From peterkirk@qaya.org Tue May 4 13:45:11 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Tue, 04 May 2004 13:45:56 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mail.link77.net (kastanet.org [208.145.81.89]) by unicode.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i44IjBRV012943; Tue, 4 May 2004 13:45:11 -0500 Received: from [212.47.133.109] (account peter_kirk@kastanet.org HELO qaya.org) by mail.link77.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 39646300; Tue, 04 May 2004 14:45:02 -0400 Message-ID: <4097E303.3010302@qaya.org> Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 11:37:55 -0700 From: Peter Kirk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Everson CC: unicode@unicode.org, hebrew@unicode.org Subject: [hebrew] Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 1369 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew On 03/05/2004 19:06, Michael Everson wrote: > A new contribution. > > http://www.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2755.pdf > N2755 > Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS > Michael Everson & Mark Shoulson > > > > > Thank you, and well done. Why was this not announced on the Unicode Hebrew list? Again, a correction to C 2a: contact HAS been made with members of the user community, through the Unicode Hebrew list, also several people who contacted me about this character distinction when I announced another Hebrew proposal on some other lists. -- Peter Kirk peter@qaya.org (personal) peterkirk@qaya.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/ From tiro@tiro.com Tue May 4 20:15:05 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Tue, 04 May 2004 20:15:06 -0500 (CDT) Received: from priv-edtnes56.telusplanet.net (outbound01.telus.net [199.185.220.220]) by unicode.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i451F5qO022438 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 20:15:05 -0500 Received: from tiro.com ([66.183.160.160]) by priv-edtnes56.telusplanet.net (InterMail vM.6.00.05.02 201-2115-109-103-20031105) with ESMTP id <20040505011459.CSPI26558.priv-edtnes56.telusplanet.net@tiro.com>; Tue, 4 May 2004 19:14:59 -0600 Message-ID: <4098400C.3020004@tiro.com> Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 18:14:52 -0700 From: John Hudson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Everson CC: hebrew@unicode.org Subject: [hebrew] Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS References: <4098A13A.2040407@smontagu.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 1370 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: tiro@tiro.com Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew [This is in response to a message on the main Unicode list, but I am sending this to the Hebrew list, since my question regards potential implementation and I want to be sure that Hebrew users see it.] Michael Everson wrote: >>> 8a. Can any of the proposed characters be considered a presentation >>> form of an existing character or character sequence? >>> No. >> Is this overstating the case? > It's got a unique glyph representation, it's got its own name, and it > has its own pronunciation, so in our judgement it is not a presentation > form of QAMATS. This seems justifiable to me, although I expect it may not to others. I'm interested to hear what Jony has to say, since he often has reservations about encoding new Hebrew characters. My question, though, is regarding possible font implementation should this character be accepted for inclusion in Unicode. Obviously authors and publishers creating documents who do not wish to distinguish visually the pronunciation of qamats qatan can simply not use the new character, and employ the existing qamats character instead. I am wondering if it would be considered a useful font feature to map the normal qamats glyph as a stylistic alternate for qamats qatan, so that publishers who do not wish to distinguish can easily format documents that do contain the new qamats qatan character without having to re-encode the document? John Hudson -- Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com Vancouver, BC tiro@tiro.com I often play against man, God says, but it is he who wants to lose, the idiot, and it is I who want him to win. And I succeed sometimes In making him win. - Charles Peguy From mark@kli.org Wed May 5 20:14:37 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Wed, 05 May 2004 20:14:37 -0500 (CDT) Received: from pi.meson.org (h-66-134-26-207.nycmny83.covad.net [66.134.26.207]) by unicode.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id i461EaWK005992 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 20:14:37 -0500 Received: (qmail 6235 invoked from network); 6 May 2004 01:14:35 -0000 Received: from nagas.meson.org (HELO kli.org) (1000@192.168.1.101) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 6 May 2004 01:14:35 -0000 Message-ID: <4099917A.7070202@kli.org> Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 21:14:34 -0400 From: "Mark E. Shoulson" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en, fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Hudson CC: Michael Everson , hebrew@unicode.org Subject: [hebrew] Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS References: <4098A13A.2040407@smontagu.org> <4098400C.3020004@tiro.com> In-Reply-To: <4098400C.3020004@tiro.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.3.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 1371 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: mark@kli.org Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew John Hudson wrote: > [This is in response to a message on the main Unicode list, but I am > sending this to the Hebrew list, since my question regards potential > implementation and I want to be sure that Hebrew users see it.] > > Michael Everson wrote: > >>>> 8a. Can any of the proposed characters be considered a presentation >>>> form of an existing character or character sequence? >>>> No. >>> > >>> Is this overstating the case? >> > >> It's got a unique glyph representation, it's got its own name, and it >> has its own pronunciation, so in our judgement it is not a >> presentation form of QAMATS. > > > This seems justifiable to me, although I expect it may not to others. > I'm interested to hear what Jony has to say, since he often has > reservations about encoding new Hebrew characters. I'm not even positive how much *I* buy it. But I explained to Michael the facts of the grammatical situation, and showed him the examples that I had, and he insisted that it should be its own codepoint. Let that judgement stand or fail on its own merits in the eyes of the committee and experts. > My question, though, is regarding possible font implementation should > this character be accepted for inclusion in Unicode. Obviously authors > and publishers creating documents who do not wish to distinguish > visually the pronunciation of qamats qatan can simply not use the new > character, and employ the existing qamats character instead. I am > wondering if it would be considered a useful font feature to map the > normal qamats glyph as a stylistic alternate for qamats qatan, so that > publishers who do not wish to distinguish can easily format documents > that do contain the new qamats qatan character without having to > re-encode the document? I would have said (and I have) that it's the perfect case for a VS (except you can't VS on combining characters). Michael's view is that these publishers have effectively created a new symbol. ~mark From rosennej@qsm.co.il Fri May 7 05:29:20 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 07 May 2004 05:29:21 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mx-out.daemonmail.net (mx-out.daemonmail.net [216.104.160.39]) by unicode.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i47ATKgE006814 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 05:29:20 -0500 Received: from localhost.daemonmail.net (localhost.daemonmail.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx-out.daemonmail.net (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA07941; Fri, 7 May 2004 03:29:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rosennej@qsm.co.il) Received: from [212.235.114.28] (via account qsm.co.il) by mx-out.daemonmail.net with ESMTP id W320y3F0 authenticated by POP; Fri, 07 May 2004 03:29:12 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jony Rosenne" To: Cc: "Michael Everson" , Subject: [hebrew] Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 13:28:33 +0200 Message-ID: <003a01c43426$7175be80$6b03dc0a@QSM4> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <4098400C.3020004@tiro.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by unicode.org id i47ATKgE006814 X-archive-position: 1372 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: rosennej@qsm.co.il Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew 1) While some "important" publishers make the distinction, most do not. Also, most Hebrew fonts do not and probably will not include this character, since standard Hebrew does not make the distinction. So what happens to interchange and searching? 2) Probably it should be excluded from Conformance Requirement C10, allowing a conforming process to replace it with Qamats. Or else make it compatibility equivalent. Jony > -----Original Message----- > From: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org > [mailto:hebrew-bounce@unicode.org] On Behalf Of John Hudson > Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 3:15 AM > To: Michael Everson > Cc: hebrew@unicode.org > Subject: [hebrew] Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP > of the UCS > > > [This is in response to a message on the main Unicode list, > but I am sending this to the > Hebrew list, since my question regards potential > implementation and I want to be sure that > Hebrew users see it.] > > Michael Everson wrote: > > >>> 8a. Can any of the proposed characters be considered a > presentation > >>> form of an existing character or character sequence? No. > > >> Is this overstating the case? > > > It's got a unique glyph representation, it's got its own > name, and it > > has its own pronunciation, so in our judgement it is not a > presentation > > form of QAMATS. > > This seems justifiable to me, although I expect it may not to > others. I'm interested to > hear what Jony has to say, since he often has reservations > about encoding new Hebrew > characters. > > My question, though, is regarding possible font > implementation should this character be > accepted for inclusion in Unicode. Obviously authors and > publishers creating documents who > do not wish to distinguish visually the pronunciation of > qamats qatan can simply not use > the new character, and employ the existing qamats character > instead. I am wondering if it > would be considered a useful font feature to map the normal > qamats glyph as a stylistic > alternate for qamats qatan, so that publishers who do not > wish to distinguish can easily > format documents that do contain the new qamats qatan > character without having to > re-encode the document? > > John Hudson > > -- > > Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com > Vancouver, BC tiro@tiro.com > > I often play against man, God says, but it is he who wants > to lose, the idiot, and it is I who want him to win. > And I succeed sometimes > In making him win. > - Charles Peguy > > > From peterkirk@qaya.org Fri May 7 13:27:32 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 07 May 2004 13:27:32 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mail.link77.net (mail.kastanet.org [208.145.81.89]) by unicode.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i47IRRhE008335 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 13:27:31 -0500 Received: from [212.47.133.121] (account peter_kirk@kastanet.org HELO qaya.org) by mail.link77.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 39881332; Fri, 07 May 2004 14:27:18 -0400 Message-ID: <409BC957.10606@qaya.org> Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 10:37:27 -0700 From: Peter Kirk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jony Rosenne CC: hebrew@unicode.org, Michael Everson , SI2109@isoc.org.il Subject: [hebrew] Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS References: <003a01c43426$7175be80$6b03dc0a@QSM4> In-Reply-To: <003a01c43426$7175be80$6b03dc0a@QSM4> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 1373 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew On 07/05/2004 04:28, Jony Rosenne wrote: >1) While some "important" publishers make the distinction, most do not. >Also, most Hebrew fonts do not and probably will not include this character, >since standard Hebrew does not make the distinction. So what happens to >interchange and searching? > > Searching should be no problem because I would assume that the new qamats should be collated together with the old one except at the code point level. >2) Probably it should be excluded from Conformance Requirement C10, allowing >a conforming process to replace it with Qamats. ... > This sounds a bad idea. We don't want to allow processes, other than display processes, to mess around with the data except by special request. Display processes should of course be allowed to use the same glyph, but that is a different matter. I suggested earlier using a variation sequence, which would solve the problem (including the font problem) because the variation selector is default ignorable. This is precisiely the situation for which variation selectors exist, but unfortunately they cannot be used with combining characters. >... Or else make it >compatibility equivalent. > > Good idea. >Jony > > > -- Peter Kirk peter@qaya.org (personal) peterkirk@qaya.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/ From rosennej@qsm.co.il Wed May 12 17:59:40 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Wed, 12 May 2004 17:59:40 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mx-out.daemonmail.net (mx-out.daemonmail.net [216.104.160.39]) by unicode.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i4CMxdXH022349 for ; Wed, 12 May 2004 17:59:40 -0500 Received: from localhost.daemonmail.net (localhost.daemonmail.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx-out.daemonmail.net (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA17577; Wed, 12 May 2004 15:59:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rosennej@qsm.co.il) Received: from [217.132.0.79] (via account qsm.co.il) by mx-out.daemonmail.net with ESMTP id FZ40ldA2 authenticated by POP; Wed, 12 May 2004 15:59:34 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jony Rosenne" To: , "'Michael Everson'" Subject: [hebrew] Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 01:58:54 +0200 Message-ID: <000f01c4387d$16e154b0$0401c80a@QSM4> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 In-Reply-To: <409BC957.10606@qaya.