Peter Kirk scripsit:
> Yes, graphically. The orthographic rules for shifting holam on to a
> following alef are identical to those for shifting it on to a following
> vav, except that because the alef is wide no one confuses the two
> positions, and no one gives a special name to alef plus right side
> holam.
Okay. So dalet followed by vav-right-holam is read "do", and the vav is a
mater lectionis, whereas dalet followed by vav-left-holam would be read
"dvo", correct? But presumably the latter case cannot happen with alef,
because dalet-alef can't represent a consonant cluster. Or can it?
> So do we create a problem where there isn't one by adhering to the
> principle which the same Jony just enounced, that:
>
> >the marks follow the base character
In the case of alef, this can be treated as a pure rendering effect, because
there isn't any contrastive case (I hope) with dalet followed by alef-left-holam.
--
John Cowan www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"'My young friend, if you do not now, immediately and instantly, pull
as hard as ever you can, it is my opinion that your acquaintance in the
large-pattern leather ulster' (and by this he meant the Crocodile) 'will
jerk you into yonder limpid stream before you can say Jack Robinson.'"
--the Bi-Coloured-Python-Rock-Snake
