Re: Hebrew hataf vowels (was: About CGJ)

From: Peter Kirk (peter.r.kirk@ntlworld.com)
Date: Thu Jul 24 2003 - 16:40:22 EDT

  • Next message: Peter Kirk: "Re: Hebrew hataf vowels (was: About CGJ)"

    On 24/07/2003 12:18, John Hudson wrote:

    > At 11:46 AM 7/24/2003, Peter Kirk wrote:
    >
    >> One of the specific issues he brought up was this one: how do you
    >> distinguish the holam-waw vowel combination from the consonant waw
    >> followed by the vowel holam?...
    >
    >
    > These are display issues, not encoding issues,...

    Not entirely. First I need to know what sequence of Unicode characters I
    should use to encode holam-waw and aleph with right holam. Garbage in,
    garbage out. Then I need to be sure that your sophisticated rendering
    system actually makes the required distinctions and is not confused by
    any rare cases.

    >
    > The way to encode all of the things you mention is pretty
    > straight-forward,...

    But what is it? There is more than one option, so we all need to use the
    same one.

    >
    > There is a document currently available at
    > ftp://publisher.libronix.com/drop/Tiro/SBLHebrew-Distribution/SBLHebrew-MarkSequences.pdf...

    Actually it is not currently available. Fortunately I downloaded it
    yesterday.

    > ...that displays every sequence of consonant + mark(s) that occurs in
    > the BHS text and the Westminster morphological database, with
    > post-context consonants. This doesn't give a perfect representation of
    > what happens in every circumstance...

    Maybe this is why it is missing an adequate representation of one of the
    commonest base character + mark sequence in the printed BHS text, holam
    + waw with the holam clearly shown above the right hand side of the waw.
    I am looking for example at your he - holam - waw sequences. The holam
    is shifted from the he onto the waw as I think it should be, but its
    positioning over the waw looks to be the same as in the waw - holam
    sequences (where there is no interference with cantillation marks). At
    least the distinction is nothing like as clear as in Genesis 4:13 in the
    printed BHS. 

    -- 
Peter Kirk
peter.r.kirk@ntlworld.com
http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 24 2003 - 17:18:15 EDT