John Cowan replied:
Rick McGowan scripsit:
Which explains to me why a pint of bitter in England seems quite so
enormous... well for a small Yank... ;-)
Yup. Hence also the Brit's complaint about the metric system: a liter
of beer is too much, half a liter isn't enough, but a pint, ah, that's
My knowledge of Aramaic script is a little scanty, but my understanding is
more or less the same as Peter's.
Which leads me to suggest that encoding Aramaic separately would be a bit
like encoding Old Akkadian (Cuneiform) separately from NeoAssyrian
(Cuneiform). Which would be a bit silly (and
Peter Kirk has indicated that the holam really belongs to the preceding
consonant,
That is how I understand it also, since the vowel pointing really belongs to
a separate system from the vowel letter system (matres lectionis).
K
Yes, and followed by any arbitrary character. It may even
carry a vowel
point as in the divine name as shown in my document and in one of my
postings.
I don't believe it is a Holam Male, at least not according to Jewish
tradition.
I agree. It may be necessary to treat this following
The suggestion is certainly practical. Unfortunately acquiring new
vocabulary may involve a fair amount of time expenditure on the part of some
of us who regularly use alternate (known) terminology. I would happily
comply if I could but cannot afford to at the moment. Sorry.
K
- Original
Ted,
Is not U+FB35 HEBREW LETTER VAV WITH DAGESH a shuruq?
Only graphically. Different pronunciation, different names, different
functions grammatically. Old typewriters used to have only a single key
for
the lower case letter 'l' and the digit '1'. (Change your font if you
can't
see the
Ted,
Weingreen is right, but vowel-letters isn't standard terminology that I
know of.
I would have thought it was standard enough, but then I studied from
Weingreen. However, it is basically just a convenient English equivalent for
beginning students to mater lectionis ('Mother of reading'
Well, in either case, the original point falls to bits. Neither of the two
countries match the original descriptor of 'the at-the-time most progressive
nation on Earth'.
Nor does any other. It's simply much too simplistic a statement.
K
- Original Message -
From: John Cowan [EMAIL
Well, that was precisely the question. Are we talking about a mere
preference of visual effect or an actual difference in (original) text--that
is, an intended semantic differentiation?
K
- Original Message -
From: Jony Rosenne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July
[The following was posted to the Biblical Hebrew list and I am forwarding it
as potentially helpful information regarding this issue, which was raised
here. Not sure whether I should post the name/source?]
I have not at hand now facsimiles of the L and Aleppo manuscripts, but I am
nearly sure
Peter Kirk said:
If we are to use markup to distinguish between characters which are
semantically and phonetically as well as graphically distinct, we may as
well reduce Unicode to one character and make all distinctions with
markup. ;-)
Then it would truly be UNI-code!
K
Message -
From: John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Karljürgen Feuerherm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: [OT] Metric was Yerushala(y)im - or Biblical Hebrew
Karljürgen Feuerherm scripsit:
Well, in either case, the original point falls
Peter Kirk said:
I don't agree that ancient history should necessarily determine this.
It's a bit like the distinction between U and V in English, in fact
closely analogous phonetically. As originally used in English they were
one character. But I don't think that would justify an argument
I believe they're optional though, at least, aren't they?
K
- Original Message -
From: Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: Back to Hebrew, was OT:darn'd fools
At 07:31 -0700 2003-07-29, Peter Kirk wrote:
I don't
Don't worry. I'm not looking for more work.
I just think it is worth going into this eyes open, and the recent BH
discussions have made me aware of how little I actually understood what I
thought I did.
A gramme of caution now is worth a tonne of cure later (in 'most
progressive nation of
I think it is reasonably common. I was about to post the same remark you
did.
K
- Original Message -
From: John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Patrick Andries [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 1:11 PM
Subject: Re: Meaning of a.o. Persian
Patrick Andries
Sorry, posted to the wrong list, I think.
K
Otherwise we
would write Karljfrontedu/frontedrgen or the like.
Actually, that would have been preferable to the way some of my official id
actually appears :(
K
Could be done with Graphite also I think.
K
- Original Message -
From: John Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 6:44 PM
Subject: Re: Back to Hebrew, was OT:darn'd fools
At 03:33 PM 7/29/2003, Peter Kirk wrote:
Well:
1. Most francophone Canadians do *not* sound 'French'--trust me
2. I'm a 'French-speaking Canadian' and if you asked me, I'd tell you I was
French. Because I am. So you can't ask 'any '
(my contribution to this pedantic thread)
K
- Original Message -
From: Peter Kirk [EMAIL
From: Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2003/07/28 Mon AM 09:17:15 EDT
To: Karljürgen Feuerherm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Damn'd fools
On 28/07/2003 05:34, Karljürgen Feuerherm wrote:
Well:
1. Most francophone Canadians do *not* sound 'French'--trust me
If Québec joined the EU, that pretty much would amount to an invasion of the
entire EU
K
- Original Message -
From: Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: OT: Damn'd fools
At 11:47 -0700 2003-07-28, Peter Kirk wrote:
Peter,
So if Finland was part of
Russia, Canada is part of England. How do you like that one, Karljürgen?
Should I expect an imminent French (Canadian)
invasion?[Acknowledging lack of personal certitude regarding the facts
ofFinno-Russian history...]Well... One can camouflage a certain
Joan,
I think the question was asked earlier whether the holem comes before or
after the waw in holem-waw ... This lends credence
to those of us who are BHS fans and would like to see a visible difference
between
holem-waw and waw-holem. The most reasonable means of achieving this is to
Assuming I've understood you correctly It should be as transparent as
possible. Biblical scholars are not *necessarily* technically savvy. Witness
the fact that a number of my colleagues still type Hebrew 'backwards' using
old legacy systems One should not presume technical prowess, at
I believe this to the wrong outlook.
