Jonathan Rosenne schrieb:
> First, to substantiate my claim the appearance of the Holam is a matter of
> taste, let me quote from Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, Edited by E. Kautzsch,
> Revised by A. E. Cowley, Oxford 1910, Clause 8g: "In more exact printing, a
> distinction is at least made between wo [Vav Holam] and [o, long Holam] ...".
This is my "best" case: the difference
between mitswot
and matsot
That there are some inexact prints (and programs) around
does not mean that it is a matter of taste.
These printers and programers got it wrong.
> Clause 8f is also relevant: "The [Holam] (without [Vav]) stands on the left
> above the consonant ... If [Alef], as a vowel letter, follows a consonant
> which is to be pronounced with [o], the point is placed over its right arm,
> thus [Bo, Rosh]; but e.g. [Boam], since [Alef] here begins a syllable."
"stands on the left <--> is placed over its right arm"
not : "can stand on the left, if that pleases ...
can be placed over its right arm, if that suits the printers
taste.
>
> Of course, Gesenius and his followers were not concerned with encoding.
> They were just interested in describing with the utmost precision what they
> observed.
>
Dear Jony,
I sincerely fail to see how your (!) witness
can support your claim.
Maybe you could enlighten me?
...
> >moSHe
>
> The Holam and The Shin Dot are merged - only one dot is placed on the right
> of the Shin.
>
Here there is some leeway. Some do not merge the shin-dot and the
holam. This is a matter of taste, maybe of clarity.
But the difference between matsot and mitswot must be encodable --
or not?
Arno
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:46 EDT