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by unicode.org id i4CMxdXH022349 X-archive-position: 1374 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: rosennej@qsm.co.il Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew An additional consideration AGAINST the proposal has come up in our discussions in Israel: There is no agreement which Qamats is which. There are quite a few words with Qamats where some people think it is Qamats Gadol and some think it is Qamats Qatan. The consensus here seems to be that this is a glyph variant and not a different character. Jony From Aktonin@paradise.net.nz Wed May 12 18:32:26 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Wed, 12 May 2004 18:32:26 -0500 (CDT) Received: from linda-1.paradise.net.nz (bm-1a.paradise.net.nz [202.0.58.20]) by unicode.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i4CNWL7m012002 for ; Wed, 12 May 2004 18:32:26 -0500 Received: from smtp-2.paradise.net.nz (smtp-2b.paradise.net.nz [202.0.32.211]) by linda-1.paradise.net.nz (Paradise.net.nz) with ESMTP id <0HXM00MFNK1WAI@linda-1.paradise.net.nz> for hebrew@unicode.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 11:32:20 +1200 (NZST) Received: from MALIACHEEM (218-101-15-194.paradise.net.nz [218.101.15.194]) by smtp-2.paradise.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDEDB9E20E for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 11:32:19 +1200 (NZST) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 11:32:46 +1200 From: David Subject: [hebrew] Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS In-reply-to: <000f01c4387d$16e154b0$0401c80a@QSM4> To: hebrew@unicode.org Message-id: <000001c43879$6ea74230$0100a8c0@MALIACHEEM> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal X-archive-position: 1375 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: Aktonin@paradise.net.nz Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew The fact is having a Qamats Qatan symbol in Unicode acknowledges the fact that there are different Hebrew traditions/vairations, just like English has variations/dialects. -----Original Message----- >An additional consideration AGAINST the proposal has come up in our discussions in Israel: There is no agreement which Qamats is which. Just like Americans says colour is spelt as 'color', and in the UK it is 'Colour'. >There are quite a few words with Qamats where some people think it is Qamats Gadol and some think it is Qamats Qatan. That's called people having their own hebrew traditions and dialects, so why should that stop this symbol being added to unicode? From rosennej@qsm.co.il Thu May 13 02:21:06 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Thu, 13 May 2004 02:21:06 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mx-out.daemonmail.net (mx-out.daemonmail.net [216.104.160.39]) by unicode.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i4D7L3xE001158 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 02:21:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.daemonmail.net (localhost.daemonmail.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx-out.daemonmail.net (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA19779; Thu, 13 May 2004 00:20:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rosennej@qsm.co.il) Received: from [212.235.115.196] (via account qsm.co.il) by mx-out.daemonmail.net with ESMTP id x850TDB2 authenticated by POP; Thu, 13 May 2004 00:20:56 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jony Rosenne" To: Cc: "Michael Everson" Subject: [hebrew] Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 10:20:16 +0200 Message-ID: <000501c438c3$21a07ac0$0401c80a@QSM4> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 In-Reply-To: <000001c43879$6ea74230$0100a8c0@MALIACHEEM> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 X-archive-position: 1376 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: rosennej@qsm.co.il Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew I am not against adding the glyph, all I said is that it is not a character in the Unicode sense of the word. Encoding Qamats Qatan as a separate character will cause great trouble for the majority who do not make the distinction between the two pronunciations of Qamats. You call it a symbol. I have no objection to adding it to the symbol block, just don't call it "Hebrew Point Qamats Qatan". There are only a few books that do make the distinction, and they are definitely not "plain text". The distinction of Qamats Qatan by a separate symbol is not a matter of dialect or variation, it is purely a presentation issue. It is a glyph variant. Jony. > -----Original Message----- > From: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org > [mailto:hebrew-bounce@unicode.org] On Behalf Of David > Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 1:33 AM > To: hebrew@unicode.org > Subject: [hebrew] Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP > of the UCS > > > The fact is having a Qamats Qatan symbol in Unicode > acknowledges the fact that there are different Hebrew > traditions/vairations, just like English has variations/dialects. > > -----Original Message----- > >An additional consideration AGAINST the proposal has come up in our > discussions in Israel: There is no agreement which Qamats is which. > > Just like Americans says colour is spelt as 'color', and in > the UK it is 'Colour'. > > >There are quite a few words with Qamats where some people think it is > Qamats Gadol and some think it is Qamats Qatan. > > That's called people having their own hebrew traditions and > dialects, so why should that stop this symbol being added to unicode? > > > From kfeuerherm@wlu.ca Thu May 13 07:49:26 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Thu, 13 May 2004 07:49:26 -0500 (CDT) Received: from wlu.ca (wluw5.wlu.ca [192.54.242.118]) by unicode.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id i4DCnPfj014461 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 07:49:26 -0500 Received: from WLU-MTA by wlu.ca with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 13 May 2004 08:49:20 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.5.2 Beta Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 08:48:55 -0400 From: "Karljurgen Feuerherm" To: , Cc: Subject: [hebrew] Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by unicode.org id i4DCnPfj014461 X-archive-position: 1377 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: kfeuerherm@wlu.ca Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew Somethat that has a functional distinction like pronunciation, whether or not observed by everyone, cannot be called a glyph variant. As it relates to Hebrew, if adopted, it shouldn't be hidden in some other block.... K Karljürgen G. Feuerherm Department of Archaeology and Classical Studies Wilfrid Laurier University 75 University Avenue West Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3C5 (519) 884-1970 x3193 >>> "Jony Rosenne" 13/05/2004 4:20:16 am >>> I am not against adding the glyph, all I said is that it is not a character in the Unicode sense of the word. Encoding Qamats Qatan as a separate character will cause great trouble for the majority who do not make the distinction between the two pronunciations of Qamats. You call it a symbol. I have no objection to adding it to the symbol block, just don't call it "Hebrew Point Qamats Qatan". There are only a few books that do make the distinction, and they are definitely not "plain text". The distinction of Qamats Qatan by a separate symbol is not a matter of dialect or variation, it is purely a presentation issue. It is a glyph variant. Jony. > -----Original Message----- > From: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org > [mailto:hebrew-bounce@unicode.org] On Behalf Of David > Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 1:33 AM > To: hebrew@unicode.org > Subject: [hebrew] Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP > of the UCS > > > The fact is having a Qamats Qatan symbol in Unicode > acknowledges the fact that there are different Hebrew > traditions/vairations, just like English has variations/dialects. > > -----Original Message----- > >An additional consideration AGAINST the proposal has come up in our > discussions in Israel: There is no agreement which Qamats is which. > > Just like Americans says colour is spelt as 'color', and in > the UK it is 'Colour'. > > >There are quite a few words with Qamats where some people think it is > Qamats Gadol and some think it is Qamats Qatan. > > That's called people having their own hebrew traditions and > dialects, so why should that stop this symbol being added to unicode? > > > From mark@kli.org Thu May 13 08:11:53 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Thu, 13 May 2004 08:11:53 -0500 (CDT) Received: from pi.meson.org (h-66-134-26-207.nycmny83.covad.net [66.134.26.207]) by unicode.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id i4DDBi9S025290 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 08:11:53 -0500 Received: (qmail 17503 invoked from network); 13 May 2004 13:11:42 -0000 Received: from nagas.meson.org (HELO kli.org) (1000@192.168.1.101) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 13 May 2004 13:11:42 -0000 Message-ID: <40A3740D.1080606@kli.org> Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 09:11:41 -0400 From: "Mark E. Shoulson" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en, fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jony Rosenne CC: hebrew@unicode.org, Michael Everson Subject: [hebrew] Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS References: <000501c438c3$21a07ac0$0401c80a@QSM4> In-Reply-To: <000501c438c3$21a07ac0$0401c80a@QSM4> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.3.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 1378 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: mark@kli.org Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew Jony Rosenne wrote: >I am not against adding the glyph, all I said is that it is not a character >in the Unicode sense of the word. > >Encoding Qamats Qatan as a separate character will cause great trouble for >the majority who do not make the distinction between the two pronunciations >of Qamats. > Just about everyone says "kol" and not "kal". >There are only a few books that do make the distinction, and they are >definitely not "plain text". > There is no such thing as plain text on paper. Several books make the distinction, and I guess the question is how many does it take before we can say that they have invented a new symbol, not just a nifty swash variant? >The distinction of Qamats Qatan by a separate symbol is not a matter of >dialect or variation, it is purely a presentation issue. It is a glyph >variant. > It's not *just* a glyph variant, as it carries significance in a way that choosing between pointy-bottom w and round-bottom w doesn't. Variation selectors would really be the best, but we can't do that with combining characters. We'd say some people choose to spell the word with this spiffy new symbol and some don't, I guess. I've got my own doubts about the validity of this as a character, but I'm not sure these particular arguments stand up. ~mark From mark@kli.org Thu May 13 08:46:19 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Thu, 13 May 2004 08:46:19 -0500 (CDT) Received: from pi.meson.org (h-66-134-26-207.nycmny83.covad.net [66.134.26.207]) by unicode.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id i4DDkI55006519 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 08:46:19 -0500 Received: (qmail 18348 invoked from network); 13 May 2004 13:46:14 -0000 Received: from nagas.meson.org (HELO kli.org) (1000@192.168.1.101) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 13 May 2004 13:46:14 -0000 Message-ID: <40A37C26.8000602@kli.org> Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 09:46:14 -0400 From: "Mark E. Shoulson" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en, fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Mark E. Shoulson" CC: Jony Rosenne , hebrew@unicode.org, Michael Everson Subject: [hebrew] Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS References: <000501c438c3$21a07ac0$0401c80a@QSM4> <40A3740D.1080606@kli.org> In-Reply-To: <40A3740D.1080606@kli.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.3.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 1379 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: mark@kli.org Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew Mark E. Shoulson wrote: > Jony Rosenne wrote: > >> The distinction of Qamats Qatan by a separate symbol is not a matter of >> dialect or variation, it is purely a presentation issue. It is a glyph >> variant. >> > [....] > > I've got my own doubts about the validity of this as a character, but > I'm not sure these particular arguments stand up. I take it back. That *is* essentially my question regarding the validity of this character. Just that I do concede there is another side to the issue and it isn't necessarily cut and dried. ~mark From peterkirk@qaya.org Thu May 13 09:07:48 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Thu, 13 May 2004 09:07:48 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mail.link77.net (kastanet.org [208.145.81.89]) by unicode.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i4DE7lYL014577 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 09:07:47 -0500 Received: from [212.47.129.135] (account peter_kirk@kastanet.org HELO qaya.org) by mail.link77.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 40260694; Thu, 13 May 2004 10:07:38 -0400 Message-ID: <40A37E17.1040900@qaya.org> Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 06:54:31 -0700 From: Peter Kirk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jony Rosenne CC: hebrew@unicode.org, "'Michael Everson'" Subject: [hebrew] Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS References: <000f01c4387d$16e154b0$0401c80a@QSM4> In-Reply-To: <000f01c4387d$16e154b0$0401c80a@QSM4> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 1380 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew On 12/05/2004 16:58, Jony Rosenne wrote: >An additional consideration AGAINST the proposal has come up in our >discussions in Israel: There is no agreement which Qamats is which. There >are quite a few words with Qamats where some people think it is Qamats Gadol >and some think it is Qamats Qatan. > >The consensus here seems to be that this is a glyph variant and not a >different character. > >Jony > > > As Michael has so convincingly argued re Phoenician, the fact that one group of people does not require a certain character distinction is not a good argument for rejecting the requirement of another group for the distinction. In this case, there seems to be a group of people who do want to make the distinction. So, by this principle, the opinion of others, even if they are the majority of users of the script, should not be sufficient to block encoding of the new character. -- Peter Kirk peter@qaya.org (personal) peterkirk@qaya.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/ From rosennej@qsm.co.il Thu May 13 12:33:17 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Thu, 13 May 2004 12:33:17 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mx-out.daemonmail.net (mx-out.daemonmail.net [216.104.160.39]) by unicode.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i4DHXHwZ013575 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 12:33:17 -0500 Received: from localhost.daemonmail.net (localhost.daemonmail.