From: Mark E. Shoulson (mark@kli.org)
Date: Thu May 06 2004 - 06:10:05 CDT
Peter Constable wrote:
>>From: Mark E. Shoulson [mailto:mark@kli.org]
>>
>>
>>Actually, no: some accents go on unstressed syllables. For example, a
>>dehi could coexist with a qamats-qatan. Psalms 4:2 has a qamats-qatan
>>on the same letter as GERESH MUQDAM, as do others. Psalms 9:14 has
>>
>>
>one
>
>
>>with a DEHI. Exodus 34:11 has one with a QADMA.
>>
>>But a *pair* of qamatses, one of each sort? That wouldn't happen.
>>
>>
>
>Precisely why assigning qamats qatan to class 18 would not be
>particularly useful: it allows you to distinguish < qamats, qamats qatan
>
>
>>from < qamats qatan, qamats >; it does not allow you to distinguish
>>
>>
>differently-ordered sequences of qamats qatan and any other combining
>marks with a non-zero class.
>
Well, yeah, but why would I want to make such a distinction?
What I mean is, qamats-qatan should behave as much like qamats as
possible. So if I went through and edited my Biblical text to show
qamats-qatans in the appropriate places, comparisons and rendering and
all should still be the same. If qamats+dehi normalizes to dehi+qamats
(I'm too lazy to look up if that's right), then presumably qamats-qatan
+ dehi should normalize to dehi+qamats-qatan. That way if I set my
software, say, to compare qamats-qatan as equal to qamats (i.e. I don't
want to make the distinction between the two in searching), my search
will work just as well as if I'd never changed my text.
Does that make sense?
~mark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:26 CDT