From: Chris Jacobs (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Mar 06 2003 - 05:54:02 EST
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dean Snyder" <email@example.com>
To: "Unicode List" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 10:11 PM
Subject: Re: The display of *kholam* on PCs
> The case of (written) Yo'MaR is not an exception. The pronunciation is
> "yomar", the aleph not being pronounced; and therefore the KHOLEM is
> written after the consonant which directly precedes it in pronunciation.
But not above that consonant.
> In the examples 'oBeD, MoSHeL, and SoTeN the KHOLEM, as expected, follows
> in pronunciation the letter with which it is associated.
> I can't make out the transcription "The letter ??? will be "s<caron>o¯" to
> commence a syllabe, e.g., ?????? (s<caron>o¯ma<caron>'), and "o¯s" in other places."
> and I don't have Harrison's grammar at work to check the reading; but it
> sounds like an explanation of how SHIN + KHOLEM are written, which has
> already been discussed.
It explains that SHIN+KHOLEM "sho" and KHOLEM+SIN "os" are written the same way. A shin with two dots above it.
However, if it is KHOLEM+SIN, "os" then it is not a syllabe, i.e. the KHOLEM logically belongs to the preceding syllabe.
[ ... ]
> I don't have my Bagster here at work but I would suspect if you looked
> closely, the location of the KHOLEM would be as I have suggested.
Indeed. While the KHOLEM is above the he the shortest distance (which is horizontal) is not to the he but to the lamed.
> If not I suspect this is idiosyncratic to works printed on that press.
> [I did however misspeak technically when I said "after the consonant OVER
> which it is written". The KHOLEM pronounced after LAMED is indeed written
> OVER the scribal line, but is written directly AFTER the LAMED.]
> >> About the only "unusual" orthographic phenomenon I can think of related
> >> to KHOLEM is that when it occurs after SIN it "shares the same dot"
> >> with SIN.
> >And if those dots were above different letters there were no reason why
> >they should share.
> I must be missing your point here; this seems to support what I was saying.
"shares the same dot" cannot only happen with SIN DOT, dot to the left, but also with SHIN DOT, dot to the right.
I was thinking of the latter.
As in MoSHeL. If the SHIN DOT here is a KHOLEM then clearly the KHOLEM belonging to the M is above the SH.
It seems to be a _kerning_ problem.
A hebrew letter with KHOLEM can have a part (the KHOLEM) which is above another letter.
Are there hebrew computer fonts which do kerning?
> But I'm surprised that no one has provided the one possible
> counterexample to my statement about no vowel preceding its consonant (an
> example I completely forgot about when writing my former post) - furtive
> pathach (as in the second a-vowel in SaMeaKH).
> Depending on your linguistic persuasion you might argue that the PATAKH
> here is a vowel glide, both written and pronounced, which is merely
> "extending" a non-a-vowel before guttural consonants in certain phonemic
> contexts. Or you might want to posit that it is the only example of a
> syllable in classical Hebrew beginning with a vowel - or an unwritten
> Probably more than we need to know about the originally posted problem,
> but I have a feeling that readers of this list enjoy, like I do,
> discussion of these orthographic quirks of the world's writing systems.
> Dean A. Snyder
> Scholarly Technology Specialist
> Center For Scholarly Resources, Sheridan Libraries
> Garrett Room, MSE Library, 3400 N. Charles St.
> The Johns Hopkins University
> Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218
> office: 410 516-6850 mobile: 410 245-7168 fax: 410-516-6229
> Manager, Digital Hammurabi Project: www.jhu.edu/digitalhammurabi
> Manager, Initiative for Cuneiform Encoding: www.jhu.edu/ice
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 06 2003 - 06:40:48 EST