> It seems then that there are no hard rules or wisdom governing the correct positioning of the placement of upper taamei mikrah.

Where did you get that?

> Similar, I am interested in the various rules for shva-nah, shva-nach, komatz katan, komatz gadol, hataf komatz katan, hataf komatz gadol, and any other grammaticalrules governing Hebrew.

There are a lot of books about grammar. But how & when to use/apply the rules -- that's another story.
What do you know?

>> > It seems then that there are no hard rules or wisdom governing the correct positioning of the placement of upper taamei mikrah.

>> Where did you get that?

Actually, I do not know if there are no hard rules, or there are in fact hard rules, but earlier typesetters were simply unaware of them.

When it comes to the subtleties of Hebrew glyph placement, Hebrew grammar rules and their use/application, these are subjects generally out of the realm of graphic art and typesetting.

Furthermore, about one hundred years ago, mainstream Judaism preferred to discourage widespread knowledge of these topics, as they were areas of knowledge known best to maskilim (opponents of mainstream Judaism). In this way, people who were maskilim could be easily identified (by their knowledge of these topics), as theor outward appearance was similar.

As a ressult, unfortunately, most people, including great scholars, no longer are familiar with these topics.

>> > Similar, I am interested in the various rules for shva-nah, shva-nach, komatz katan, komatz gadol, hataf komatz katan, hataf komatz gadol, and any other grammatical rules governing Hebrew.

>> There are a lot of books about grammar. But how & when to use/apply the rules — that’s another story. What do you know?

There are many books on the basics of Hebrew grammar. What I seek is not basic. I don't seek the definitions of these forms, such as, shva-nah, shva-nach, komatz katan, komatz gadol, hataf komatz katan, hataf komatz gadol, etc.

As you write, I seek "how & when to use/apply the rules".

I seek to better understand these rules, the conditions of their use and application, in order to incorporate them into the OpenType Hebrew fonts I am creating.

For example, John Hudson created the excellent SBL-Hebrew OpenType Biblical Hebrew typeface, and incorporated the Hebrew grammatical rule of the furtive patach into the font.

One vowel in Hebrew is the patach, pronounced AFTER the Hebrew letter positioned above it with an "ah" sound. However, if the patach is position above the final Hebrew letter of the word, and that final Hebrew letter is either a Ches or an Ayin, then its positioning in under the extreme left side of the Hebrew letter. This indicated to the reader that the patach is not pronounced AFTER the Hebrew letter, but instead BEFORE the Hebrew letter.

Tis kind of patach is called the furtive patach. Whether the typesetter or user knows this Hebrew grammar rule of not, the furtive patach automatically appears of the condition arises. I seek to do the same thing regarding other Hebrew grammar rules, wherever possible.

> Whether the typesetter or user knows this Hebrew grammar rule of not, the furtive patach automatically appears of the condition arises.

Well, let's see several examples.

Furtive Patach is relatively simple since we know that there are 3 gutturals.
The Rule:
Furtive patach is an a vowel that is added to the 3 gutturals: het, he & ayin only when it's preceded by a vowel other than a — you don't want to apply the rule to any word-final het, he & ayin.
Now, you want to read the Bible; find the words; apply the rules ; build an OT feature — how many substitution? 100? 200? 1000?

Meteg
There are 10!!! different kinds of metegs!!! You want to read the whole bible;find the words with meteg;apply the rules, build an OT feature — how many substitution? 500? 1000? 2000? Just for one mark!?!?

Dagesh:
Let's see the next sample — Genesis 1: 11. The word peri (fruit; mentioned 200 times, more or less) + dagesh. One of them is
punctuated with dagesh hazak. So, just for one word! + one mark you want to have 200 substitutions?

I don't think so. This is a HUGE task!!!!

I don't believe it is necessary for an OpenType Biblical Hebrew font to have contextual processing look-ups for every use of dagesh.