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx-out.daemonmail.net (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA04407; Thu, 13 May 2004 10:33:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rosennej@qsm.co.il) Received: from [217.132.170.157] (via account qsm.co.il) by mx-out.daemonmail.net with ESMTP id w810O9E0 authenticated by POP; Thu, 13 May 2004 10:33:06 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jony Rosenne" To: Cc: Subject: [hebrew] Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of theUCS Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 20:32:26 +0200 Message-ID: <001301c43918$a6115a90$0401c80a@QSM4> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 In-Reply-To: X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by unicode.org id i4DHXHwZ013575 X-archive-position: 1381 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: rosennej@qsm.co.il Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew The FBxx block has Hebrew characters too. Jony > -----Original Message----- > From: Karljurgen Feuerherm [mailto:kfeuerherm@wlu.ca] > Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 2:49 PM > To: rosennej@qsm.co.il; hebrew@unicode.org > Cc: everson@evertype.com > Subject: [hebrew] Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP > of theUCS > > > Somethat that has a functional distinction like > pronunciation, whether or not observed by everyone, cannot be > called a glyph variant. As it relates to Hebrew, if adopted, > it shouldn't be hidden in some other block.... > > K > > Karljürgen G. Feuerherm > Department of Archaeology and Classical Studies > Wilfrid Laurier University > 75 University Avenue West > Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3C5 > (519) 884-1970 x3193 > > >>> "Jony Rosenne" 13/05/2004 4:20:16 am >>> > I am not against adding the glyph, all I said is that it is > not a character in the Unicode sense of the word. > > Encoding Qamats Qatan as a separate character will cause > great trouble for the majority who do not make the > distinction between the two pronunciations of Qamats. > > You call it a symbol. I have no objection to adding it to the > symbol block, just don't call it "Hebrew Point Qamats Qatan". > > There are only a few books that do make the distinction, and > they are definitely not "plain text". > > The distinction of Qamats Qatan by a separate symbol is not a > matter of dialect or variation, it is purely a presentation > issue. It is a glyph variant. > > Jony. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org > > [mailto:hebrew-bounce@unicode.org] On Behalf Of David > > Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 1:33 AM > > To: hebrew@unicode.org > > Subject: [hebrew] Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP > > of the UCS > > > > > > The fact is having a Qamats Qatan symbol in Unicode > > acknowledges the fact that there are different Hebrew > > traditions/vairations, just like English has variations/dialects. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > >An additional consideration AGAINST the proposal has come up in our > > discussions in Israel: There is no agreement which Qamats is which. > > > > Just like Americans says colour is spelt as 'color', and in > > the UK it is 'Colour'. > > > > >There are quite a few words with Qamats where some people > think it is > > Qamats Gadol and some think it is Qamats Qatan. > > > > That's called people having their own hebrew traditions and > > dialects, so why should that stop this symbol being added > to unicode? > > > > > > > > > > > From rosennej@qsm.co.il Thu May 13 12:46:04 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Thu, 13 May 2004 12:46:04 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mx-out.daemonmail.net (mx-out.daemonmail.net [216.104.160.39]) by unicode.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i4DHk3v7015116 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 12:46:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.daemonmail.net (localhost.daemonmail.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx-out.daemonmail.net (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA08667; Thu, 13 May 2004 10:45:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rosennej@qsm.co.il) Received: from [217.132.170.157] (via account qsm.co.il) by mx-out.daemonmail.net with ESMTP id UF20wFF0 authenticated by POP; Thu, 13 May 2004 10:45:56 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jony Rosenne" To: Cc: "'Michael Everson'" Subject: [hebrew] Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 20:45:14 +0200 Message-ID: <001401c4391a$706840f0$0401c80a@QSM4> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 In-Reply-To: <40A37E17.1040900@qaya.org> X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by unicode.org id i4DHk3v7015116 X-archive-position: 1382 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: rosennej@qsm.co.il Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew Add it to the FBxx block and make it related to Qamats, similar to wide letters and alternate Ayin. People who want to make the distinction can, but they will not force this non-standard distinction on the vast majority who follow the standard Hebrew writing system nor they will mislead the innocent. Jony > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Kirk [mailto:peterkirk@qaya.org] > Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 3:55 PM > To: Jony Rosenne > Cc: hebrew@unicode.org; 'Michael Everson' > Subject: Re: [hebrew] Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the > BMP of the UCS > > > On 12/05/2004 16:58, Jony Rosenne wrote: > > >An additional consideration AGAINST the proposal has come up in our > >discussions in Israel: There is no agreement which Qamats is which. > >There are quite a few words with Qamats where some people > think it is > >Qamats Gadol and some think it is Qamats Qatan. > > > >The consensus here seems to be that this is a glyph variant > and not a > >different character. > > > >Jony > > > > > > > As Michael has so convincingly argued re Phoenician, the fact > that one > group of people does not require a certain character > distinction is not > a good argument for rejecting the requirement of another > group for the > distinction. In this case, there seems to be a group of people who do > want to make the distinction. So, by this principle, the opinion of > others, even if they are the majority of users of the script, > should not > be sufficient to block encoding of the new character. > > -- > Peter Kirk > peter@qaya.org (personal) > peterkirk@qaya.org (work) > http://www.qaya.org/ > > > > From peterkirk@qaya.org Thu May 13 13:03:59 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Thu, 13 May 2004 13:03:59 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mail.link77.net (kastanet.org [208.145.81.89]) by unicode.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i4DI3wPo020299 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 13:03:59 -0500 Received: from [212.47.129.243] (account peter_kirk@kastanet.org HELO qaya.org) by mail.link77.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 40278316; Thu, 13 May 2004 14:03:50 -0400 Message-ID: <40A3B879.5030308@qaya.org> Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 11:03:37 -0700 From: Peter Kirk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jony Rosenne CC: hebrew@unicode.org Subject: [hebrew] Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS References: <001401c4391a$706840f0$0401c80a@QSM4> In-Reply-To: <001401c4391a$706840f0$0401c80a@QSM4> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 1383 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew On 13/05/2004 11:45, Jony Rosenne wrote: >Add it to the FBxx block and make it related to Qamats, similar to wide >letters and alternate Ayin. People who want to make the distinction can, but >they will not force this non-standard distinction on the vast majority who >follow the standard Hebrew writing system nor they will mislead the >innocent. > >Jony > > > I see your point, Jony. We need to make it clear somehow that this is not the regular way of writing qamats qatan. Perhaps this could be in the character name. But this is not a presentation form, because it has a distinct semantic and pronunciation, and so it should not be in the presentation forms block. It is also not a symbol, as you suggested earlier, but an alphabetic combining character. What it is is a glyph variant of the sort which should be encoded with a variation sequence. So maybe you would like to join me in proposing a set of variation selectors which can be used with combining characters, or for that matter a specific variation sequence using the existing variation selectors together with a relaxation of the rule disallowing variation selectors with combining characters. After all, a similar relaxation of the rules for ZWJ and ZWNJ was recently made; and the argument that normalisation is messed up can be answered. -- Peter Kirk peter@qaya.org (personal) peterkirk@qaya.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/ From jallan@smrtytrek.com Thu May 13 13:59:58 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Thu, 13 May 2004 13:59:58 -0500 (CDT) Received: from tomts35-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts35.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.109]) by unicode.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i4DIxs5E009229 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 13:59:58 -0500 Received: from smrtytrek.com ([204.101.137.194]) by tomts35-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.05 201-253-122-130-105-20030824) with ESMTP id <20040513185953.PUSI27329.tomts35-srv.bellnexxia.net@smrtytrek.com> for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 14:59:53 -0400 Message-ID: <40A3EDBB.2000809@smrtytrek.com> Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 14:50:51 -0700 From: Jim Allan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hebrew@unicode.org Subject: [hebrew] Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS References: <000f01c4387d$16e154b0$0401c80a@QSM4> <40A37E17.1040900@qaya.org> In-Reply-To: <40A37E17.1040900@qaya.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-archive-position: 1384 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: jallan@smrtytrek.com Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew Peter Kirk wrote: > As Michael has so convincingly argued re Phoenician, the fact that one > group of people does not require a certain character distinction is > not a good argument for rejecting the requirement of another group for > the distinction. But that some require a distinction is not necessarily a good argument for encoding. The Unicode mailing list and the Unicode consortium has had many requests for distinctions which will probably never be incorporated in Unicode because however badly needed on occasion or for a particular use, the distinctions requested are felt to be inappropriate at the *plain text* level or felt to be too idiosyncratic. I can certainly see wishing to distinguish between long and short hiriq as well in Biblical texts, and so forth. > In this case, there seems to be a group of people who do want to make > the distinction. So, by this principle, the opinion of others, even if > they are the majority of users of the script, should not be sufficient > to block encoding of the new character. Not alone of course. This seems to me to be parallel to the idiosyncratic use of variant forms of Latin letters for particular phonetic use in dictionaries, where each dictionary or grammar or phrase book or teaching alphabet has its own usage and forms of characters, sometimes with characters found nowhere else, or found elsewhere with different meanings. The most commonly used forms of such characters outside IPA usage and recommendation are encoded in Unicode, but are encoded by shape rather than by meaning. They sometimes have very different meanings in different phonetic traditions or transliteration traditions or simplified teaching alphabet traditions. For example U+0280 (a small capital R) is used both for Germanic and Old Norse letter YR and for a voiced uvular trill according to Unicode's information. But I have seen it used idiosyncratically to indicate a front trilled sound to be distinguished from normal lowercase _r_ used to indicate an untrilled sound which in IPA should be respectively the normal lowercase _r_ and U+0279. Similarly with diacritics: they are coded by shape rather than by meaning. Hebrew pointing is arguably the application of diacritics to a base letter. One can quite understand a desire, indeed the *need* at times, to indicate finer degrees of pronunciation than standard Massoretic pointing allows and to do this in Hebrew rather than switching to Latin phonetic script. This has sometimes done by creating new characters, e.g. for qamats by creating a new distinctive form for either qamats gadol or qamats qatan or be using distinctively what would otherwise be considered simple glyph variants, just as U+0251 would normally be considered a glyph variant for _a_, indeed the normal glyph variant in italic fonts and U+0261 is just a normal glyph variant for _g_. U+1D6B (LATIN SMALL LETTER UE) is a symbol used in Webster Dictionary pronunciation and a few other case where many other dictionaries would use _ü_. As far as I know it has no other use. But it has been encoded spearately, not noted as a font variant form for _ü_. Similarly U+0269 and U+026A have, so far as I know, exactly the same meanings in different phonetic traditions and might have been encoded identically on that basis alone. The same is true of U+0277 and U+028A which as far as meaning goes might as well have been encoded as co-variant glyphs of the same character. But they are considered separate characters as having been created independently and having different forms, even though created as a response to exactly the same need and used identically to fulfill that need. On the other hand, from TUS 4.1.1: << ... the Unicode Standard does not encode idiosyncratic, personal, novel, or private-use characters, ... >> That particular books use idiosyncratic and novel forms for qamats qatan or qamats gadol or Welsh voiceless L does not indicate that every such form should be encoded in Unicode. This seems to me to be more a case where a linguistic body or a consortium of publishers or both should work together on a tighter pointing system which, after it was approved might then also be presented to Unicode for consideration, with the characters then being encoded more by shape than by recommended use (which might different from the actual previous idiosyncratic use.) That those who wish to make a distinction between qamats qatan and qamats gadol do so in different ways indicates that currently we are dealing with idiosyncratic use. If even two different characters emerge as generally preferred for qamats qatan, then perhaps both should be encoded, just as variant phonetic characters are encoded for the Latin script. Any such additional phonetic characters could be named HEBREW POINT VARIANT QAMATS, HEBREW POINT VARIANT HIRIQ and so forth. Jim Allan Also variations selectors (which would seem impossible to use here in any case) have so far been employed to distinguish glyph variants of what would mostly be thought of as the same character. From rosennej@qsm.co.il Thu May 13 14:03:17 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Thu, 13 May 2004 14:03:17 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mx-out.daemonmail.net (mx-out.daemonmail.net [216.104.160.39]) by unicode.