I'll narrow the field a bit. As right meteg should appear to the right of sheva and every other low vowel and cantillation mark, its combining class should be less than 10.Of course, one of the nasty details in all these suggestions is that, if we do start using CGJ in the way suggested and also get a new character RIGHT METEG (for which we need to dream up an appropriate combining class -- pick a number from 1 to 199!),...
My first impression would be this:... then we need to consider what the significance (if any) will be of the distinctions between (e.g.)
QAMETS + RIGHT METEG QAMETS + CGJ + RIGHT METEG RIGHT METEG + QAMETS RIGHT METEG + CGJ + QAMETS
Of course, we'll probably just disregard RIGHT METEG + (CGJ + ) QAMETS +
(CGJ + ) METEG and variations thereof as just sequences with no linguistic
meaning (i.e. misspellings).
1. right meteg + qamets would be normal, and canonical order.
2. qamets + right meteg would be canonically equivalent to 1 and so should be displayed the same.
3. right meteg + CGJ + qamets should be displayed the same as 1.
4. qamets + CGJ + right meteg should be considered a spelling error, or perhaps be displayed the same as 6.
5. meteg + qamets would be canonically equivalent to 6 and so should be displayed the same.
6. qamets + meteg would be normal, and canonical order.
7. meteg + CGJ + qamets should either be considered a spelling error, or be displayed the same as 1.
8. qamets + CGJ + meteg should be displayed the same as 6.
But then if this use of CGJ is accepted, right meteg could be encoded regularly as 7 and the special right meteg character would be redundant.
-- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