The real situation is that the real text has no Yod--deliberately so from a
Masoretic standpoint. No invisible Yod should be inserted to 'emend' the
text.
(Note that I am not making a pietistic argument, I'm not the least bit
pietistic, though I suspect there
Philippe Verdy wrote on July 21, 2003 at 1:48 AM
This one decision of the official terminology group is not stupid: it
adopts a term that is now spread among French and Canadian natives,
Best avoid the phrase 'Canadian natives'. Even though it might theoretically
embrace all of us who were born
Michael Everson wrote on July 21, 2003 at 12:00 *All* words must be traced
to someone. They do not grow on trees.
They do so: in computer data structures , at least! ;-)
K
Philippe Verdy wrote on July 20, 2003 at 6:23 PM
snipalso like the term courriel which sounds and writes better with the
French orthograph than the imported acronym e-mail, or email (confuzing
with the French term émail which is the material that covers teeth, or a
decoration and protection
As it happens, the same virus hit me again from another source yesterday.
The odd thing was that when I first got it, it was *not* attached to a bogus
message, but to a legitimate message from this list. Must attach itself in
transit.
K
At 00:44 +0200 2003-07-19, Adam Twardoch wrote:
From:
Michael Everson said:
My native script isn't Hebrew but I am certain
that no one who was could easily read a newspaper article written in
Phoenician or Samaritan letters.
Surely that is not an argument for encoding a separate script, is it? Most
German people I know can't read the German
Michael Everson responded:
At 08:42 -0400 2003-07-15, Karljürgen Feuerherm wrote:
Michael Everson said:
My native script isn't Hebrew but I am certain that no one who was
could
easily read a newspaper article written in Phoenician or Samaritan
letters.
Surely that is not an argument
I remember hearing the script called something like 'Sutterlin'--have never
seen it written so no idea how it is spelled... Anyone happen to know?
Is that the script where minimum comes out looking like:
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
(Ie, m = /\/\/\, n = /\/\, u = /\/\, i = /\
Adobe FrameMaker. It desperately needs it.
K
- Original Message -
From: Don Osborn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: No UTF-8 in Eudora
Would it be opportune to have a list of major commercial software (for
various kinds of
- Original Message -
Jony Rosenne wrote on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 at 11:38 AM
Just a reminder that the statement of the problem has not been agreed to.
I
don't see a vowel sequence in Yerushala(y)im.
There is as far as the text--as it is written--is concerned. Just not in the
John H. Jenkins wrote:
On Monday, July 7, 2003, at 4:38 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
At 16:22 -0600 2003-07-07, John H. Jenkins wrote:
IIRC the English prefer to say Mr Roberts.
The, ahem, Irish too. ;-)
Well, to be frank, I'm sure that the Welsh, Scots, and Manx probably
do, too.
At 04:22 -0500 2003-06-27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just have a hard time believing that 50 years from now our
grandchildren won't look back [...]
I am in complete agreement with the spirit of what Peter says, though
realistically, 50 years from now, this is likely to be all neither here
(Regret I hadn't yet read this post prior to my last post)
Peter said, in reponse to Ken:
Why is it a kludge to insert some cc=0 control character into the text for
the sole purpose of preventing reordering during canonical ordering of two
combining marks that do interact typographically and
Philippe said on June 27, 2003 at 10:25 AM
On Friday, June 27, 2003 3:23 PM, Karljürgen Feuerherm
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I REALLY think that option 1 [FIX the combining classes] should be
beaten to death with a stick,
then beaten to death again, before settling for one of the others.
Do
John Cowan said on June 27, 2003 at 12:48 PM
Karljürgen Feuerherm scripsit:
Several people have expressed reasons why this can't be
(practically) be
done--which mainly seem to stem from political concerns.
All concerns involving human beings -- ho bios politikos -- are
political
John Cowan said on June 27, 2003 at 12:56 PM
Michael Everson had said:
This is not analogous to the present situation, it seems to me. In
the first place, what else is the \ for? :-)
Escaping special characters, since you ask.
But in a completely different.
K
Philippe Verdy said on June 27, 2003 at 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: Biblical Hebrew (Was: Major Defect in Combining Classes of
Tibetan Vowels)
On Friday, June 27, 2003 5:53 PM, Karljürgen Feuerherm
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And in any case this should NOT muck things up which aren't broken,
like
(repost. last word missing, sorry)
John Cowan said on June 27, 2003 at 12:56 PM
Michael Everson had said:
This is not analogous to the present situation, it seems to me. In
the first place, what else is the \ for? :-)
Escaping special characters, since you ask.
But in a
Peter replied:
Karljürgen Feuerherm wrote on 06/27/2003 08:23:08 AM:
Now, Q: I take it the combining classes are linked to the script, rather
than say to a dialect
They're linked to the character.
--e.g. one can't define BH as a separate dialect from
MH with its own set of rules
Kenneth Whistler said on June 27, 2003 at 4:08 PM
Karljürgen,
2. Consequently ANY OTHER solution than 'FIX the obvious mistake(s)' is a
kludge (contra Philippe's (?) recent comment). One *pays* for all
kludges,
one way or the other.
Digital encoding of writing systems is a kludge. And boy,
WHEELCHAIR SYMBOL at least has the virtue of being descriptive of the symbol
rather than of the use and thus potentially more neutral all the way around.
K
- Original Message -
From: Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 2:13 PM
Subject: Re:
46 matches
Mail list logo