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i4DJ3GfZ009688 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 14:03:17 -0500 Received: from localhost.daemonmail.net (localhost.daemonmail.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx-out.daemonmail.net (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA42054; Thu, 13 May 2004 12:03:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rosennej@qsm.co.il) Received: from [212.235.113.35] (via account qsm.co.il) by mx-out.daemonmail.net with ESMTP id 4wA0a0H2 authenticated by POP; Thu, 13 May 2004 12:03:10 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jony Rosenne" To: Cc: "'Michael Everson'" Subject: [hebrew] Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 22:02:31 +0200 Message-ID: <000001c43925$3ad30e60$0401c80a@QSM4> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 In-Reply-To: <40A3740D.1080606@kli.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Importance: Normal X-archive-position: 1385 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: rosennej@qsm.co.il Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark E. Shoulson [mailto:mark@kli.org] > Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 3:12 PM > To: Jony Rosenne > Cc: hebrew@unicode.org; Michael Everson > Subject: Re: [hebrew] Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the > BMP of the UCS > > > Jony Rosenne wrote: > > >I am not against adding the glyph, all I said is that it is not a > >character in the Unicode sense of the word. > > > >Encoding Qamats Qatan as a separate character will cause > great trouble > >for the majority who do not make the distinction between the two > >pronunciations of Qamats. > > > Just about everyone says "kol" and not "kal". > I meant that the majority do not make a distinction in writing the two pronounciations. > >There are only a few books that do make the distinction, and > they are > >definitely not "plain text". > > > There is no such thing as plain text on paper. Then call them "very rich" or "illuminated". They are definitely not the standard pointed Hebrew texts. > > Several books make the distinction, and I guess the question > is how many > does it take before we can say that they have invented a new > symbol, not > just a nifty swash variant? When it is accepted in general use. > > >The distinction of Qamats Qatan by a separate symbol is not > a matter of > >dialect or variation, it is purely a presentation issue. It > is a glyph > >variant. > > > It's not *just* a glyph variant, as it carries significance in a way > that choosing between pointy-bottom w and round-bottom w doesn't. Every glyph variant carries significance. > Variation selectors would really be the best, but we can't do > that with > combining characters. We'd say some people choose to spell the word > with this spiffy new symbol and some don't, I guess. > > I've got my own doubts about the validity of this as a character, but > I'm not sure these particular arguments stand up. > > ~mark Jony From davidg@macam.ac.il Thu May 13 15:31:39 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Thu, 13 May 2004 15:31:39 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mail.macam.ac.il (mail.mofet.macam98.ac.il [192.114.206.40]) by unicode.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i4DKVchN028733 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 15:31:38 -0500 Received: from mail.macam.ac.il (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.macam.ac.il (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i4DKVRvo023973 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 23:31:27 +0300 Received: from b199323 (dailin157.dailin.macam98.ac.il [192.114.209.157])by mail.macam.ac.il (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id i4DKVPJO023952for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 23:31:26 +0300 Message-ID: <016801c43931$98505a00$41d172c0@b199323> From: "David Grossman" To: References: <000f01c4387d$16e154b0$0401c80a@QSM4> <40A37E17.1040900@qaya.org > Subject: [hebrew] Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 23:28:21 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-imss-version: 2.0 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scores: Clean:26.06555 C:17 M:1 S:5 R:5 X-imss-settings: Baseline:4 C:3 M:4 S:4 R:4 (0.1000 0.3000) X-archive-position: 1386 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: davidg@macam.ac.il Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew I will not debate whether there is agreement in Israel about which Kamatz is which. However, I just checked the Hebrew introduction to Siddur Rinat Yisrael. That introduction clearly indicates the way *they* distinguish between Kamatz Gadol and Kamatz Katan throughout *that* Siddur. As long as the ground rules in any specific document are stated clearly, there is no reason to be concerned about how the symbol is used in other documents. Summary: A distinctive character is clearly necessary in Unicode. And, yes, it would be nice to have agreement across the board about that character. However, (1) the lack of agreement does not remove the necessity for the character, and (2) the lack of agreement is of minimal importance when the distinction is clearly stipulated in the document itself. The other issue is whether to regard this as a glyph variant or as a special character. I believe that our sole consideration should be flexibility. If the creation of a special character or of a special character set means that we will effectively dictate which characters will *not* be able to benefit from a Kamatz Katan, then it would be a mistake. David Grossman > On 12/05/2004 16:58, Jony Rosenne wrote: > > >An additional consideration AGAINST the proposal has come up in our > >discussions in Israel: There is no agreement which Qamats is which. There > >are quite a few words with Qamats where some people think it is Qamats Gadol > >and some think it is Qamats Qatan. > > From Aktonin@paradise.net.nz Thu May 13 16:20:22 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Thu, 13 May 2004 16:20:22 -0500 (CDT) Received: from linda-2.paradise.net.nz (bm-2a.paradise.net.nz [202.0.58.21]) by unicode.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i4DLKKHf002073 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 16:20:21 -0500 Received: from smtp-1.paradise.net.nz (smtp-1b.paradise.net.nz [202.0.32.210]) by linda-2.paradise.net.nz (Paradise.net.nz) with ESMTP id <0HXO00J738LVS9@linda-2.paradise.net.nz> for hebrew@unicode.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 09:20:19 +1200 (NZST) Received: from MALIACHEEM (218-101-46-92.paradise.net.nz [218.101.46.92]) by smtp-1.paradise.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50B50827F4 for ; Fri, 14 May 2004 09:20:19 +1200 (NZST) Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 09:20:46 +1200 From: David Subject: [hebrew] Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS In-reply-to: <40A3B879.5030308@qaya.org> To: hebrew@unicode.org Message-id: <000901c43930$28849ed0$0100a8c0@MALIACHEEM> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal X-archive-position: 1387 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: Aktonin@paradise.net.nz Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew Why not call it Tikkun Qamats Qatan? since that's essentially what the character is used for? David R. -----Original Message----- (edited) From: On Behalf Of Peter Kirk >........... I see your point, Jony. We need to make it clear somehow that this is not the regular way of writing qamats qatan. Perhaps this could be in the character name. From mark@kli.org Thu May 13 19:44:52 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Thu, 13 May 2004 19:44:52 -0500 (CDT) Received: from pi.meson.org (h-66-134-26-207.nycmny83.covad.net [66.134.26.207]) by unicode.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id i4E0iqUP018127 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 19:44:52 -0500 Received: (qmail 2599 invoked from network); 14 May 2004 00:44:49 -0000 Received: from nagas.meson.org (HELO kli.org) (1000@192.168.1.101) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 14 May 2004 00:44:49 -0000 Message-ID: <40A41680.7020108@kli.org> Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 20:44:48 -0400 From: "Mark E. Shoulson" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en, fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jony Rosenne CC: hebrew@unicode.org, "'Michael Everson'" Subject: [hebrew] Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS References: <001401c4391a$706840f0$0401c80a@QSM4> In-Reply-To: <001401c4391a$706840f0$0401c80a@QSM4> X-Hebrew-Date: 23 Iyar 5764 06:49pm (horae temporales) X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.3.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 1388 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: mark@kli.org Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew Jony Rosenne wrote: >Add it to the FBxx block and make it related to Qamats, similar to wide >letters and alternate Ayin. People who want to make the distinction can, but >they will not force this non-standard distinction on the vast majority who >follow the standard Hebrew writing system nor they will mislead the >innocent. > >Jony > Hey, nobody's "forcing" anything on anybody. Just providing an option for people who want it. The FBxx block could well be a good place for it, but after all, a codepoint is a codepoint. It's no less usable or valid a character in FBxx block--it's just (maybe) harder to notice when reading up on "Hebrew" and "Unicode." No matter where it's encoded (if at all), I fully expect most users of (pointed) Hebrew to carry on their merry way as they have before, and encode all qamatses with U+05B8. Those people/printers who wish to make the distinction would use the new codepoint, no matter where it's located (i.e. I don't expect this to be like the alef-lamed ligature is (as I understand it): "Yes, there's a codepoint for it--but don't use it! Use ALEF + ZWJ + LAMED instead!") ~mark From mark@kli.org Thu May 13 20:03:15 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Thu, 13 May 2004 20:03:15 -0500 (CDT) Received: from pi.meson.org (h-66-134-26-207.nycmny83.covad.net [66.134.26.207]) by unicode.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id i4E13BYD026263 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 20:03:15 -0500 Received: (qmail 2913 invoked from network); 14 May 2004 01:03:08 -0000 Received: from nagas.meson.org (HELO kli.org) (1000@192.168.1.101) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 14 May 2004 01:03:08 -0000 Message-ID: <40A41ACC.1090308@kli.org> Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 21:03:08 -0400 From: "Mark E. Shoulson" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en, fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jony Rosenne CC: hebrew@unicode.org, "'Michael Everson'" Subject: [hebrew] Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS References: <000001c43925$3ad30e60$0401c80a@QSM4> In-Reply-To: <000001c43925$3ad30e60$0401c80a@QSM4> X-Hebrew-Date: 23 Iyar 5764 07:12pm (horae temporales) X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.3.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 1389 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: mark@kli.org Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew Jony Rosenne wrote: >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Mark E. Shoulson [mailto:mark@kli.org] >>Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 3:12 PM >>To: Jony Rosenne >>Cc: hebrew@unicode.org; Michael Everson >>Subject: Re: [hebrew] Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the >>BMP of the UCS >> >> >>Jony Rosenne wrote: >> >> >> >>>There are only a few books that do make the distinction, and >>> >>> >>they are >> >> >>>definitely not "plain text". >>> >>> >>> >>There is no such thing as plain text on paper. >> >> > >Then call them "very rich" or "illuminated". They are definitely not the >standard pointed Hebrew texts. > That's the problem: are they truly "very rich" text? After all, mostly they're just plain old regular letters and points and ordinary punctuation marks, without even particularly fancy formatting. What's "rich" about them? Only this vowel-mark. Makes the whole argument sound circular to me. OTOH, the "Simanim" psalms (and Simanim tiqqun too), which is cited, I would say is definitely extremely rich text. But the Rinat Yisrael Siddur is fairly plain-Jane, and the USY bencher even more so. >>Several books make the distinction, and I guess the question >>is how many >>does it take before we can say that they have invented a new >>symbol, not >>just a nifty swash variant? >> >> > >When it is accepted in general use. > Like I said, "how many does it take?" "General" use is a vague term, and in the sense of "just about everyone" maybe too restrictive (maybe not). >>>The distinction of Qamats Qatan by a separate symbol is not >>> >>> >>a matter of >> >> >>>dialect or variation, it is purely a presentation issue. It >>> >>> >>is a glyph >> >> >>>variant. >>> >>> >>> >>It's not *just* a glyph variant, as it carries significance in a way >>that choosing between pointy-bottom w and round-bottom w doesn't. >> >> > >Every glyph variant carries significance. > Not so. Different fonts do not carry semantic or phonetic distinctions; the wide letters don't mean anything that I know of (I have no idea why they should be encoded at all, and even less why *some* letters and not others (which are also written wide in some texts, to fill out lines) have wide variants and some don't). The whole character/glyph distinction is based on the presupposition that the choice of actual glyph (from possible options available) doesn't matter. Variation Sequences, from what I can tell, sort of straddle the line between different character and mere glyph variant--rather like the qamats qatan should. ~mark From mark@kli.org Thu May 13 20:46:58 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Thu, 13 May 2004 20:46:58 -0500 (CDT) Received: from pi.meson.org (h-66-134-26-207.nycmny83.covad.net [66.134.26.207]) by unicode.