[Hebrew encoding] stress accent character?

[ArchivePoster]

Posted by: Pim_12
         
Dear List,

What is the wisdom on encoding a stress accent character? It should look like "An arrow-head", as J. Weingreen writes (_A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew_, Oxford [Clarendon Press], second ed., 1959, p. 7, n. a.), left-pointing, in shape more like the Hebrew accent Ole [U+05AB] than anything else.

(The use of an arrow-shaped character to indicate principal stress in Biblical Hebrew words is not rare, if anyone should wonder. It is used in numerous Hebrew primers, and in authoritative dictionaries--for the latter, see below.)

I am asking this question because we (at Brill) are in the process of transcoding the data of Koehler and Baumgartner's _Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexicon zum Alten Testament_ to a modern Unicode format (and thinking of doing the same to the English edition).

We cannot use Ole, however suitable its shape, because I am reliably informed that Ole is used to mark _unaccented_ syllables, hence using Ole would lead to a logical contradiction, in an encoding context.

Meanwhile, we shall be using a placeholder code point (U+059E HEBREW ACCENT GERSHAYIM), to be replaced at a later stage.

My own thought on this is that we need an additional combining character in SBL Hebrew, comparable in shape to Hebrew accent Ole [U+05AB] but different in encoding, exhibiting right-to-left behavior, centering above the consonant above which it appears, and not clashing with holam.

Thoughts, anyone?

With kind regards,

Pim Rietbroek
         

[ArchivePoster]

Posted by: John Hudson
         
I had assumed Ole would be used for this, and am surprised that someone thinks Ole would be used to mark  unaccented syllables: I figured, from its appearance, that Ole was the stress mark, but then I'm no Hebraist.

If another character is indeed needed, then it would have to be documented, proposed and accepted for inclusion in Unicode, which can take several months even presuming the proposal is non-controversial.

Pim, I think this would be a good question to raise on the Unicode Hebrew list, where you will get [typically conflicting but informative] feedback from Hebraists.
         

[ArchivePoster]

Posted by: Peter Kirk
         
On 14/11/2004 04:09, John Hudson wrote:
>
> ...
>
> I had assumed Ole would be used for this, and am surprised that
> someone thinks Ole would be used to mark unaccented syllables: I
> figured, from its appearance, that Ole was the stress mark, but then
> I'm no Hebraist.

I had also assumed this. But there was some internal discussion of this
one in SIL when the Ezra SIL font was being prepared, because the legacy
SIL Ezra font did have a distinct accent character, similar to Ole but
longer.
>
> If another character is indeed needed, then it would have to be
> documented, proposed and accepted for inclusion in Unicode, which can
> take several months even presuming the proposal is non-controversial.
>
>
> Pim, I think this would be a good question to raise on the Unicode
> Hebrew list, where you will get [typically conflicting but
> informative] feedback from Hebraists.
>
My feeling, and my own advice, is that a new Unicode character would be
accepted only if it were clearly distinct IN APPEARANCE from an existing
character like Ole. A different function for the same shape would not be
separately encoded. If we start on that route with Hebrew, we end up
having a whole variety of metegs, dageshes, shevas etc, and endless
debates about how to distinguish them.

So, if you can find texts in which there is a generic accent character
distinct in appearance from Ole, there is a possibility of defining a
new character. But if not, I don't think it will be accepted.

Pim wrote:
> We cannot use Ole, however suitable its shape, because I am reliably
> informed that Ole is used to mark _unaccented_ syllables, hence using
> Ole would lead to a logical contradiction, in an encoding context.

This is not a contradiction because whenever Ole is used in a text that
text is fully accented and so the generic accent character is not used.
The two signs never appear in the same text and so cannot clash.

I suppose there might be cases e.g. in K&B where both lemmas (with
generic stress) and quotations from the Bible text (with full
accentuation including Ole) are embedded in the same German, English etc
text. Well, if so, what happens  in the printed text? Is there a visible
distinction between Ole and the generic accent? If not, you are going
beyond the text you are trying to represent in making a distinction. If
there is a visible distinction, then you have the evidence you need to
propose a new character.

