From: Peter_Constable@sil.org
Date: Thu Jun 26 2003 - 13:09:04 EDT
Jony Rosenne wrote on 06/26/2003 06:26:02 AM:
> It may look, silly, but it is correct. What you see are letters
according to
> the writing tradition, which does not include a Yod, and vowels
according to
> the reading tradition which does.
I understand that. My point was, you were talking about phonology, but in
terms of the text, it was not correct: there *are* multiple vowels on a
single consonant.
> There are in the Bible other, more extreme
> cases.
I'd be interested on whatever info you can provide in that regard.
> I don't think we need any new characters, ZERO WIDTH SPACE would do and
it
> requires no new semantics.
No, that's a terrible solution: a space creates unwanted word boundaries.
> Moreover, everybody who knows his Hebrew Bible
> knows the Yod is there although it isn't written.
But the point is, how to people encode the text? The yod is not there in
the text. How does a publisher encode text in the typesetting process? How
do researchsers encode the text they want to analyze? Saying, "everybody
knows there's a yod there" doesn't provide a solution, particular given
that the researchers know in point of fact that the consonantal text
explicitly does not include a yod.
> The Meteg is a completely different issue. There is a small number of
places
> were the Meteg is placed differently. Since it does not behave the same
as
> the regular Meteg, and is thus visually distinguishable, it should be
> possible to add a character, as long as it is clearly named.
That is a potential solution, thought it would have to be *two* additional
metegs.
- Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Constable
Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 26 2003 - 13:58:05 EDT