It would be great for an OpenType Biblical Hebrew font to have contextual processing look-ups for every use of meteg, but I believe that the current version of OpenType, MS VOLT 1.3, and Adobe InDesign CS3 ME could handle that much processing.

A huge data base has already been created with every occurance cited. So, that aspect is not the hurdle.

Perhaps, instead of character placement, ligature replacement could occur instead, causing metegs to be added to the text that doesn't have it. I think it would reduce the processing workload. But again I think this is beyond the limits of the software involved.

Where it could be implemented is by shva-nah, shva-nach, komatz katan, komatz gadol, hataf komatz katan, and hataf komatz gadol, because their occurances are much fewer than meteg.

Israel, you need to read between the lines. I'm talking about efficiently!!!

> Perhaps, instead of character placement, ligature replacement could occur instead, causing metegs to be added to the text that doesn’t have it

Sorry. But you can't hijack registered features (ligature) to do this; Since when alef (or any letter) + meteg = ligature?

> Where it could be implemented is by shva-nah, shva-nach, komatz katan, komatz gadol, hataf komatz katan, and hataf komatz gadol, because their occurances are much fewer than meteg.

Well, let's see. There are...something around, or over 2,000!!!! words with kamats katan. Sheva — I don't want to think about the number.

> I seek to know if there is a rule or wisdom governing the correct positioning of the placement of upper taamei mikrah.

And what about the lower marks?

> And what about the lower marks?

Traditionally, they have been placed like graphic symbols aligned to the nikkud on the right side, with a slight space to separate them, and a meteg (if necessary) on the left side, with a slight space to separate them.

Regarding the upper taamei mikrah, traditionally they have been centered above the Hebrew letters.

This poses a problem regarding the shvah-nah, as two graphic symbols can not take up a single space. Plus, with variable character widths, this was too difficult to program in a font in the pre-OpenType days. So, the upper taamei mikrah were simply placed on the extreme left.

However, if the upper taamei mikrah are placed according to the way they are chanted, perhaps their placement varies.

Perhaps, similar rules apply to lower taamei mikrah, as you half seriously imply.

Btw, David, I think shva-nah, komatz katan, and hataf komatz katan, is doable through font-based ligatures, not through OT/VOLT replacements, although I agree that its not practical or efficient as you describe it for meteg.

Anyway, I will know OpenType and MS VOLT's limitations better by next month.

In the Talmud we learn that when one knows well the limitations that one deals with, then the fun begins, creative work arounds, etc. I don't give up easily.

Israel,

I didn't say to give up, or don't be creative. It's just way way way too much.

 Some years ago, Yannis Haralambous created a Biblical Hebrew typesetting package called Tiqwah and Alan Hoenig created Makor, both based on TeX. The papers I linked to have discussion of font design and niqud/ta'am placement.
 John Hudson's Hebrew font he designed for the SBL also shows the results of research in this direction; you might ask him for pointers.
—Joel

I am working together with John Hudson, who I respect very highly for both his excellent Hebrew type design and well thought out nikkud/taam placement knowledge.

The issue we are groping in the sequences when narrow Hebrew letters like vohv or yuhd appear before left aligned Hebrew letters daled or reish, and sets of taam/nikkud/meteg appear under them.

As you can picture, very little space exists, and bumping or overlapping occurs, if we apply the same default nikkud/taam placement rules as in other combinations.

If course, as the professional Hebrew typesetter knows, this can be addressed and corrected through kerning, where the bumping or overlapping is removed by nudging different elements.

The question is how to best incorporate these personalized tweakings into the OpenType Biblical Hebrew font as a sub-set of instructions, so that the inexperienced user will enjoy this knowledgeable result automatically.

Like including a furtive patach-like instruction for shvah-nah, or for komatz katan, I believe this too can be incoporated into the well-made OpenType Biblical Hebrew font.

> so that the inexperienced user will enjoy this knowledgeable result automatically.

