Jonathan Rosenne schrieb:
>
> Holam: This is a matter of taste. Some printers make this
> distinction, most don't. The argument that there two different
> meanings is irrelevant.
I can't believe it. Jony, do you really inform us that the holam
on the alef in "tsoAn" (the - here silent - alif as "A") and in
"maAos" (with samex)(here the "A" stands for a glottal stop) can
be printed "by some printers" on the same spot (relative to the
alef). In all my prints the holam in /tson/ (now transcribed, not
transliterated) stands over the right arm of alef, the holam in
/ma'os/ over the left arm of alef.
So the writing is different.
And the meaning is different.
(Not like your English example where exactly the same letter
stands for different sounds.)
The left holam is
a) written on the left of the letter, and
b) informs the reader that the letter _on which it sits_
is spoken with /o/:
Bo'i (here and always the capital letter has the holam)
Aoax ("A" stands for alef - here silent)
Aotem ( " " " ; with tet)
mitsWot
SHomer
caWon ("c" stands for ain)
Sone
maAos (with samex)
The right holam is
a) written on the right of the letter, and
b) informs the reader that the _preceding_ letter
is spoken with /o/:
roAsh
moSHe
coSe
yirpoS
tsoAn
>
> Finals: ... The matter had been discussed a few times, and our position - against automatic shaping in Hebrew - was accepted.
>
Dear Jony,
you have not given a single argument. (Just check our exchange:
you have not answered any of my question!) You just say: I like it
this way, and power is on my side
There is no point in going on like this. You won, but you are not
right.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:46 EDT