I note an alternative convention of using Meteg rather than Ole (or
something rather like it) as a generic stress marker.


--
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/


         

[ArchivePoster]

Posted by: Pim_12
         
Dear John and Peter,

Thank you both for your replies to my query.

John wrote:
> I had assumed Ole would be used for this, and am surprised
> that someone thinks Ole would be used to mark unaccented
> syllables: I figured, from its appearance, that Ole was the
> stress mark, but then I'm no Hebraist.

and Peter added:
> I had also assumed this. But there was some internal
> discussion of this one in SIL when the Ezra SIL font was
> being prepared, because the legacy SIL Ezra font did have
> a distinct accent character, similar to Ole but longer.

The expert I am in contact with has a point about Ole marking the unaccented syllable. I just consulted two of my Hebrew grammars, and they remark (on the _combination_ of Ole with Yored/Merkha within one word, in _different_ syllables) that Yored/Merkha marks the accented syllable, while Ole is put on the preceding syllable; Ole is a main divider in the poetic system of accents.

Quoting John, Peter further remarked:
>> If another character is indeed needed, then it would have to
>> be documented, proposed and accepted for inclusion in
>> Unicode, which can take several months even presuming the
>> proposal is non-controversial.
>>
>>
>> Pim, I think this would be a good question to raise on the
>> Unicode Hebrew list, where you will get [typically conflicting
>> but informative] feedback from Hebraists.
>
> My feeling, and my own advice, is that a new Unicode
> character would be accepted only if it were clearly
> distinct IN APPEARANCE from an existing character
> like Ole. A different function for the same shape would
> not be separately encoded. If we start on that route with
> Hebrew, we end up having a whole variety of metegs,
> dageshes, shevas etc, and endless debates about
> how to distinguish them.

A wise remark, in the context of Hebrew!

Peter continued:
> So, if you can find texts in which there is a generic
> accent character distinct in appearance from Ole,
> there is a possibility of defining a new character. But if
> not, I don't think it will be accepted.

No, I do not know of any. But my ignorance should not be taken seriously in this matter! (Although as ignorance goes, it is a serious form of ignorance...  :-)   )

And Peter went on to write:
> Pim wrote:
>> We cannot use Ole, however suitable its shape, because
>> I am reliably informed that Ole is used to mark _unaccented_
>> syllables, hence using Ole would lead to a logical
>> contradiction, in an encoding context.
>
> This is not a contradiction because whenever Ole is used
> in a text that text is fully accented and so the generic
> accent character is not used. The two signs never appear
> in the same text and so cannot clash.
>
> I suppose there might be cases e.g. in K&B; where both
> lemmas (with generic stress) and quotations from the
> Bible text (with full accentuation including Ole) are embedded
> in the same German, English etc text. Well, if so, what
> happens in the printed text? Is there a visible distinction
> between Ole and the generic accent? If not, you are going
> beyond the text you are trying to represent in making a
> distinction. If there is a visible distinction, then you have
> the evidence you need to propose a new character.

No, I know practically for certain a distinction in shape between Ole and the generic accent is never made in K&B;: in the (third) German edition of Koehler & Baumgartner's Lexicon of the Old Testament, vols. 1-3, lead type was used, and the same shape was used both in it and in Lettinga's _Grammar of Biblical Hebrew_ [in Dutch]. In vol. 4 of K&B;, computer typesetting (the "MCS" system) was used. I failed to find any generic accent character in it, but I only had a cursory look just now. But knowing who the people were who were involved I doubt if any difference was ever applied. In fact, "accents" in the masoretic sense except Metheg are generally absent from K&B;, AFAIK. (Vols. 5 and the Supplement, just to be complete: these used mostly Linguist's Software's SuperHebrew font for the Hebrew/Aramaic (and a bit of MCS text in the Errata), so no difference can be observed there, either.

(Thank you, Peter, for reminding me about the use of Metheg as a generic stress marker!)

Thanks to you both!

Pim
         

[ArchivePoster]

Posted by: Pim_12
         
Hi, John!

