Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Karljürgen Feuerherm <cuneiform AT rogers.com>]

Aha. I will do this for the time being. It is a simple matter to do a global
replace later if we conclude that the distinction should not be made.

The fact that Christians and others BOTH have the distinction is one thing.
I wonder (and I think you asked this question on the Unicode list) whether
the distinction goes back to the Masoretes. If not, then it is at some level
a later artificial imposition, in the same way that (to my mind) the
'invisible Yod' proposed on the Unicode list would be (and as such would
represent an inappropriate emendation of the text).

K
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Kirk" <peter.r.kirk AT ntlworld.com>
To: "Karljürgen Feuerherm" <cuneiform AT rogers.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2003 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Holem-waw in Unicode


> On 26/07/2003 10:17, Karljürgen Feuerherm wrote:
>
> >Hi (again) Peter
> >
> >[and yes, this time I got this list address from piggy-backing on a
message
> >you sent to several lists... :)]
> >
> >Ok. I never thought of the two as distinct until your comments the other
day
> >regarding this subject, and then trying it out.
> >
> >I've always thought of the consonants as primary, and the pointing as
> >secondary, and hence as the holem belonging to the waw regardless; but I
> >realized earlier today one might think of the two as separate systems and
> >thus linking the holem with the preceding consonant, except when
consonantal
> >waw is indicated.
> >
> >K
> >
> >
> >
> I got the idea from the WTS etc BHS text which encodes the two
> differently, OW for the vowel and WO for the consonant vowel sequence.
> WTS etc got it from the printed BHS which makes a small distinction. But
> it isn't just an invention of Christian scholars as Shelomo the
> webmaster of Mechon Mamre has tried to make a distinction (see
> http://www.mechon-mamre.org/c/ct/c0.htm), though in a way which is not
> really Unicode compatible i.e. he inserts ZWJ after vav and before holam
> when the vav is a consonant, as a particular font renders this in the
> way he wants. But then he is concerned with how he can get something
> looking right on users' screens today, and not so much on defining the
> pure Unicode for tomorrow.
>
> --
> Peter Kirk
> peter.r.kirk AT ntlworld.com
> http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
>
>
>