So, let's say I'm the inexperienced user; don't have any knowledge about nikkud + cantillation — what exactly I'm going to enjoy? Why do I need an automatic font? Why do I care about what is kamats katan or gadol?

> Like including a furtive patach-like instruction

As I said before. The furtive patach isn't an automatic, unless you are going to "feed" the font with 2,000 !!! words, or more with the furtive patach + the exceptional. The same thing with kamats katan — more than 2,000!!! words + the exceptional. The same thing with shava — 5,000, 6,000...who knows the number.

> Why do I need an automatic font?

Everybody wants to what's right. Nobody likes to do something incorrect, and have others say that there is mud on my face.

As users of Biblical Hebrew, be it the well read Reform Jew, the yeshiva bachur/student, or the Catholic Bible student, learn that that there is a correct way to display Biblical Hebrew text, and there is an incorrect or sloppy was to display Biblical Hebrew text, they will of course desire to correctly Biblical Hebrew text.

If this can be done automatically because the OpenType Biblical Hebrew font thoughtfully and carefully made, the user will want such an automatic font.

> Why do I care about what is kamats katan or gadol?

Again, I truly believe that as people, particularly children, become increasingly knowledgeable about rules of Biblical Hebrew grammar, then these issues will become increasingly important. As a result, we will care a lot about displaying Biblical Hebrew text with a kamats katan or gadol.

It is because we don't know these Biblical Hebrew grammar rules well that we don't care so much about displaying Biblical Hebrew text with a kamats katan or gadol.

> As I said before. The furtive patach isn’t an automatic, unless you are going to “feed” the font with 2,000 !!! words, or more with the furtive patach + the exceptional. The same thing with kamats katan — more than 2,000!!! words + the exceptional. The same thing with shava — 5,000, 6,000...who knows the number.

You are speaking about the vocabulary, and see therefore it as an impossible hurdle to overcome.

I understand that there are basic Biblical Hebrew grammar rules which cause a kamats to be kotan or gadol, or a shah to be nach or nah. Hence, it doesn't have to be impossible to hurdle.

You might be right, but I think it's worth the effort to explore. Don't you agree?

A shvah nah is usually depicted by a small asterisk floating above the Hebrew character, somewhat like one of the upper taamei mikra.

If so, then when we apply the rule of shvah nah to Biblical Hebrew, how can one of the upper taamei mikra be positioned in the same space as the shvah nah?

I spent quite awile and researched each time shvah nah appeared in the Five Books of Moses, in the fantastic work of the modern day Jerusalem publisher Rabbi Winefeld. Each time, shvah nah appeared, there never was one of the upper taamei mikra. Rather, each time shvah nah appeared, there was only one of the lower taamei mikra.

This is not only good news from a typesetting placement point of view, but seemingly teells us aldo that there is a logical relationship in the Biblical Hebrew grammatical rules for shvah nah and the taamei mikra.

 I notice that the most recent Unicode standard includes distinct “qamats" & “qamats qatan" characters. I've also seen a larger sheva used for sheva nah in a recently-published Tikkun Korim; perhaps this can be an alternate representation of <hebrew letter>+<sheva>+<rafe>.
 The automatic recognition of kamats katon & sheva nah is enticing, but I believe grammarians disagree on some of the finer points (pun intended).
 As far as your observation that sheva nah & upper taamim do not coincide, did you notice if perhaps the word has a different niqquda used if it's in a position within a sentence requiring an upper taam? (Similar to the way the word "מִצְרַיִם" Mitsrayim (Egypt) becomes "מִצְרָיִם" Mitsroyim at the end of a sentence.)

—Joel

Let me address this issue one more time. And this is my last word.

Let's keep in mind that you're talking about an automatic font, and not just diacritic positioning, right?

