Re: 5 Hebrew Consonances Shaping

From: John Cowan (cowan@locke.ccil.org)
Date: Thu Jun 03 1999 - 13:43:05 EDT


Arno Schmitt wrote:

> 1.) If this is true for feh/peh, why should the other four final
> shape have separate codepoints?

I have no evidence on their distribution, but evidence of absence
is not absence of evidence.

> 2.) There are two inaccuracies in "final PEH normally denotes [f]"
> a) not normally, but always

Since the orthography of Hebrew (like that of English) is established
by convention only, with no specific authority, I hesitate to say
"always" about any such point.

> b) therefore it makes no sense to talk of "final PEH", it
> should be "final FEH"

I use the term PEH here as an ASCII equivalent of the basic letter,
nominal or final, with or without dagesh. (So does my source.)

> a+-b) there are no final peh and caf

In your sense of the term you are correct. However, common
convention and the Unicode Standard both speak of "final pe(h)."

-- 
John Cowan	http://www.ccil.org/~cowan		cowan@ccil.org
	You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
	You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
		Clear all so!  'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:46 EDT