You wrote:
> I think this would be a good question to raise on the
> Unicode Hebrew list, where you will get [typically conflicting
> but informative] feedback from Hebraists.

Which list is that? And how do I find subscription information? (I assume this is a list different from the Unicode List; is it b-hebrew?)

TIA,,

Pim
         

[ArchivePoster]

Posted by: John Hudson
         
To subscribe to the Unicode Hebrew discussion list, send a message to

   ecartis@unicode.org

with the subject line

   subscribe hebrew

and no body text
         

[ArchivePoster]

Posted by: Pim_12
         
Thanks, John!  This Unicode-Hebrew list is invisible to those not in the know.

Pim
         

[Tags:]

Jump to: Please select a destination: ----------------------------- News and announcements ----------------------------- => Announcements from the forum’s moderators => News from the font industry ----------------------------- Type design and font technology ----------------------------- => Principles of type design => OpenType Layout feature development => Hinting => Font Formats and OpenType => Web font embedding => Font licensing ===> Electronic EULA Abstract (EEULAA) ----------------------------- Education and collaboration ----------------------------- => Work: Offers => Work: Looking for => Education: Offers => Education: Looking for => Typographic Events and Conferences ----------------------------- FontLab products ----------------------------- => News from FontLab => FontLab Studio ===> FontLab Studio Problems ===> FontLab Studio Tips and Tricks ===> FontLab Studio Wish List ===> FontLab Studio Public Preview => Fontographer ===> Fontographer Problems ===> Fontographer Wish List => TypeTool => AsiaFont Studio => TransType => ScanFont => SigMaker => Other Products ----------------------------- Photofont products ----------------------------- => BitFonter => Photofont WebReady => Photofont Start => Photofont ID => Photofont QX => The Photofont technology ----------------------------- Adobe Type products ----------------------------- => Adobe FDK for OpenType (AFDKO) ----------------------------- Apple Font products ----------------------------- => Apple Font Tools ----------------------------- Microsoft Typography products ----------------------------- => Microsoft Font Validator => Microsoft Visual OpenType Layout Tool (VOLT) => Microsoft Web Embedding Fonts Tool (WEFT) => Microsoft Visual TrueType (VTT) ----------------------------- Other products and Python scripting ----------------------------- => Python scripting => FontTools/TTX => Other font-related tools ----------------------------- Special interest groups ----------------------------- => SBL Fonts ===> SBL Hebrew ===> SBL Greek ===> SBL BibLit ----------------------------- FAQ and TechNotes ----------------------------- => OpenType Layout feature development FAQ and TechNotes => Hinting FAQ and TechNotes => Font Formats and OpenType FAQ and TechNotes => Web font embedding FAQ and TechNotes => Font licensing FAQ and TechNotes => FontLab Studio FAQ and TechNotes => Fontographer FAQ and TechNotes => TypeTool FAQ and TechNotes => AsiaFont Studio FAQ and TechNotes => TransType FAQ and TechNotes => ScanFont FAQ and TechNotes => SigMaker FAQ and TechNotes => BitFonter FAQ and TechNotes => Photofont WebReady FAQ and TechNotes => Photofont Start FAQ and TechNotes => Photofont ID FAQ and TechNotes => Photofont QX FAQ and TechNotes ----------------------------- Archive (MSN Groups) ----------------------------- => Archive: Old FontLab forum ===> Archive: FontLab Tips and Tricks ===> Archive: FontLab Bugs and Problems ===> Archive: FontLab Wish List ===> Archive: FontLab Announcements => Archive: Old Microsoft Font Validator group => Archive: Old Microsoft VOLT group => Archive: Old Microsoft VTT group ===> Archive: VTT Downloads ===> Archive: VTT Support ===> Archive: VTT Suggestions => Archive: Old Microsoft WEFT group ===> Archive: WEFT III ===> Archive: EOT for Email => Archive: Old SBL Fonts group ===> Archive: SBL Hebrew ===> Archive: SBL Greek ----------------------------- Various ----------------------------- => fontlab.com — the FontLab website => forum.fontlab.com — this forum => Other Topics