From: Language Analysis Systems, Inc. Unicode list reader (Unicode-mail@las-inc.com)
Date: Wed Nov 05 2003 - 14:11:54 EST
>Here are my suggestions for Really Stoopid but unquestionably
conformant, needs-no-new-characters-can-be
>made-to-work-today, alternatives:
>
>Medial meteg: < CGJ, hataf patah, CGJ, meteg >
>or
>Medial meteg: <hataf patah, CGJ, CGJ, meteg >
I should probably know better than to jump into this discussion,
especially since I really don't know anything about Biblical Hebrew, but
I could have sworn that this had been discussed here before. I thought
what I remembered people saying was that the medial meteg was the
high-runner case and the versions with the meteg on either side were the
exceptions. If that were true, you'd get
Medial meteg: < hataf patah, meteg >
Left meteg: < hataf patah, CGJ, meteg >
Right meteg: < meteg, CGJ, hataf patah >
Simple enough, if it makes any sense linguistically.
The discussion here seems to be suggesting that the left meteg is the
high-runner case. If this is the case, my own uninformed opinion would
be that you'd probably have to encode a new character. Using CGJ to
encode the distinction in either of the ways shown above seems to be
stretching the use of CGJ a little too far, and sticking ZWJ in the
middle of a combining character sequence seems to open the door to bad
things. You could, I guess, encode left meteg as <hataf patah, meteg>
and medial meteg as <hataf patah, CGJ, meteg>, but this doesn't seem
very intuitive.
I'll shut up now...
--Rich Gillam
Language Analysis Systems, Inc.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 05 2003 - 15:03:05 EST