From: Jony Rosenne (rosennej@qsm.co.il)
Date: Thu Jul 31 2003 - 15:57:13 EDT
I was under the impression that old English manuscripts did use different
glyphs for the two sounds of th.
Jony
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Kirk [mailto:peter.r.kirk@ntlworld.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 8:30 PM
> To: Jony Rosenne
> Cc: unicode@unicode.org
> Subject: Re: Hebrew Vav Holam
>
>
> On 31/07/2003 11:31, Jony Rosenne wrote:
>
> >This argumentation applies equally well to th (which should
> be at least
> >two Unicodes in English), gh (how many?), etc.
> >
> >Jony
> >
> >
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Ted Hopp [mailto:ted@newslate.com]
> >>Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 4:58 PM
> >>To: Peter Kirk
> >>Cc: Jony Rosenne; unicode@unicode.org
> >>Subject: Re: Hebrew Vav Holam
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >...
> >
> >
> >>I think of holam male as an indivisible glyph that happens to
> >>look like a vav with a dot centered above it (or above its
> >>stem, if you will, but that's just how it might vary from
> >>font to font). It's much the same as a lower-case 'i' not
> >>being a dotless i glyph with a combining dot. (Sometimes an
> >>'i' is just an 'i'.) I wouldn't call the dot anything but a
> >>dot, certainly not a holam male.
> >>
> >>Let's encode Hebrew, not dots. It may mean changes to what
> >>SIL, UniScribe, and others are doing, but there's no free
> lunch here.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> As a native speaker of English, I certainly think of th and gh as
> sequences of two glyphs, not as indivisible combinations, so
> that is the
> difference here.
>
> But a better example might be French e, e acute and e grave.
> These are
> three separate letters which need three different ways to
> encode them.
> Whether the accented versions are encoded as one character or two is
> unimportant as long as they are distinct. Similarly we have three
> letters, vav on its own, vav with right holam and vav with
> left holam,
> and so we need three ways of encoding them.
>
> As for the character name, I am forced to consider these entirely
> meaningless except for being unique and stable, as UTC has refused to
> correct demonstrable mistakes in these names, including at least one
> Hebrew accent. So I would actually prefer to use a meaningless random
> string of characters because at least that is more or less guaranteed
> not to be misleading.
>
> --
> Peter Kirk
> peter.r.kirk@ntlworld.com
> http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 31 2003 - 15:53:42 EDT