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 29, 2003 12:18 AM Subject: RE: Back to Hebrew, was OT:darn'd fools > The most reasonable way to achieve visible effects, as opposed to difference > in text, is by markup. > > Jony > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 10:31 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Back to Hebrew, was OT:darn'd fools > > > > > > > > I would really rather know whether there's any fundamental > > Masoretic rationale for encoding holem>waw any differently > > from waw-holem.... > > > > I think the question was asked earlier whether the holem > > comes before or after the waw in holem-waw. I have been told > > that there was no visible difference between holem-waw and > > waw followed by holem in the original texts. However, after > > checking Emanuel Tov's plate of the Leningrad codex (p.392), > > it is clear to me that holem is clearly on the right of the > > waw, yet not over the preceding consonant. 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 encode the > > holem before the waw when it is holem-waw. The font designers > > can choose how they render this and the users can pick their > > preference by picking the font. Or eventually by setting a > > user feature, if this is ever incorporated into major software. > > > > Let's not go backwards by unencoding holem-waw. > > > > Joan Wardell > > SIL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