1. My bad. I didn't ask you for a sample (or two, or three) with the incorrect way to display Biblical Hebrew text, as you wrote. Do you have it?
Here, to my left, I have a Huge selection of the Hebrew Bibles. Well, I don't see any sloppy way, or something so awful. Of course, If we are talking about Bibles from the 1930s, 1940s etc etc — there're things to improve. But again there's nothing so so awful. The master work is — without doubt — the bible Jerusalem Crown.
Even Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) is fine — and this bible is fully loaded with errors all the way from here to Australia.
Prayer books — I don't see the sloppy way. Of course, there are good publishers, and there are good "publishers".

2. > particularly children, become increasingly knowledgeable about rules of Biblical Hebrew grammar

Next to the Bibles I have the tons books, textbooks about grammar, cantillation etc etc. I'm looking at one of them. This is a textbook + cd (junior high). I don't see any sloppy way. This book is really & truly great; from a to z, or alef to tav. No sloppy, or shompy. The important aspect of this book is the approval!!!
The book is approved by the most important figures in the religious world: Rabbi Sraya Devlitzky (Bnei Brak) & Rabbi Ovadia Yosef (Jerusalem). I don't know if you're familiar with Rabbi Devlitzky, or Rabbi Yosef . But when the say it's OK, it isn't just OK — it's perfect OK! So, don't worry too much about the education!!! You need to be around those kids and see how they read/chant, and what they know about grammar. Moreover, there are tons of CDs/DVDs/softwares with voice + color. I don't see why they need any automatic thing.

3.. > You are speaking about the vocabulary

Again, you need to read between the lines Israel :^)
This is not just a matter of vocabulary. Any automatic thing needs to address the differences between The Leningrad Codex & The Aleppo Codex. Do you understand the scope of that?

4. > A shvah nah is usually depicted by a small asterisk floating above the Hebrew character, somewhat like one of the upper taamei mikra... is a logical relationship in the Biblical Hebrew grammatical rules for shvah nah and the taamei mikra.

Truly & honest — I don't have a clue what are you talking about. What is exactly the essence of this latest discovery?

Good luck.

David,

When I bemoan the incomplete knowledge of Biblical Hebrew grammatical rules as a insulting comment that there is a widespread lack of knowledge. Thank G-d, many of those who love the study of the Bible in its original know many Biblical Hebrew grammatical rules.

Yet, as in kabballistic literature there is a discussion that the truly wise person realizes that as he or she knows more and more, in truth they know less and less in relationship to how much knowledge there is to know. There is no limit of how much infinite wisdom one can optain; the more you know, the more you realize that there is so much more to know.

Reb Ovadiah Yosef Shlita will be the first to say this. The other great scholar and leader I di no know. As you remember, Reb Ovadiah was a past Chief Rabbi (Sephardic) of Israel in the late '70s. He has a huge following in Israel today.

Regarding the sleuth of Hebrew Bibles that are seemingly incomplete, with the exception of Rabbi Winefield's Shai L'Morah series of books, including the Tanach, the shvah-nah (and usually the komatz katan and hataf komatz katan) does not appear.

This is clearly a lacking, as a few books of the Rishonim (early rabbinic authorities, like Rashi and Maimonides) document these Biblical Hebrew grammatical rules, and preceded the invention of the printing press by over a hundred years.

JC,

I agree there are different definitions of the rules for shvah nah. (The solution is to have different fonts for different folks; just like some like chocolate, and others like vanilla.)

I think either definition is doable. Hopefully. It's certainly worth a good college try.

I think that David thinks it impossible, so it's not worth trying.

When I bemoan the incomplete knowledge of Biblical Hebrew grammatical rules as a insulting comment that there is a widespread lack of knowledge.

============== should read ============

When I bemoan the incomplete knowledge of Biblical Hebrew grammatical rules, IT IS NOT as a insulting comment that there is a widespread lack of knowledge.

> I don’t see why they need any automatic thing.

