From: Jony Rosenne (rosennej@qsm.co.il)
Date: Thu Jun 26 2003 - 18:14:58 EDT
That may be what you see. Myself, every time I look at it, I see an orphaned
Hiriq without a consonant. It is normally placed in between the Lamed and
the Mem, to make certain the point isn't missed (a pun).
Jony
> -----Original Message-----
> From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org
> [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org] On Behalf Of
> Peter_Constable@sil.org
> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 7:09 PM
> To: unicode@unicode.org
> Subject: RE: Major Defect in Combining Classes of Tibetan
> Vowels (Hebrew)
>
>
> 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 - 18:02:07 EDT