, because shureq is based upon the semi-vowel waw just as holem-waw > is. But nobody is asking for a new shuruq. Just a new holam male, which at times is rendered identically to vav with holam, but also has a history of differences in representation (including different shapes to the dot itself, in some cases) dating from 1000 years ago to the present day. Ted Ted Hopp, Ph.D. ZigZag, Inc. ted@newSLATE.com +1-301-990-7453 newSLATE is your personal learning workspace ...on the web at http://www.newSLATE.com/ From cuneiform@rogers.com Thu Jul 31 22:24:13 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Thu, 31 Jul 2003 22:24:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from fep04-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com (fep04-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com [66.185.86.74]) by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h712OC221982 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 22:24:12 -0400 Received: from kgfeuerherm ([216.254.195.80]) by fep04-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com (InterMail vM.5.01.05.12 201-253-122-126-112-20020820) with ESMTP id <20030801022320.XAWX392870.fep04-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com@kgfeuerherm>; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 22:23:20 -0400 Message-ID: <018a01c357d3$faff30d0$24c4fed8@kgfeuerherm> From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Karlj=FCrgen_Feuerherm?= To: "Ted Hopp" , References: <3F2939D7.9010703@smrtytrek.com> <043301c35786$ef2a0b10$deeefea9@Xerxes> <048301c357a0$f74f2950$deeefea9@Xerxes> <20030731211857.GJ9926@skunk.reutershealth.com> <058301c357b0$666d3700$deeefea9@Xerxes> <015401c357c0$02635ef0$24c4fed8@kgfeuerherm> <066001c357c7$936abc20$deeefea9@Xerxes> Subject: [hebrew] Re: Hebrew Vav Holam Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 22:24:04 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH LOGIN at fep04-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com from [216.254.195.80] using ID at Thu, 31 Jul 2003 22:23:17 -0400 X-archive-position: 4 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: cuneiform@rogers.com Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew All right then, my mistake. I am finding it hard to keep track of all the views and today in particular I was not able to absorb all the messages. K ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ted Hopp" To: "Karljürgen Feuerherm" ; Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 8:55 PM Subject: Re: Hebrew Vav Holam > On Thursday, July 31, 2003 8:01 PM, Karljürgen Feuerherm wrote: > > Ted, > > > > Is not U+FB35 HEBREW LETTER VAV WITH DAGESH a shuruq? > > > > > > Only graphically. Different pronunciation, different names, different > > > 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 you > > can't > > > see the difference.) Sometimes, Unicode is an old typewriter. > > > > That's not a particularly good analogy, unless you can demonstrate that > the > > two are at times clearly visually different as well (as are lowercase 'l' > > and '1'). If they are not, there's no particularly good reason to create a > > new 'shureq'. At most, it might be an argument to create some dot > alongside > > dagesh, because shureq is based upon the semi-vowel waw just as holem-waw > > is. > > But nobody is asking for a new shuruq. Just a new holam male, which at times > is rendered identically to vav with holam, but also has a history of > differences in representation (including different shapes to the dot itself, > in some cases) dating from 1000 years ago to the present day. > > Ted > > Ted Hopp, Ph.D. > ZigZag, Inc. > ted@newSLATE.com > +1-301-990-7453 > > newSLATE is your personal learning workspace > ...on the web at http://www.newSLATE.com/ > > >