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id i4E1kqtB006450 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 20:46:58 -0500 Received: (qmail 4061 invoked from network); 14 May 2004 01:46:49 -0000 Received: from nagas.meson.org (HELO kli.org) (1000@192.168.1.101) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 14 May 2004 01:46:49 -0000 Message-ID: <40A42509.1080902@kli.org> Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 21:46:49 -0400 From: "Mark E. Shoulson" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en, fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Grossman CC: hebrew@unicode.org, Michael Everson Subject: [hebrew] Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS References: <000f01c4387d$16e154b0$0401c80a@QSM4> <40A37E17.1040900@qaya.org > <016801c43931$98505a00$41d172c0@b199323> In-Reply-To: <016801c43931$98505a00$41d172c0@b199323> X-Hebrew-Date: 23 Iyar 5764 08:07pm (horae temporales) X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.3.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 1390 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: mark@kli.org Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew David Grossman wrote: >I will not debate whether there is agreement in Israel about which Kamatz is >which. However, I just checked the Hebrew introduction to Siddur Rinat >Yisrael. That introduction clearly indicates the way *they* distinguish >between Kamatz Gadol and Kamatz Katan throughout *that* Siddur. > Indeed, the table is reproduced in Figure 6 of the proposal. Or do you mean the discussion of the grammatical criteria they use? >As long as the ground rules in any specific document are stated clearly, >there is no reason to be concerned about how the symbol is used in other >documents. > Actually, occurrence of qamats qatan is fairly non-controversial. There are relatively few differences of opinion as to when it occurs, that I'm aware of (not counting people who say it doesn't happen at all). Mobile/quiescent Shewa is much more contentious. >The other issue is whether to regard this as a glyph variant or as a special >character. I believe that our sole consideration should be flexibility. If >the creation of a special character or of a special character set means that >we will effectively dictate which characters will *not* be able to benefit >from a Kamatz Katan, then it would be a mistake. > It's not a matter of dictating; it's supplying an option for those that need it. ~mark From mark@kli.org Thu May 13 20:59:31 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Thu, 13 May 2004 20:59:31 -0500 (CDT) Received: from pi.meson.org (h-66-134-26-207.nycmny83.covad.net [66.134.26.207]) by unicode.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id i4E1xUJw018377 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 20:59:31 -0500 Received: (qmail 4347 invoked from network); 14 May 2004 01:59:27 -0000 Received: from nagas.meson.org (HELO kli.org) (1000@192.168.1.101) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 14 May 2004 01:59:27 -0000 Message-ID: <40A427FF.9010203@kli.org> Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 21:59:27 -0400 From: "Mark E. Shoulson" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en, fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jim Allan CC: hebrew@unicode.org, Michael Everson Subject: [hebrew] Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS References: <000f01c4387d$16e154b0$0401c80a@QSM4> <40A37E17.1040900@qaya.org> <40A3EDBB.2000809@smrtytrek.com> In-Reply-To: <40A3EDBB.2000809@smrtytrek.com> X-Hebrew-Date: 23 Iyar 5764 08:22pm (horae temporales) X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.3.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 1391 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: mark@kli.org Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew Jim Allan wrote: > I can certainly see wishing to distinguish between long and short > hiriq as well in Biblical texts, and so forth. That's different: there is *no* precedent for making a *glyphic* distinction between the hiriqs (as the presence of the following yod is enough). What made Michael think that qamats qatan is called-for is the fact that there *are* printers that do make a graphical distinction between the two qamatses. Similarly, a distinction between paseq and the legarmehh line would be incredibly helpful for computational study of cantillations, and not having one is a tremendous pain. But unfortunately, there is, again, no tradition of ever drawing them differently, and I suspect we're going to have to make do with PUA or some other markup. > On the other hand, from TUS 4.1.1: > > << ... the Unicode Standard does not encode idiosyncratic, personal, > novel, or private-use characters, ... >> > > That particular books use idiosyncratic and novel forms for qamats > qatan or qamats gadol or Welsh voiceless L does not indicate that > every such form should be encoded in Unicode. Well, that's the question: is it "idiosyncratic," or does the fact that several independent publishers have taken to doing it mean that it's becoming more widespread? How many do you need to get out of "idiosyncratic"? (For example, a siddur with qamats-qatan also has a peculiar way of marking stress, that I've never seen anywhere else. I wouldn't propose encoding the marks used (at least one is already coded anyway), because it is definitely idiosyncratic to that publisher). > Also variations selectors (which would seem impossible to use here in > any case) have so far been employed to distinguish glyph variants of > what would mostly be thought of as the same character. Right, that's why I think Variation Selectors make the most sense... except that they're impossible in this case. ~mark From rosennej@qsm.co.il Thu May 13 22:31:42 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Thu, 13 May 2004 22:31:42 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mx-out.daemonmail.net (mx-out.daemonmail.net [216.104.160.39]) by unicode.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i4E3Vce9001041 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 22:31:42 -0500 Received: from localhost.daemonmail.net (localhost.daemonmail.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx-out.daemonmail.net (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA95552 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 20:31:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rosennej@qsm.co.il) Received: from [217.132.176.196] (via account qsm.co.il) by mx-out.daemonmail.net with ESMTP id wqO0SvU2 authenticated by POP; Thu, 13 May 2004 20:31:35 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jony Rosenne" To: Subject: [hebrew] Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 06:30:53 +0200 Message-ID: <001401c4396c$3fcbf980$0401c80a@QSM4> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 In-Reply-To: <016801c43931$98505a00$41d172c0@b199323> Importance: Normal X-archive-position: 1392 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: rosennej@qsm.co.il Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew > -----Original Message----- > From: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org > [mailto:hebrew-bounce@unicode.org] On Behalf Of David Grossman > Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 11:28 PM > To: hebrew@unicode.org > Subject: [hebrew] Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP > of the UCS > > > I will not debate whether there is agreement in Israel about > which Kamatz is which. However, I just checked the Hebrew > introduction to Siddur Rinat Yisrael. That introduction > clearly indicates the way *they* distinguish between Kamatz > Gadol and Kamatz Katan throughout *that* Siddur. > > As long as the ground rules in any specific document are > stated clearly, there is no reason to be concerned about how > the symbol is used in other documents. This is an argument for the PUA. ... > > David Grossman > Jony From davidg@macam.ac.il Fri May 14 05:59:40 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 14 May 2004 05:59:40 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mail.macam.ac.il (mail.mofet.macam98.ac.il [192.114.206.40]) by unicode.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i4EAxdB6005621 for ; Fri, 14 May 2004 05:59:40 -0500 Received: from mail.macam.ac.il (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.macam.ac.il (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i4EAxWvo025096 for ; Fri, 14 May 2004 13:59:32 +0300 Received: from b199323 (dailin226.dailin2.macam98.ac.il [192.114.208.226])by mail.macam.ac.il (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id i4EAxTJQ025067for ; Fri, 14 May 2004 13:59:31 +0300 Message-ID: <014f01c439aa$d9a836c0$e2d072c0@b199323> From: "David Grossman" To: References: <000f01c4387d$16e154b0$0401c80a@QSM4> <40A37E17.1040900@qaya.org > <016801c43931$98505a00$41d172c0@b199323> <40A42509.1080902@kli.org> Subject: [hebrew] Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 13:58:54 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-imss-version: 2.0 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scores: Clean:27.91915 C:17 M:1 S:5 R:5 X-imss-settings: Baseline:4 C:3 M:4 S:4 R:4 (0.1000 0.3000) X-archive-position: 1393 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: davidg@macam.ac.il Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew Their discussion of grammatical criteria is undoubtedly of interest to linguists, but it is of no relevance to this Unicode forum. According to my previous contention, it does not matter whether the symbol is used in a consistent manner. The issue is whether we need a symbol for Kamatz Katan and Gadol, as well as for Shva Na and Nach. Clearly, those who want to speak properly, even though they are not experts in advanced Hebrew grammar and syntax, would appreciate and welcome these forms of assistance. Furthermore, those who prepare certain children's books, pronunciation manuals, prayerbooks, textbooks, and forms of the tikkun korim will find these symbols to be of immense benefit. David Grossman > David Grossman wrote: > > >I will not debate whether there is agreement in Israel about which Kamatz is > >which. However, I just checked the Hebrew introduction to Siddur Rinat > >Yisrael. That introduction clearly indicates the way *they* distinguish > >between Kamatz Gadol and Kamatz Katan throughout *that* Siddur. > > > Indeed, the table is reproduced in Figure 6 of the proposal. > > Or do you mean the discussion of the grammatical criteria they use? > ~mark From mark@kli.org Fri May 14 09:30:41 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 14 May 2004 09:30:42 -0500 (CDT) Received: from pi.meson.org (h-66-134-26-207.nycmny83.covad.net [66.134.26.207]) by unicode.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id i4EEUY7U023270 for ; Fri, 14 May 2004 09:30:38 -0500 Received: (qmail 22053 invoked from network); 14 May 2004 14:30:24 -0000 Received: from nagas.meson.org (HELO kli.org) (1000@192.168.1.101) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 14 May 2004 14:30:24 -0000 Message-ID: <40A4D800.3030702@kli.org> Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 10:30:24 -0400 From: "Mark E. Shoulson" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en, fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Grossman CC: hebrew@unicode.org, Michael Everson Subject: [hebrew] Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS References: <000f01c4387d$16e154b0$0401c80a@QSM4> <40A37E17.1040900@qaya.org > <016801c43931$98505a00$41d172c0@b199323> <40A42509.1080902@kli.org> <014f01c439aa$d9a836c0$e2d072c0@b199323> In-Reply-To: <014f01c439aa$d9a836c0$e2d072c0@b199323> X-Hebrew-Date: 23 Iyar 5764 10:00am (horae temporales) X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.3.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 1394 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: mark@kli.org Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew David Grossman wrote: >Their discussion of grammatical criteria is undoubtedly of interest to >linguists, but it is of no relevance to this Unicode forum. > >According to my previous contention, it does not matter whether the symbol >is used in a consistent manner. The issue is whether we need a symbol for >Kamatz Katan and Gadol, as well as for Shva Na and Nach. > >Clearly, those who want to speak properly, even though they are not experts >in advanced Hebrew grammar and syntax, would appreciate and welcome these >forms of assistance. > Careful. As I understand it, it isn't Unicode's job to encode anything that might be helpful, but to encode characters that *are* or *were* in use (we can't speak to what *will* be in use, nor is it our business to influence that). A paseq/legarmehh distinction would be mighty helpful... but nobody actually writes one, nor has there ever been a tradition of writing them differently (or almost nobody; I'm sure there's one or two books where *someone* tried to make all possible distinctions--I think M. Breuer edited a Bible edition like that. If so, I'd consider that still in the "idiosyncratic" stage.) A distinct form of "s" in English for when it's pronounced /z/ would be useful for pedagogic purposes, but we don't encode one (we have "z", but that's not the same thing: I'm not talking about phonetic spelling as an explanation of English, I'm talking about writing English with English spelling... but with different forms of "e" for its different sounds, etc. That's what these kinds of vowel-marks are really equivalent to). The utility of the matter is not what makes qamats qatan something to consider. What makes it something to think about is the fact that there are people *using* it, in an extent that might be beyond "idiosyncratic" (as there are several unrelated printers involved). Sheva na/nach (and dagesh qal/hazaq) distinctions have been seen, but much less frequently (The "Simanim" Psalms distinguishes both, but then I consider it rather far from "plain text" (which doesn't exist on paper, but we can speak of relative plainness or fanciness), the Siddur Ish Matzliah has sheva na/nach and so does the Koren Siddur, in *some* of its typefaces (it uses several subtly different typefaces and typesetting conventions for different types of text. Some show distinctions that others don't.)) Should they also be encoded? It's obviously a judgement call, at what point does a new mark like this cease being "idiosyncratic" and start being a "mark in minority use"? And somehow the fact that a Sheva na, if distinguished, is always something like a boldface Sheva also makes it seem less of a mark and more markup to me. >Furthermore, those who prepare certain children's books, pronunciation >manuals, prayerbooks, textbooks, and forms of the tikkun korim will find >these symbols to be of immense benefit. > Benefit's nice, but it isn't a determining factor. The question is whether or not the user community has to date recognized such benefit *and* begun actually using the symbols. ~mark From peterkirk@qaya.org Fri May 14 09:41:37 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 14 May 2004 09:41:37 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mail.link77.net (mail.kastanet.org [208.145.81.89]) by unicode.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i4EEfaBU025526 for ; Fri, 14 May 2004 09:41:37 -0500 Received: from [212.47.129.43] (account peter_kirk@kastanet.org HELO qaya.org) by mail.link77.