----- Original Message ----- From: "Dean Snyder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Unicode List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 10:11 PM Subject: Re: The display of *kholam* on PCs
> The case of (written) Yo'MaR is not an exception. The pronunciation is > "yomar", the aleph not being pronounced; and therefore the KHOLEM is > written after the consonant which directly precedes it in pronunciation. But not above that consonant. > In the examples 'oBeD, MoSHeL, and SoTeN the KHOLEM, as expected, follows > in pronunciation the letter with which it is associated. > > I can't make out the transcription "The letter ??? will be "s<caron>o¯" to > commence a syllabe, e.g., ?????? (s<caron>o¯ma<caron>'), and "o¯s" in other places." > and I don't have Harrison's grammar at work to check the reading; but it > sounds like an explanation of how SHIN + KHOLEM are written, which has > already been discussed. It explains that SHIN+KHOLEM "sho" and KHOLEM+SIN "os" are written the same way. A shin with two dots above it. However, if it is KHOLEM+SIN, "os" then it is not a syllabe, i.e. the KHOLEM logically belongs to the preceding syllabe. [ ... ] > I don't have my Bagster here at work but I would suspect if you looked > closely, the location of the KHOLEM would be as I have suggested. Indeed. While the KHOLEM is above the he the shortest distance (which is horizontal) is not to the he but to the lamed. > If not I suspect this is idiosyncratic to works printed on that press. > > [I did however misspeak technically when I said "after the consonant OVER > which it is written". The KHOLEM pronounced after LAMED is indeed written > OVER the scribal line, but is written directly AFTER the LAMED.] > > > >> About the only "unusual" orthographic phenomenon I can think of related > >> to KHOLEM is that when it occurs after SIN it "shares the same dot" > >> with SIN. > > > >And if those dots were above different letters there were no reason why > >they should share. > > I must be missing your point here; this seems to support what I was saying. "shares the same dot" cannot only happen with SIN DOT, dot to the left, but also with SHIN DOT, dot to the right. I was thinking of the latter. As in MoSHeL. If the SHIN DOT here is a KHOLEM then clearly the KHOLEM belonging to the M is above the SH. It seems to be a _kerning_ problem. A hebrew letter with KHOLEM can have a part (the KHOLEM) which is above another letter. Are there hebrew computer fonts which do kerning? > But I'm surprised that no one has provided the one possible > counterexample to my statement about no vowel preceding its consonant (an > example I completely forgot about when writing my former post) - furtive > pathach (as in the second a-vowel in SaMeaKH). > > Depending on your linguistic persuasion you might argue that the PATAKH > here is a vowel glide, both written and pronounced, which is merely > "extending" a non-a-vowel before guttural consonants in certain phonemic > contexts. Or you might want to posit that it is the only example of a > syllable in classical Hebrew beginning with a vowel - or an unwritten > consonant. > > Probably more than we need to know about the originally posted problem, > but I have a feeling that readers of this list enjoy, like I do, > discussion of these orthographic quirks of the world's writing systems. > > > Respectfully, > > Dean A. Snyder > Scholarly Technology Specialist > Center For Scholarly Resources, Sheridan Libraries > Garrett Room, MSE Library, 3400 N. Charles St. > The Johns Hopkins University > Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218 > > office: 410 516-6850 mobile: 410 245-7168 fax: 410-516-6229 > Manager, Digital Hammurabi Project: www.jhu.edu/digitalhammurabi > Manager, Initiative for Cuneiform Encoding: www.jhu.edu/ice > > >
