Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dora Smith" <villandra AT austin.rr.com>]

They probably learned Hebrew the same places I did.

I took Biblical Hebrew (well, 3/4 of the year before I got too busy; I was
auditing the class) at SUNY at Buffalo with a Near Eastern archeologist.

You'd think he'd have mentioned dots in two places if the notion that they
were supposed to be there was commonly accepted.

Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, Texas
villandra AT austin.rr.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
To: "Dora Smith" <villandra AT austin.rr.com>
Cc: "Biblical Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 4:57 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Draft proposal for Unicode encoding of holam male


> On 12/04/2004 20:12, Dora Smith wrote:
>
> >Peter, what are you talking about?   Are you saying that unicode fonts
only
> >spell the long o sound with a vav, instead of the dot over the consonant?
> >
> >Yours,
> >Dora Smith
> >Austin, Texas
> >villandra AT austin.rr.com
> >
> >
>
> Not quite. What I am saying is that Unicode does not make a distinction
> between holam male = full holam (with silent vav) and vav haluma =
> consonantal vav with holam (sounded VO or WO). Both are written as vav
> with holam dot above it, but (at least as I was taught) in the former
> the dot is above the right side of vav, and in the latter the dot is
> above the left side. From my examples you will see that many printed
> Bibles make this distinction. Unicode only defines one way of putting a
> holam dot on a vav.
>
> --
> Peter Kirk
> peter AT qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/
>