No one explains on any product not only the various views of shvah-nah or even a single view of shvah-nah. All I have heard is how a set of Hebrew letters are pronounced with shvah-nah and with an ordinary shvah.

We may have tools to help us chant the taamei mikra, for ones bar mitzvah for example, but the correct typographical placement is not taught.

Just because chanting is being addressed even creatively does not excuse the fact we are ignorant of this aspect of Jewish tradition. The way we address an aspect of ignorance regarding an important part of Biblical Hebrew is not with making excuses and pointing to other great achievements; The way we address an aspect of ignorance regarding an important part of Biblical Hebrew is by replacing the ignorance with knowledge experience.

> This is not just a matter of vocabulary. Any automatic thing needs to address the differences between The Leningrad Codex & The Aleppo Codex. Do you understand the scope of that?

I don't get how slight differences in the Biblical Hebrew, about 10 to 15 Hebrew characters has to do with the creation and inclusion of automatic Biblical Hebrew grammatical rules for (two or three kinds of) shvah-nah, and komatz katan (and hataf komatz katan), like SBL-Hebrew's automatic Biblical Hebrew grammatical rule for furtive patach.

>>> A shvah nah is usually depicted by a small asterisk floating above the Hebrew character, somewhat like one of the upper taamei mikra...

> Truly & honest — I don’t have a clue what are you talking about.

The shvah-nah is graphically represented in many books which feature nikkud, such as the siddur or Jewish prayerbook, or hagada (Passover seder text), by a small asterisk over Hebrew letters that have a shvah (such as the books published by Kehos, the Chabad-Lubavitch publisher), or a straight thin horizontal line over Hebrew letters that have a shvah (such as the books published by ArtScroll, the world's largest Jewish commercial publisher). I am unsure what JPS does. Rabbi Winefield's Shai L'Morah publishing house uses a circle around a small asterisk (to draw greater asttention to the symbol for shvah-nah.

> As far as your observation that sheva nah & upper taamim do not coincide, did you notice if perhaps the word has a different niqquda used if it’s in a position within a sentence requiring an upper taam?

Your questions get me to think, what are the different functions of upper taamei mikra and lower taamei mikra. I am certain there is an explanation which sheds light on all these questions and observations.

To John Hudson,

Unlike the furtive patach, or the folded ayin or lamed, or the truncated final chof or truncated final chof, which are mainly typographical issues (although thefirtive parach does limited grammatical impact), the shvah-nah, or or the hataf komatz kayan, are in deed full Hebrew grammatical symbols based upon Hebrew grammatical rules.

As such, they should have their own Unicode values, like the komatz katan, shnah, or any nikkud or taamei mikra.

True, there are different graphic symbols which Hebrew publishers have depicted the shvah-nah (at least four kinds of glyphs), bit all agree that a shvah-nach and shvah-nah are distict elements in Hebrew grammar.

I have chosen to make this a public record to encourage your respected status among the Unicode Consortium to do the right thing asap, so that my OpenType Biblical Hebrew fonts may incorporate the entire body of Hebrew glyphs, and that Unicode support Hebrew completely.

I think that my point is clear. So the automatic font vs. regular font — that's was my final word. Other things, subjects you're most welcome!

--------------

I don't understand the nature of that defensive mood? (When I bemoan the incomplete knowledge of Biblical Hebrew grammatical rules..... ). Why did you say that?

You said:
I spent quite awile and researched each time shvah nah appeared in the Five Books of Moses, in the fantastic work of the modern day Jerusalem publisher Rabbi Winefeld. Each time, shvah nah appeared, there never was one of the upper taamei mikra. Rather, each time shvah nah appeared, there was only one of the lower taamei mikra.
This is not only good news from a typesetting placement point of view, but seemingly teells us aldo that there is a logical relationship in the Biblical Hebrew grammatical rules for shvah nah and the taamei mikra.

And I said:
Truly & honest — I don’t have a clue what are you talking about. What is exactly the essence of this latest discovery?