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 40345649; Fri, 14 May 2004 10:41:25 -0400 Message-ID: <40A4C19E.10705@qaya.org> Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 05:54:54 -0700 From: Peter Kirk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jim Allan CC: hebrew@unicode.org Subject: [hebrew] Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS References: <000f01c4387d$16e154b0$0401c80a@QSM4> <40A37E17.1040900@qaya.org> <40A3EDBB.2000809@smrtytrek.com> In-Reply-To: <40A3EDBB.2000809@smrtytrek.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 1395 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew On 13/05/2004 14:50, Jim Allan wrote: > ... > > This seems to me to be parallel to the idiosyncratic use of variant > forms of Latin letters for particular phonetic use in dictionaries, > where each dictionary or grammar or phrase book or teaching alphabet > has its own usage and forms of characters, sometimes with characters > found nowhere else, or found elsewhere with different meanings. > > The most commonly used forms of such characters outside IPA usage and > recommendation are encoded in Unicode, but are encoded by shape rather > than by meaning. They sometimes have very different meanings in > different phonetic traditions or transliteration traditions or > simplified teaching alphabet traditions. I agree with the dictionary parallel. And the principle seems to have been already been established that when such unusual character forms are commonly used in a number of dictionaries etc, they should be encoded in Unicode. This QAMATS QATAN seems to be such a case, where a number of publishers are now using essentially the same variant glyph, although some are using a different variant. > > For example U+0280 (a small capital R) is used both for Germanic and > Old Norse letter YR and for a voiced uvular trill according to > Unicode's information. But I have seen it used idiosyncratically to > indicate a front trilled sound to be distinguished from normal > lowercase _r_ used to indicate an untrilled sound which in IPA should > be respectively the normal lowercase _r_ and U+0279. > > Similarly with diacritics: they are coded by shape rather than by > meaning. Hebrew pointing is arguably the application of diacritics to > a base letter. Indeed, at least in a purely formal sense. But this then becomes an argument for at least two different QAMATS QATAN characters with different shapes. But probably only one of them is sufficiently widespread to require separate encoding. I suppose you might want to argue that the other one should not be used as a glyph variant. But then there are other diacritics which have glyph variants which have not been disunified, e.g. Greek circumflex. > > ... > > On the other hand, from TUS 4.1.1: > > << ... the Unicode Standard does not encode idiosyncratic, personal, > novel, or private-use characters, ... >> > > That particular books use idiosyncratic and novel forms for qamats > qatan or qamats gadol or Welsh voiceless L does not indicate that > every such form should be encoded in Unicode. But this character is not idiosyncratic or novel. It is used in essentially the same way by a number of publishers. This is what distinguishes this proposal from another one which was considered, for distinguishing the two varieties of sheva. Those of us who looked at this one decided that that distinction was made so rarely and inconsistently, at least at present, that it should be ruled out as idiosyncratic and novel. > > This seems to me to be more a case where a linguistic body or a > consortium of publishers or both should work together on a tighter > pointing system which, after it was approved might then also be > presented to Unicode for consideration, with the characters then being > encoded more by shape than by recommended use (which might different > from the actual previous idiosyncratic use.) Well, if the agreement of some linguistic body or consortium is a prerequisite for encoding a character, I could mention whole scripts which are threby ruled out of order! :-) Surely, though, it is enough that the character is already in consistent use by a number of publishers, whether or not these publishers have formally agreed to do the same thing. > > That those who wish to make a distinction between qamats qatan and > qamats gadol do so in different ways indicates that currently we are > dealing with idiosyncratic use. If even two different characters > emerge as generally preferred for qamats qatan, then perhaps both > should be encoded, just as variant phonetic characters are encoded for > the Latin script. > > Any such additional phonetic characters could be named HEBREW POINT > VARIANT QAMATS, HEBREW POINT VARIANT HIRIQ and so forth. There is no such thing as variant HIRIQ. Please don't muddy the waters even further by setting up straw men like this, allegedly parallel but ridiculous cases, which are in fact not parallel and have not been proposed. A variant SHEVA proposal was considered, but rejected as too idiosyncratic and novel. > ... > > Also variations selectors (which would seem impossible to use here in > any case) have so far been employed to distinguish glyph variants of > what would mostly be thought of as the same character. > This is the ideal way to handle this situation. And the objection to it can be removed very simply, as far as I can tell, by revising the section in the Unicode standard which states that variation selectors cannot be used with combining characters. Suppose that a variation sequence is proposed and accepted by the UTC as suitable for QAMATS QATAN. In this case, the word KOL might be encoded, in a normalised form: (1) (In fact there will not normally be an accent here, but in principle one or more could occur.) Currently it is encoded, in a normalised form: (2) This is canonically equivalent to its unnormalised forms, e.g. (3) But this sequence with VS (in combining class zero) added after QAMATS, i.e., (4) would be normalised to (5) and this is a problem because the variation sequence has been broken. However, this problem can be overcome very simply by defining sequences such as (4) as spelling errors, which can be done by defining that combining variation sequences must always be encoded immediately after the base character. This way of doing it does slightly mess up the neat normalisation mechanism (at least it would be a neat mechanism if the combining classes for Hebrew had been defined correctly). But it might well have advantages over encoding a new character. -- Peter Kirk peter@qaya.org (personal) peterkirk@qaya.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/ From mark@kli.org Fri May 14 09:53:42 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 14 May 2004 09:53:42 -0500 (CDT) Received: from pi.meson.org (h-66-134-26-207.nycmny83.covad.net [66.134.26.207]) by unicode.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id i4EEraRv002431 for ; Fri, 14 May 2004 09:53:39 -0500 Received: (qmail 22655 invoked from network); 14 May 2004 14:53:29 -0000 Received: from nagas.meson.org (HELO kli.org) (1000@192.168.1.101) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 14 May 2004 14:53:29 -0000 Message-ID: <40A4DD6A.7080908@kli.org> Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 10:53:30 -0400 From: "Mark E. Shoulson" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en, fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Kirk CC: Jim Allan , hebrew@unicode.org Subject: [hebrew] Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS References: <000f01c4387d$16e154b0$0401c80a@QSM4> <40A37E17.1040900@qaya.org> <40A3EDBB.2000809@smrtytrek.com> <40A4C19E.10705@qaya.org> In-Reply-To: <40A4C19E.10705@qaya.org> X-Hebrew-Date: 23 Iyar 5764 10:19am (horae temporales) X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.3.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 1396 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: mark@kli.org Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew Peter Kirk wrote: > (1) > > (In fact there will not normally be an accent here, but in principle > one or more could occur.) Actually, though I said this myself also, I was thinking in terms of "true" accents. In the Unicode sense of the word, though, there is another accent-like character that really can co-occur with qamats-qatan: HEBREW POINT METEG. And there can be accents, as we've seen with DEHI and QADMA (metiga), TELISHA GEDOLAH, etc. ~mark From jallan@smrtytrek.com Fri May 14 09:53:57 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 14 May 2004 09:53:57 -0500 (CDT) Received: from tomts44-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts44-srv.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.111]) by unicode.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i4EErvtJ002497 for ; Fri, 14 May 2004 09:53:57 -0500 Received: from smrtytrek.com ([204.101.137.194]) by tomts44-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.05 201-253-122-130-105-20030824) with ESMTP id <20040514145356.LFWB11329.tomts44-srv.bellnexxia.net@smrtytrek.com> for ; Fri, 14 May 2004 10:53:56 -0400 Message-ID: <40A5025F.8070901@smrtytrek.com> Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 10:31:11 -0700 From: Jim Allan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hebrew@unicode.org Subject: [hebrew] Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS References: <000f01c4387d$16e154b0$0401c80a@QSM4> <40A37E17.1040900@qaya.org> <40A3EDBB.2000809@smrtytrek.com> <40A427FF.9010203@kli.org> In-Reply-To: <40A427FF.9010203@kli.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-archive-position: 1397 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: jallan@smrtytrek.com Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew Mark E. Shoulson wrote: > That's different: there is *no* precedent for making a *glyphic* > distinction between the hiriqs (as the presence of the following yod > is enough). What made Michael think that qamats qatan is called-for > is the fact that there *are* printers that do make a graphical > distinction between the two qamatses. The following yod is not enough. Yod is sometimes omitted. Gesenius' _Hebrew Grammar_ 8.b gives cdqym and cdyqym as examples where the difference is only orthographic. He also gives an example for long and short qibbus. One distinguishes such pronunciations normally in the same way as one does between qamats qatan and qamats gadol, by the rule of long vowel in open syllable and short vowel in closed syllable. That particular publishers are making a special point of distinguishing qamats qatan from qamats gadol may have more to do with the fact that traditionally they are transliterated into Latin script respectively as _a_ and _o_ whereas in the case of hiriq and qibbus no distinction is made in text not using diacritics. There the original spelling rather than supposed pronunciation distinction is more likely to be made when diacritics are used. That is hiriq not followed by yod with be transliterated _i_ regardless of pronunciation and _i_ followed by yod will be transliterated as _î_. >> That particular books use idiosyncratic and novel forms for qamats >> qatan or qamats gadol or Welsh voiceless L does not indicate that >> every such form should be encoded in Unicode. > > > Well, that's the question: is it "idiosyncratic," or does the fact > that several independent publishers have taken to doing it mean that > it's becoming more widespread? How many do you need to get out of > "idiosyncratic"? (For example, a siddur with qamats-qatan also has a > peculiar way of marking stress, that I've never seen anywhere else. I > wouldn't propose encoding the marks used (at least one is already > coded anyway), because it is definitely idiosyncratic to that publisher). The *methods* of making this distinction are idiosyncratic. And it seems that some want to propose a character that has no default glyph and can be used for either qamats qatan or qamats gadol depending on whim. This idiosyncratic usage as it is now can be handled quite well by markup for paper publications. It can also be in theory be handled in electronic publication by use of markup, for example a change of color (though I don't think all fonts would handle this. It could be handled by a font change, e.g. switching to a different font for the qamats to be distinguished. That is currently a far from optimum solution is it requires attempting to force a particular font on the user of the page or requesting the user to download a particular font. Of course one can publish using pdf or some such format. > Right, that's why I think Variation Selectors make the most sense... > except that they're impossible in this case. So maybe the correct answer is to propose the addition of a block of combining character variation selectors. Basically, the difficulty I see is that certain publishers are in different ways distinguishing qamats gadol and qamats qatan. Meanwhile Unicode encodes characters. Do we have a character that people are using? I think we mostly have different methods of distinguishing between uses of a single character. From one point of view these methods can be considered to involve use of a new character, but the new character used is not consistent, in its representation. Seen in isolation it is mostly impossible to recognize it. It's a ghost character. If Unicode were to encode such a character, a default glyph would appear and fonts would generally follow that default glyph (even if there were a note attached to the character indicating other possible glyphs). The effect would be that one particular glyph would become the glyph used. So what glyph? That has to be decided. And that is not for Unicode to decide. No matter what is said in a proposal about multiple glyphs being allowed, in fact the default glyph that appears in the Unicode manual will almost certainly be the default glyph of use. Or Unicode, as with Latin phonetic symbols, should encode more than one glyph that can be used if a phonetic distinction of qamats qatan is required. Jim Allan From mark@kli.org Fri May 14 10:20:19 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 14 May 2004 10:20:19 -0500 (CDT) Received: from pi.meson.org (h-66-134-26-207.nycmny83.covad.net [66.134.26.207]) by unicode.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id i4EFK6R7011839 for ; Fri, 14 May 2004 10:20:15 -0500 Received: (qmail 23308 invoked from network); 14 May 2004 15:19:57 -0000 Received: from nagas.meson.org (HELO kli.org) (1000@192.168.1.101) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 14 May 2004 15:19:57 -0000 Message-ID: <40A4E39E.40506@kli.org> Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 11:19:58 -0400 From: "Mark E. Shoulson" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en, fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jim Allan CC: hebrew@unicode.org, Michael Everson Subject: [hebrew] Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS References: <000f01c4387d$16e154b0$0401c80a@QSM4> <40A37E17.1040900@qaya.org> <40A3EDBB.2000809@smrtytrek.com> <40A427FF.9010203@kli.org> <40A5025F.8070901@smrtytrek.com> In-Reply-To: <40A5025F.8070901@smrtytrek.com> X-Hebrew-Date: 23 Iyar 5764 10:41am (horae temporales) X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.3.