Learn how to use the forum

Hebrew vowel marks on final kaf with dagesh?

Discussion started on Archive: SBL Hebrew

ArchivePoster

Posted by: John Hudson
         
This is a question about the preferred positioning of the two vowel marks sheva and qamats when they are applied to a final kaf that takes a dagesh mark. In the current version of the SBL Hebrew font, and in other Biblical Hebrew fonts I have looked at, the sheva and qamats are raised on the final kaf when it does not take a dagesh, but when dagesh is present the vowels are not raised but sit at the same level as vowels on other letters. This positioning is also attested in the various print editions of the Hebrew Bible that I have consulted (BHK, BHS, Aron Dotan's BHL, and the JPS Tanakh).

However, it has recently come to my attention that in the manuscript of the Leningrad Codex, the vowels are slightly raised on final kaf even when the letter takes a dagesh. See the illustration posted here:

http://www.tiro.com/John/FinalKafDageshVowel.gif

I am wondering whether Biblical scholars would prefer to have the SBL Hebrew font continue to follow the convention apparently used in print editions, or would prefer to have it more closely emulate the Ben Asher scribal tradition as attested in the L manuscript?

I'm asking this question in a number of different fora, hoping to get some representative feedback from people working with the Bible text.

Regards, John
         
#1 - 2007-02-10, 09:43

ArchivePoster

Posted by: dyma_o
         


Dear John,


 


thank you for paying attention to such details. I prefer the
raised position. It supports the final character of
ך.


Also accents are raised in L cf e.g. Gen 17:13:



But I’m not sure if this looks good in print.


 


Oliver




         
#2 - 2007-02-10, 14:27

ArchivePoster

Posted by: maschi
         
Isn't it that according to L the position of Dagesh itself is a little higher in Final Kaf? - In my opinion the Sheva should be distinguishable from the Dagesh - so a vertical row witrh three points is not what it should look like.
 
Markus

         
#3 - 2007-02-11, 08:53

ArchivePoster

Posted by: John Hudson
         
In the manuscript, the position of marks varies a lot, as can be expected in a large text written by hand. In the example I showed, the dagesh is indeed quite high on the final kaf, but this would not be a good idea to follow typographically (bearing in mind that typographic texts tend to be of smaller size than most manuscripts, so the individual elements, letter, marks, need to be clearly distinguishable). I agree that dagesh and sheva should be distinct in this combination, so the sheva must not be raised too high.

The precise handling can be experimented with. What I'm really wondering about is the general principle: is this a feature of the manuscript that users would like to see reflected in the typeface, or would you prefer that the font follow the predominant typographic convention?
         
#4 - 2007-02-11, 17:06

ArchivePoster

Posted by: twuandy
         
Dear John,
Every time I open BibleWorks, SBL Hebrew gets split into two, the file (the
SBL part of it) becomes trash, I open the fonts folder, delete the two SBL
Hebrew fonts, and reinstall the right one from the SBL folder.
Andy


>From: "John Hudson"
>Reply-To: "SBL Fonts"
>To: "SBL Fonts"
>Subject: Re: Hebrew vowel marks on final kaf with dagesh?
>Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 12:06:57 -0800
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     New Message on SBL Fonts
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>       Hebrew vowel marks on final kaf with dagesh?
>
>
>
>
>       Reply
>
>
>
>                Â 
>
>                   Reply to Sender
>                     Recommend
>
>                   Message 4 in Discussion
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>               From:
>               John Hudson
>
>
>
>
>               In the manuscript, the position of marks varies a lot, as
>can be expected in a large text written by hand. In the example I showed,
>the dagesh is indeed quite high on the final kaf, but this would not be a
>good idea to follow typographically (bearing in mind that typographic texts
>tend to be of smaller size than most manuscripts, so the individual
>elements, letter, marks, need to be clearly distinguishable). I agree that
>dagesh and sheva should be distinct in this combination, so the sheva must
>not be raised too high.
>
>The precise handling can be experimented with. What I'm really wondering
>about is the general principle: is this a feature of the manuscript that
>users would like to see reflected in the typeface, or would you prefer that
>the font follow the predominant typographic convention?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     View other groups in this category.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>                   To stop getting this e-mail, or change how often it
>arrives, go to your E-mail Settings.
>
>
>                        Need help? If you've forgotten your password, please go
>to Passport Member Services.
>
>                        For other questions or feedback, go to our Contact Us
>page.
>
>
>                        If you do not want to receive future e-mail from this
>MSN group, or if you received this message by mistake, please click the
>"Remove" link below. On the pre-addressed e-mail message that opens, simply
>click "Send". Your e-mail address will be deleted from this group's mailing
>list.
>
>
>             Remove my e-mail address from SBL Fonts.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
FREE online classifieds from Windows Live Expo – buy and sell with people
you know
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwex0010000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://expo.live.com?s_cid=Hotmail_tagline_12/06


         
#5 - 2007-02-12, 00:30

ArchivePoster

Posted by: John Hudson
         
[Off topic for this discussion, but in response to Andy's message:

It sounds like Bibleworks (which includes a version of SBL Hebrew) might be checking for a particular version of the font and reinstalling it if it is missing. I've been in touch with the Bibleworks people about their installation process, but have not been able to get a very clear answer from them about what they are doing.]
         
#6 - 2007-02-12, 02:30

ArchivePoster

Posted by: twuandy
         
Dear John,
I've had BibleWorks 2+1/2 years, and I'm still not clear what they're doing.
Andy

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t miss your chance to WIN 10 hours of private jet travel from Microsoft
Office Live http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0540002499mrt/direct/01/


         
#7 - 2007-02-12, 15:03

ArchivePoster

Posted by: Prof_Bob_Stallman
         
My preference for SBL Hebrew is to follow the convention of most print editions and thus have the vowels in the final kaf with dagesh on the same level as other vowels. I have not checked all of the instances of final kaf + dagesh + vowel in Leningradensis, but even if I did and found that the vowels were always raised, I would still prefer to have SBL Hebrew print them on the same level. This is because of the need for visual clarity not only on the printed page but especially on computer screens. The latter is especially important for students who view Hebrew text in a classroom as displayed by a projector. These projectors tend to display at lower resolutions than most desktop or laptop screens.
 
As a hand-written artifact, Leningradensis has many intriguing features that are either impractical or undesirable to reproduce in computerized applications.
 
Thank you, John, for bringing this to the attention of the group and for requesting feedback.
 
Bob

         
#8 - 2007-02-13, 20:00

ArchivePoster

Posted by: eleuteruiz
         
I have to disagree with Bob. I really think that it gives a visually more integrated image of the combined consonant+dagesh+vowel sign when the vowel is raised a little. In the illustration given by John, the kaf+dagesh+qamets combination looks definitely better with the raised qamets. The second one (with shewa) has the already mentioned problem of creating the impression of a vertical line of three dots. It could be solved, I guess, by raising a little bit more the dagesh point.

As for projector displays, I cannot imagine a situation where people has to read a lot of hebrew text from a displayed image. It seems to me preferable to have a printed copy of it... Or perhaps I am missunderstanding something. If the purpose is showing to the students a special case, it would be enough to use a bigger font size in cases when the projector has a low resolution...

But I admit it, my main concern is not computer screen (in Mac with Mellel SBL fonts look extremely clear) or projector display but printed text. There I think that most "standard" editions of printed Hebrew texts are simply dependent on font flexibility. Of course computerized applications cannot reproduce all handscript features, but to some degree they can, and in many cases (like, IMHO, in this one) it is desirable.

Thanks.
Eleuterio
         
#9 - 2007-04-29, 11:25

Members:

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.