From: John Cowan (jcowan@reutershealth.com)
Date: Wed Jul 30 2003 - 15:24:36 EDT
Peter Kirk scripsit:
> Understood. But that is really what we have in the text. In the second
> word we have consonant vav with vowel holam. In the first word we really
> do have consonant dalet with vowel holam, and then a silent vav which
> originated as a placeholder for a long vowel in an otherwise unvowelled
> text. But the holam which really belongs with the dalet has become
> shifted on to the right side of the silent vav as an orthographic
> convention,
So let me see if I understand this. In the second case we have a glyph
consisting of a vav with an ordinary (left side) holam. In the second
case, we have a bare dalet glyph followed by a vav with a right-side holam.
That sounds to me like an argument for encoding a second holam character,
strictly for right-side uses.
> just as it is shifted on to a following silent alef -
> something which no one here seems to have questioned, or suggested to be
> too complex to implement, although the algorithm is identical.
Is this case also a right-side holam?
-- If you have ever wondered if you are in hell, John Cowan it has been said, then you are on a well-traveled http://www.ccil.org/~cowan road of spiritual inquiry. If you are absolutely http://www.reutershealth.com sure you are in hell, however, then you must be jcowan@reutershealth.com on the Cross Bronx Expressway. --Alan Feur, NYTimes, 2002-09-20
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 30 2003 - 16:08:13 EDT