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-archive-position: 1398 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: mark@kli.org Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew Jim Allan wrote: > Mark E. Shoulson wrote: > >> That's different: there is *no* precedent for making a *glyphic* >> distinction between the hiriqs (as the presence of the following yod >> is enough). What made Michael think that qamats qatan is called-for >> is the fact that there *are* printers that do make a graphical >> distinction between the two qamatses. > > > The following yod is not enough. Yod is sometimes omitted. Gesenius' > _Hebrew Grammar_ 8.b gives cdqym and cdyqym as examples where the > difference is only orthographic. He also gives an example for long and > short qibbus. True, there are exceptions, but those are fairly rare. > One distinguishes such pronunciations normally in the same way as one > does between qamats qatan and qamats gadol, by the rule of long vowel > in open syllable and short vowel in closed syllable. > > That particular publishers are making a special point of > distinguishing qamats qatan from qamats gadol may have more to do with > the fact that traditionally they are transliterated into Latin script > respectively as _a_ and _o_ whereas in the case of hiriq and qibbus no > distinction is made in text not using diacritics. There the original > spelling rather than supposed pronunciation distinction is more likely > to be made when diacritics are used. That is hiriq not followed by yod > with be transliterated _i_ regardless of pronunciation and _i_ > followed by yod will be transliterated as _î_. Rinat Yisrael and Koren are both based in Israel, so they probably don't deal in transliterations much. The reason qamats qatan gets more press than hiriq gadol/qatan is because vowel length has become neutralized in pretty much *all* dialects of Hebrew, so there's no actual difference in pronunciation between the two hiriqs. On the other hand, qamats qatan is widely distinguished in speech, even in informal and non-religious speech (at least for a few words, like the ubiquitous "kol", and "tsohorayim"). Again, what matters is what's *being done*, not what might possibly be cool to do. >>> That particular books use idiosyncratic and novel forms for qamats >>> qatan or qamats gadol or Welsh voiceless L does not indicate that >>> every such form should be encoded in Unicode. >> >> >> >> Well, that's the question: is it "idiosyncratic," or does the fact >> that several independent publishers have taken to doing it mean that >> it's becoming more widespread? How many do you need to get out of >> "idiosyncratic"? (For example, a siddur with qamats-qatan also has a >> peculiar way of marking stress, that I've never seen anywhere else. >> I wouldn't propose encoding the marks used (at least one is already >> coded anyway), because it is definitely idiosyncratic to that >> publisher). > > > The *methods* of making this distinction are idiosyncratic. Not more so than different fonts, it seems to me. The "long vertical stem" form seems pretty popular, used by the Simanim, Rinat Yisrael, and Koren. Siddur Ish Matzliah uses a larger qamats, and the USY press uses a bent horizontal. Sounds like a consensus growing here, though not unanimity. > And it seems that some want to propose a character that has no default > glyph and can be used for either qamats qatan or qamats gadol > depending on whim. I've not heard this one. > This idiosyncratic usage as it is now can be handled quite well by > markup for paper publications. It can also be in theory be handled in > electronic publication by use of markup, for example a change of color > (though I don't think all fonts would handle this. It could be handled > by a font change, e.g. switching to a different font for the qamats to > be distinguished. That is currently a far from optimum solution is it > requires attempting to force a particular font on the user of the page > or requesting the user to download a particular font. Color-change is out of band for Unicode. The Simanim Psalms prints silent letters (yod of hiriq gadol, silent alef, etc) in grey; I do *not* propose Unicode follow that example (this is one of the reasons why I consider the Simanim Psalms to be far along towards the "fancy text" end of the spectrum) Again, it comes down to "when does usage stop being just idiosyncratic?" There's obviously room for disagreement on this: how much usage, how many users does it take? >> Right, that's why I think Variation Selectors make the most sense... >> except that they're impossible in this case. > > > So maybe the correct answer is to propose the addition of a block of > combining character variation selectors. Sounds like a plan too. Really only a few. I wonder why we need so many variation selectors anyway. Wouldn't it be okay to permit multiple variation selectors after a single base character? And then with only, say, eight VS's, we can get 512 different variation sequences only four characters long (including the base character). More, actually, since I didn't count sequences less than 4 characters. I doubt many characters will have more than six or seven variants anyway. > Basically, the difficulty I see is that certain publishers are in > different ways distinguishing qamats gadol and qamats qatan. Meanwhile > Unicode encodes characters. Do we have a character that people are > using? I think we mostly have different methods of distinguishing > between uses of a single character. Is it a single character or is it two characters, one of which is newly invented.... these conversations go 'round in circles. > If Unicode were to encode such a character, a default glyph would > appear and fonts would generally follow that default glyph (even if > there were a note attached to the character indicating other possible > glyphs). The effect would be that one particular glyph would become > the glyph used. By that reasoning, not only does Phoenician need to be encoded separately from Hebrew, but so do *all* the myriad variants up and down the tree. You have to draw the line in some reasonable fashion and we can't feel that the world is enslaved to our choice of glyph, since we can only provide one per character. Does this mean that Unicode is the end of font design as we know it? ~mark From jallan@smrtytrek.com Fri May 14 13:44:22 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 14 May 2004 13:44:22 -0500 (CDT) Received: from tomts24-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts24.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.187]) by unicode.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i4EIiLHj003048 for ; Fri, 14 May 2004 13:44:22 -0500 Received: from smrtytrek.com ([204.101.137.194]) by tomts24-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.05 201-253-122-130-105-20030824) with ESMTP id <20040514184420.NWPO19349.tomts24-srv.bellnexxia.net@smrtytrek.com> for ; Fri, 14 May 2004 14:44:20 -0400 Message-ID: <40A53DF9.7090008@smrtytrek.com> Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 14:45:29 -0700 From: Jim Allan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hebrew@unicode.org Subject: [hebrew] Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS References: <000f01c4387d$16e154b0$0401c80a@QSM4> <40A37E17.1040900@qaya.org> <40A3EDBB.2000809@smrtytrek.com> <40A427FF.9010203@kli.org> <40A5025F.8070901@smrtytrek.com> <40A4E39E.40506@kli.org> In-Reply-To: <40A4E39E.40506@kli.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 1399 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: jallan@smrtytrek.com Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew Mark E. Shoulson wrote: > > Rinat Yisrael and Koren are both based in Israel, so they probably > don't deal in transliterations much. The reason qamats qatan gets > more press than hiriq gadol/qatan is because vowel length has become > neutralized in pretty much *all* dialects of Hebrew, so there's no > actual difference in pronunciation between the two hiriqs. On the > other hand, qamats qatan is widely distinguished in speech, even in > informal and non-religious speech (at least for a few words, like the > ubiquitous "kol", and "tsohorayim"). Again, what matters is what's > *being done*, not what might possibly be cool to do. I agree. But of course modern standard Israeli pronunciation is in any case different at many points from the Massoretic pronunciation so far as it can be discovered. > Not more so than different fonts, it seems to me. The "long vertical > stem" form seems pretty popular, used by the Simanim, Rinat Yisrael, > and Koren. Siddur Ish Matzliah uses a larger qamats, and the USY > press uses a bent horizontal. Sounds like a consensus growing here, > though not unanimity. If your analysis is correct, and I have not the resources or knowledge to doubt it, then perhaps the long vertical stem form is the form to be given as the default glyph. >> And it seems that some want to propose a character that has no >> default glyph and can be used for either qamats qatan or qamats gadol >> depending on whim. > > > I've not heard this one. David Grossman's discussion seemed to me to be pointing in that direction. I may have misinterpreted them. > Color-change is out of band for Unicode. The Simanim Psalms prints > silent letters (yod of hiriq gadol, silent alef, etc) in grey; I do > *not* propose Unicode follow that example (this is one of the reasons > why I consider the Simanim Psalms to be far along towards the "fancy > text" end of the spectrum) That was my point. All markup is out of band for Unicode, but markup can be used as one solution to distinguish the characters. That is, publishers on the web and in print can distinguish the two characters by markup while encoding them the same in Unicode which avoids all search problems. As long as this is possible, no new character is *needed*. That is not to say that it might not be desirable. But there is a tendency in these discussions for the word *needed* to be used for *wouldn't be bad to have* and for legitimate *needs* to be taken as *needed at the plain text level*. The question should be in part what benefits would accrue to making the distinction in plain text as opposed to the increased problems with searching, and indeed that has been the question. > Is it a single character or is it two characters, one of which is > newly invented.... these conversations go 'round in circles. Obviously it is both, just as _v_ and _u_ in Latin at some point were both. Unfortunately, other than though variation selectors, Unicode does not currently good at recognizing partial identity, hence the current discussion on Phoenician where the characters of the Canaanite/Paleo-Hebrew script are identical to the characters of the Aramaic Hebrew scripts in terms of the abjad used and but different in terms of glyph shape. Unicode seems mostly to recognize only absolute identity or complete disunity, neither of which fits. >> If Unicode were to encode such a character, a default glyph would >> appear and fonts would generally follow that default glyph (even if >> there were a note attached to the character indicating other possible >> glyphs). The effect would be that one particular glyph would become >> the glyph used. > > > By that reasoning, not only does Phoenician need to be encoded > separately from Hebrew, but so do *all* the myriad variants up and > down the tree. You have to draw the line in some reasonable fashion > and we can't feel that the world is enslaved to our choice of glyph, > since we can only provide one per character. Does this mean that > Unicode is the end of font design as we know it? No, I don't think that reasoning indicates that. But font manufacturers have often gone with default glyphs as at least not being wrong, even though sometimes they are. Supposedly the upright tonos marks in many computer Greek fonts came in part from font manufacturers following the upright tonos that incorrectly appeared in the early Unicode standards. I recall seeing a note by a font manufacturer that he was using a crossed circle for U+2205 even though he preferred a crossed zero because the crossed O was standard in Unicode. Of course Unicode in choosing a default glyph had done no such thing. But font manufacturers, particularly if just adding a new pointing character to an already existing Hebrew block, will mostly and quite intelligently follow the path of least resistance, especially for a ''vanilla" Hebrew font. Individual designers may do otherwise and certainly will do so. But, right or wrong, the choice of the default glyph for such a character will have enormous impact on what font manufacturers do. Jim Allan From davidg@macam.ac.il Sat May 15 16:15:00 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sat, 15 May 2004 16:15:00 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mail.macam.ac.il (mail.mofet.macam98.ac.il [192.114.206.40]) by unicode.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i4FLEtGo030869 for ; Sat, 15 May 2004 16:15:00 -0500 Received: from mail.macam.ac.il (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.macam.ac.il (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i4FLEnvo006912 for ; Sun, 16 May 2004 00:14:49 +0300 Received: from b199323 (dailin79.dailin.macam98.ac.il [192.114.209.79])by ma il.macam.ac.il (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id i4FLEgJS006867for ; Sun, 16 May 2004 00:14:48 +0300 Message-ID: <002001c43ac9$f5997950$4fd172c0@b199323> From: "David Grossman" To: References: <000f01c4387d$16e154b0$0401c80a@QSM4> <40A37E17.1040900@qaya.org > <016801c43931$98505a00$41d172c0@b199323> <40A42509.1080902@kli.org> <01 4f01c439aa$d9a836c0$e2d072c0@b199323> <40A4D800.3030702@kli.org> Subject: [hebrew] Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 23:53:42 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-imss-version: 2.0 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scores: Clean:18.93260 C:17 M:1 S:5 R:5 X-imss-settings: Baseline:4 C:3 M:4 S:4 R:4 (0.1000 0.3000) X-archive-position: 1400 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: davidg@macam.ac.il Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew Mark, I agree with your basic reasoning. However, there are some issues to consider: 1. Symbols that represent the kamatz katan are already in use by respected publishers. Shva na/nach distinctions are less common, but they are also not theoretical issues. 2. Unicode reflects usage, and Pasek and Legarmay are painful issues that have not yet been resolved graphically. I agree - with regret - that Unicode cannot create a representative symbol for them at this stage. This may change in the future. I may have missed some discussions in the past. May I respectfully ask whether the following two issues have been discussed on this forum, and if so, what conclusions were reached? 1. The transliteration of a Chet as an "h" with a dot under it. 2. The positioning of a line (rafeh) over the Feh, Tav (Sof), and Vet (Vays) in Yiddish. David Grossman From peterkirk@qaya.org Sun May 16 10:15:31 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sun, 16 May 2004 10:15:31 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mail.link77.net (mail.kastanet.org [208.145.81.89]) by unicode.