I would remind the people interested in Hebrew issues that a list has been set up for their benefit, and recommend that they use it.
Cf. > Darling Unicadetti... > > By popular demand, considering the deluge of Biblical > Hebrew issues cropping up recently on the Unicode list, > I have created a new [EMAIL PROTECTED] list specifically > for this technical discussion and writing of proposals. > > Please direct all Hebrew-related technical traffic to that > list and remove the discussion from the main Unicode list. > Thank you. > > A number of people have been auto-subscribed to the new > list and they should have received a separate note to that > effect. > > The list is open to anyone. To subscribe to the new list, > just send e-mail to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with > subscribe hebrew > in the subject line. You will receive a confirmation. > > Regards from your, > -- Sarasvati > > Mark __________________________________ http://www.macchiato.com ► “Eppur si muove” ◄ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "John Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Ted Hopp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 02:44 Subject: Re: Hebrew Vav Holam > On 31/07/2003 21:02, John Cowan wrote: > > >Ted Hopp scripsit: > > > > > > > >>On Thursday, July 31, 2003 5:18 PM, John Cowan wrote: > >> > >> > >>>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 difference.) Sometimes, Unicode is an old typewriter. > >> > >> > > > >Well, hardly. The 1 and l were squeezed onto the same key on the > >typewriter because there weren't enough keys, but in handwriting and > >book fonts they have always been different. Whereas AFAIK the geminated > >vav and the shuruq have always looked the same, like English consonantal > >"y" and vowel "y". > > > > > > > The analogy would be a much better one for the two positions of holam on > vav, though these were unified probably not for the sake of computers or > typewriters (as they were unified by at least some before 1850) but very > likely for the convenience of printers. > > -- > Peter Kirk > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/ > > > >
