From: Peter_Constable@sil.org
Date: Thu Jun 26 2003 - 03:43:08 EDT
John Hudson wrote on 06/25/2003 06:47:44 PM:
> >This is not. The Unicode Standard makes no assumptions or claims
> >about what the phonological or meaning equivalence of <hiriq, patah>
> >or <patah, hiriq> is for Biblical Hebrew.
>
> But it does make assumptions about the canonical equivalence of the mark
> orders <U+05B4, U+05B7> and <U+05B7, U+05B4>, unless my understanding of
> the purpose of combining classes is completely mistaken.
Your understanding on this point is correct.
> My understanding
> is that any ordering of two marks with different combining classes is
> canonically equivalent;
Yes.
> further, I understand that some normalisation forms
> will re-order marks to move marks with lower combining class values
closer
> to the base character.
*Every* Unicode normalization form will apply canonical reordering.
> * Meteg re-ordering is in some respects even more problematic than
> multi-vowel re-ordering
And it is because of meteg-vowel ordering distinctions that the ordering
of things like patah + hiriq should not be solved in any way other than
the two having the same canonical combining class, because that is exactly
what will be needed to deal with meteg-vowel ordering distinctions.
- Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Constable
Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 26 2003 - 04:34:51 EDT