Asmus Freytag (t)
asmus-inc at ix.netcom.com
Thu Mar 26 10:12:13 CDT 2015
On 3/25/2015 10:14 PM, Jonathan Rosenne wrote:
> “It's still a HEH, it just looks like another letter, right?” Wrong.
> It’s a QOF. Just like the p in receipt is a p. Unicode should not
> concern itself with the reasons words are spelt the way they are spelt.
Identifying deliberate misspellings as such is a matter of markup. In
other citations, one would use human readable mark-up (that is add
"[sic]"), but in other contexts it might be useful to make a term
searchable by providing identifying markup; what the protocol for that
would be, I don't know, but character encoding, as Jony suggests, is
surely the wrong level for dealing with issues of orthography.
> Best Regards,
> Jonathan Rosenne
> *From:*Unicode [mailto:unicode-bounces at unicode.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Mark E. Shoulson
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 26, 2015 4:31 AM
> *To:* unicode at unicode.org
> *Subject:* Avoidance variants
> So, not much in the way of discussion regarding the TETRAGRAMMATON
> issue I raised the other week. OK; someone'll eventually get to it I
> Another thing I was thinking about, while toying with Hebrew fonts.
> Often, letters are substituted in _nomina sacra_ in order to avoid
> writing a holy name, much as the various symbols for the
> tetragrammaton are used. And indeed, sometimes they're used in that
> name too, as I mentioned, usages like ידודor ידוהand so on. There's
> an example in the paper that shows אלדיםinstead of אלהים. Much more
> common today would be אלקיםand in fact people frequently even
> pronounce it that way (when it refers to big-G God, in non-sacred
> contexts. But for little-g gods, the same word is pronounced without
> the avoidance, because it isn't holy. It's weird.)
> I wonder if it makes sense maybe to encode not a codepoint, but a
> variant sequence(s) to represent this sort of "defaced" or "altered"
> letter HEH. It's still a HEH, it just looks like another letter,
> right? (QOF or DALET or occasionally HET) That would keep some
> consistency to the spelling. On the other hand, the spelling with a
> QOF is already well entrenched in texts all over the internet. But
> maybe it isn't right. And what about the use of ה׳or ד׳for the
> tetragrammaton? Are they both HEHs, one "altered", or is one really a
> DALET? Any thoughts?
> (and seriously, what to do about all those tetragrammaton symbols?)
> Unicode mailing list
> Unicode at unicode.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Unicode