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i4GFFUag015071 for ; Sun, 16 May 2004 10:15:30 -0500 Received: from [212.47.133.11] (account peter_kirk@kastanet.org HELO qaya.org) by mail.link77.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 40433184; Sun, 16 May 2004 11:15:21 -0400 Message-ID: <40A77A8E.2020704@qaya.org> Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 07:28:30 -0700 From: Peter Kirk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Grossman CC: hebrew@unicode.org Subject: [hebrew] Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS References: <000f01c4387d$16e154b0$0401c80a@QSM4> <40A37E17.1040900@qaya.org > <016801c43931$98505a00$41d172c0@b199323> <40A42509.1080902@kli.org> <01 4f01c439aa$d9a836c0$e2d072c0@b199323> <40A4D800.3030702@kli.org> <002001c43ac9$f5997950$4fd172c0@b199323> In-Reply-To: <002001c43ac9$f5997950$4fd172c0@b199323> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 1401 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew On 15/05/2004 14:53, David Grossman wrote: >... > >I may have missed some discussions in the past. May I respectfully ask >whether the following two issues have been discussed on this forum, and if >so, what conclusions were reached? > > I don't recall either of these being discussed on this forum, since it opened last July or August. >1. The transliteration of a Chet as an "h" with a dot under it. > > Transliterations are out of the scope of Unicode - except for character names. Character names have to use the basic ASCII Latin capital letters and numerals only, plus one of two other characters I think, and the established pattern for Hebrew is to transliterate chet as H. I hope we can avoid changing the established pattern, and avoid the total confusion that there is among Cyrillic character names. >2. The positioning of a line (rafeh) over the Feh, Tav (Sof), and Vet (Vays) >in Yiddish. > > There is a Rafe character defined, U+05BF. Is there a problem with using this? Any software which combines niqqud properly with base characters should combine Rafe as required. The precomposed forms FB4C, FB4D and FB4E are not recommended for general use. -- Peter Kirk peter@qaya.org (personal) peterkirk@qaya.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/ From davidg@macam.ac.il Sun May 16 13:15:18 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sun, 16 May 2004 13:15:18 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mail.macam.ac.il (mail.mofet.macam98.ac.il [192.114.206.40]) by unicode.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i4GIFHCP013993 for ; Sun, 16 May 2004 13:15:18 -0500 Received: from mail.macam.ac.il (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.macam.ac.il (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i4GIF7vo002376 for ; Sun, 16 May 2004 21:15:07 +0300 Received: from b199323 (dailin199.dailin.macam98.ac.il [192.114.209.199])by mail.macam.ac.il (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id i4GIEpJg002149for ; Sun, 16 May 2004 21:15:06 +0300 Message-ID: <015901c43b71$b7870940$c7d172c0@b199323> From: "David Grossman" To: References: <000f01c4387d$16e154b0$0401c80a@QSM4> <40A37E17.1040900@qaya.org > <016801c43931$98505a00$41d172c0@b199323> <40A42509.1080902@kli.org> <0 1 4f01c439aa$d9a836c0$e2d072c0@b199323> <40A4D800.3030702@kli.org> <002001c 43ac9$f5997950$4fd172c0@b199323> <40A77A8E.2020704@qaya.org> Subject: [hebrew] Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 20:00:51 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-imss-version: 2.0 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scores: Clean:32.67597 C:20 M:1 S:5 R:5 X-imss-settings: Baseline:4 C:3 M:4 S:4 R:4 (0.1000 0.3000) X-archive-position: 1402 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: davidg@macam.ac.il Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew Thank you, Peter. I have two questions: 1. Can the Rafe character be combined with other characters? 2. H is acceptable for Chet, but it often causes confusion with Hey. Is it possible to combine a subscript dot (perhaps a chirik) and an H? David Grossman > >1. The transliteration of a Chet as an "h" with a dot under it. > > > > > > Transliterations are out of the scope of Unicode - except for character > names. Character names have to use the basic ASCII Latin capital letters > and numerals only, plus one of two other characters I think, and the > established pattern for Hebrew is to transliterate chet as H. I hope we > can avoid changing the established pattern, and avoid the total > confusion that there is among Cyrillic character names. > > >2. The positioning of a line (rafeh) over the Feh, Tav (Sof), and Vet (Vays) > >in Yiddish. > > > > > > There is a Rafe character defined, U+05BF. Is there a problem with using > this? Any software which combines niqqud properly with base characters > should combine Rafe as required. The precomposed forms FB4C, FB4D and > FB4E are not recommended for general use. > From peterkirk@qaya.org Sun May 16 13:59:52 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sun, 16 May 2004 13:59:52 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mail.link77.net (mail.kastanet.org [208.145.81.89]) by unicode.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i4GIxpHC022773 for ; Sun, 16 May 2004 13:59:52 -0500 Received: from [212.47.129.155] (account peter_kirk@kastanet.org HELO qaya.org) by mail.link77.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 40438621; Sun, 16 May 2004 14:59:42 -0400 Message-ID: <40A7BA0F.8050506@qaya.org> Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 11:59:27 -0700 From: Peter Kirk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Grossman CC: hebrew@unicode.org Subject: [hebrew] Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS References: <000f01c4387d$16e154b0$0401c80a@QSM4> <40A37E17.1040900@qaya.org > <016801c43931$98505a00$41d172c0@b199323> <40A42509.1080902@kli.org> <0 1 4f01c439aa$d9a836c0$e2d072c0@b199323> <40A4D800.3030702@kli.org> <002001c 43ac9$f5997950$4fd172c0@b199323> <40A77A8E.2020704@qaya.org> <015901c43b71$b7870940$c7d172c0@b199323> In-Reply-To: <015901c43b71$b7870940$c7d172c0@b199323> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 1403 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew On 16/05/2004 11:00, David Grossman wrote: >Thank you, Peter. I have two questions: > >1. Can the Rafe character be combined with other characters? > > In principle, with any base character. How well it combines with any particular character depends on the font. A good Hebrew font should combine it OK with Hebrew base characters. >2. H is acceptable for Chet, but it often causes confusion with Hey. Is it >possible to combine a subscript dot (perhaps a chirik) and an H? > > Not in character names. Sorry. And existing character names cannot be changed. But if any of the names are confusing, it might be possible to add an alternative version of the name in a note, probably ASCII characters only. -- Peter Kirk peter@qaya.org (personal) peterkirk@qaya.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/ From davidg@macam.ac.il Sun May 16 14:18:26 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sun, 16 May 2004 14:18:26 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mail.macam.ac.il (mail.mofet.macam98.ac.il [192.114.206.40]) by unicode.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i4GJIPSw024213 for ; Sun, 16 May 2004 14:18:26 -0500 Received: from mail.macam.ac.il (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.macam.ac.il (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i4GJIFvo001133 for ; Sun, 16 May 2004 22:18:15 +0300 Received: from b199323 (dailin235.dailin.macam98.ac.il [192.114.209.235])by mail.macam.ac.il (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id i4GJIDJO001117for ; Sun, 16 May 2004 22:18:14 +0300 Message-ID: <004b01c43b7a$8b973d10$ebd172c0@b199323> From: "David Grossman" To: References: <000f01c4387d$16e154b0$0401c80a@QSM4> <40A37E17.1040900@qaya.org > <016801c43931$98505a00$41d172c0@b199323> <40A42509.1080902@kli.org> < 0 1 4f01c439aa$d9a836c0$e2d072c0@b199323> <40A4D800.3030702@kli.org> <00200 1c 43ac9$f5997950$4fd172c0@b199323> <40A77A8E.2020704@qaya.org> <015901c43b 71$b7870940$c7d172c0@b199323> <40A7BA0F.8050506@qaya.org> Subject: [hebrew] Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 21:18:06 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-imss-version: 2.0 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scores: Clean:55.37703 C:20 M:1 S:5 R:5 X-imss-settings: Baseline:4 C:3 M:4 S:4 R:4 (0.1000 0.3000) X-archive-position: 1404 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: davidg@macam.ac.il Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew Thank you, Peter. That should be quite acceptable and satisfactory to all involved. David Grossman ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Kirk" To: "David Grossman" Cc: Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2004 8:59 PM Subject: Re: [hebrew] Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS > On 16/05/2004 11:00, David Grossman wrote: > > >Thank you, Peter. I have two questions: > > > >1. Can the Rafe character be combined with other characters? > > > > > > In principle, with any base character. How well it combines with any > particular character depends on the font. A good Hebrew font should > combine it OK with Hebrew base characters. > > >2. H is acceptable for Chet, but it often causes confusion with Hey. Is it > >possible to combine a subscript dot (perhaps a chirik) and an H? > > > > > > Not in character names. Sorry. And existing character names cannot be > changed. But if any of the names are confusing, it might be possible to > add an alternative version of the name in a note, probably ASCII > characters only. From mark@kli.org Sun May 16 14:46:23 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sun, 16 May 2004 14:46:23 -0500 (CDT) Received: from pi.meson.org (h-66-134-26-207.nycmny83.covad.net [66.134.26.207]) by unicode.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id i4GJkJXg027519 for ; Sun, 16 May 2004 14:46:23 -0500 Received: (qmail 2234 invoked from network); 16 May 2004 19:46:16 -0000 Received: from nagas.meson.org (HELO kli.org) (1000@192.168.1.101) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 16 May 2004 19:46:16 -0000 Message-ID: <40A7C508.80705@kli.org> Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 15:46:16 -0400 From: "Mark E. Shoulson" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en, fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Grossman CC: hebrew@unicode.org Subject: [hebrew] Chet and Rafe References: <000f01c4387d$16e154b0$0401c80a@QSM4> <40A37E17.1040900@qaya.org > <016801c43931$98505a00$41d172c0@b199323> <40A42509.1080902@kli.org> <0 1 4f01c439aa$d9a836c0$e2d072c0@b199323> <40A4D800.3030702@kli.org> <002001c 43ac9$f5997950$4fd172c0@b199323> <40A77A8E.2020704@qaya.org> <015901c43b71$b7870940$c7d172c0@b199323> In-Reply-To: <015901c43b71$b7870940$c7d172c0@b199323> X-Hebrew-Date: 25 Iyar 5764 02:22pm (horae temporales) X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.3.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-archive-position: 1405 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: mark@kli.org Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew David Grossman wrote: >Thank you, Peter. I have two questions: > >1. Can the Rafe character be combined with other characters? > It's a combining character; theoretically you could even combine it with a Latin "Z" if you wanted (in practice, you'd want a macron U+0304, presumably). >2. H is acceptable for Chet, but it often causes confusion with Hey. Is it >possible to combine a subscript dot (perhaps a chirik) and an H? > In the names of the characters, no, and those can't be changed. But if you're asking if an h-with-dot-under-it is available at all, then yes, certainly. U+1E24 and U+1E25, LATIN CAPITAL/SMALL LETTER H WITH DOT BELOW, or more properly, a letter H/h with U+0323 COMBINING DOT BELOW after it. (Like these: Ḥḥ if your system can render them okay.) From davidg@macam.ac.il Mon May 17 15:04:11 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 17 May 2004 15:04:11 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mail.macam.ac.il (mail.mofet.macam98.ac.il [192.114.206.40]) by unicode.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i4HK49mH014565 for ; Mon, 17 May 2004 15:04:11 -0500 Received: from mail.macam.ac.il (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.macam.ac.il (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i4HK3xvo006457 for ; Mon, 17 May 2004 23:03:59 +0300 Received: from b199323 (dailin201.dailin2.macam98.ac.il [192.114.208.201])by mail.macam.ac.il (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id i4HK3vJO006446for ; Mon, 17 May 2004 23:03:57 +0300 Message-ID: <00a901c43c4a$182ee730$c9d072c0@b199323> From: "David Grossman" To: References: <000f01c4387d$16e154b0$0401c80a@QSM4> <40A37E17.1040900@qaya.org > <016801c43931$98505a00$41d172c0@b199323> <40A42509.1080902@kli.org> < 0 1 4f01c439aa$d9a836c0$e2d072c0@b199323> <40A4D800.3030702@kli.org> <00200 1c 43ac9$f5997950$4fd172c0@b199323> <40A77A8E.2020704@qaya.org> <015901c43b 71$b7870940$c7d172c0@b199323> <40A7C508.80705@kli.org> Subject: [hebrew] Re: Chet and Rafe Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 21:32:27 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-imss-version: 2.0 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scores: Clean:10.88396 C:20 M:1 S:5 R:5 X-imss-settings: Baseline:4 C:3 M:4 S:4 R:4 (0.1000 0.3000) X-archive-position: 1406 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: davidg@macam.ac.il Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew No, I couldn't read it - and I tried various encodings. What encoding are you using? David Grossman From: "Mark E. Shoulson" > In the names of the characters, no, and those can't be changed. But if > you're asking if an h-with-dot-under-it is available at all, then yes, > certainly. U+1E24 and U+1E25, LATIN CAPITAL/SMALL LETTER H WITH DOT > BELOW, or more properly, a letter H/h with U+0323 COMBINING DOT BELOW > after it. (Like these: Ḥḥ if your system can render them okay.) From mark@kli.org Mon May 17 21:19:33 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 17 May 2004 21:19:33 -0500 (CDT) Received: from pi.meson.org (h-66-134-26-207.nycmny83.covad.net [66.134.26.207]) by unicode.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id i4I2JWRV011533 for ; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:19:33 -0500 Received: (qmail 5572 invoked from network); 18 May 2004 02:19:29 -0000 Received: from nagas.meson.org (HELO kli.org) (1000@192.168.1.101) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 18 May 2004 02:19:29 -0000 Message-ID: <40A972B1.2000606@kli.org> Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 22:19:29 -0400 From: "Mark E. Shoulson" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en, fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Grossman CC: hebrew@unicode.org Subject: [hebrew] Re: Chet and Rafe References: <000f01c4387d$16e154b0$0401c80a@QSM4> <40A37E17.1040900@qaya.org > <016801c43931$98505a00$41d172c0@b199323> <40A42509.1080902@kli.org> < 0 1 4f01c439