Re: No Invisible Character - NBSP at the start of a word

From: Mark E. Shoulson (mark@kli.org)
Date: Thu Nov 25 2004 - 21:40:24 CST

  • Next message: Mark Davis: "Re: Relationship between Unicode and 10646 (was: Re: Shift-JIS conversion.)"

    Dean Snyder wrote:

    >Jony Rosenne wrote at 10:22 PM on Wednesday, November 24, 2004:
    >
    >
    >
    >>Ketiv and Qere, were two different words are written together, are not plain
    >>text and are thus out of scope for Unicode.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >Actually, it's the vowels of one word written with the consonants of
    >another (or just written by themselves with no consonants), and I fail to
    >see how that is not plean tixt ;-)
    >
    >
    >
    I'm not sure I agree with Jony, but I do concede that it is not
    completely clear to me that it IS plain text. You have here a case that
    is pretty much _stipulated_ as being anomolous (words not written as
    read, vowels of one word on the consonants of another), using the
    orthography in ways clearly against the "normal" rules (multiple vowels
    on a single consonant--and yes, I think that the cases where this
    happens in the Ten Commandments are also not necessarily plain text.
    They're two texts written on top of each other)...

    I think part of what makes Biblical Hebrew so contentious is the
    unstated assumption that "the BHS text of the Bible *must* be considered
    plain-text." It's not necessarily so. It isn't necessarily a bad rule
    to work with, but it isn't one we should take for granted, and it's one
    we do need to examine and consider.

    (I do think, though, that "perpetual qere" cases should be considered
    plain text, as they are not singled out. The only one (I can think of)
    that's typographically weird is YERUSHALA(Y)IM, which does need some
    sort of solution.)

    ~mark

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 25 2004 - 21:42:47 CST