Why I said that?
Let's have an example, explore your source: Shay La'Morah . BTW, which one do you have -- Shay La'Morah with Keter Torah, or Shay La'Morah with Rashi commentary?

Exodus 17: 12.
Word # 1: indeed there's a circle around a small asterisk + shva na + lower cantillation mark.
Word # 2: the word is punctuated with shva na! + upper cantillation mark!
Word # 3: the word is punctuated with shva na! + upper cantillation mark!

I didn't say " Each time, shvah nah appeared, there never was one of the upper taamei mikra". We need to have some responsibility, right?

Edit:
sorry. my bad. and without the Edit feature..... This is the right one:

Exodus 17: 12.
Word # 1: indeed there's a circle around a small asterisk + shva na + lower cantillation mark.
Word # 2: the word is punctuated with shva na! + upper cantillation mark! Without the custom mark (a circle around a small asterisk).
Word # 3: the word is punctuated with shva na! + upper cantillation mark! Without the custom mark (a circle around a small asterisk).

> I think that my point is clear. So the automatic font vs. regular font — that’s was my final word. Other things, subjects you’re most welcome!

"You say 'toe-may-toe' and I say 'toe-mah-toe'" - Billie Holiday song

I'm a Lubavitcher Chassidic Jew. People often accuse us of attributing messianic status to the late Lubavitcher Rebbe, even after his demise. They often ask, "If somebody else declares himself the long awaited messiah, could you accept him?" I say, "Gladly."

If the kind of OpenType Biblical Font which you call 'regular', I can make 'automatic', could you, David, accept it?

> I don’t understand the nature of that defensive mood? (When I bemoan the incomplete knowledge of Biblical Hebrew grammatical rules..... ). Why did you say that?

I am not being defensive.

I am trying to very carefully show that utmost respect for great leaders and everyday folks who do have a knowledge of Biblical Hebrew grammatical rules.

Yet, there is so much more to know, so much so, that this that we do know now is insignificant by comparison with how much we don't know yet, and have still to uncover and know.

By having this honest attitude and realistic realization about what is still lacking, then we are capable of learning more.

But if we feel about ourselves and others, that we know it all, then we are not capable if learning more, because we won't even try, as we think that we know it all.

Do you understand me now?

So what's true:

"Each time, shvah nah appeared, there never was one of the upper taamei mikra" or not?

Kibbitzing minds want to know :)

> Why I said that?
> Let’s have an example, explore your source: Shay La’Morah.
> BTW, which one do you have — Shay La’Morah with Keter Torah, or Shay La’Morah with Rashi commentary? etc.

One of my sons learn at a high school/yeshiva where Rabbi Winefield's (the author and publisher of the Shay La'Morah series)son is the administrator. When his son was born, Rabbi Winefield flew in for the brit-milah celebration from Jerusalem. In honor of the event, he gave all the participants a set of the 5 Books of Moses with Rashi. I don't know what is the Keter Torah edition.

Rabbi Winefield is not only a very learned writer, but a great scholar and well versed in the Biblical Hebrew grammatical rules. He applied one kind of rules for shvah-nah rules, which are usually applied for post-Biblical rules, to the text of the Bible.

I believe no one has done this before. Are you aware of this being done in any other Bible?

> Exodus 17: 12.
Word # 1: indeed there’s a circle around a small asterisk + shva na + lower cantillation mark.
Word # 2: the word is punctuated with shva na! + upper cantillation mark! Without the custom mark (a circle around a small asterisk).
Word # 3: the word is punctuated with shva na! + upper cantillation mark! Without the custom mark (a circle around a small asterisk).

You can certainly find examples that I overlooked. More power to you. However, here was not the case (G-d does not want to fling mud in my face!)

In the two examples that you cite, there is no shvah-nah.

According to the Biblical Hebrew grammatical rules for shvah-nah employed by Rabbi Winefield, Kehot (the huge Chabad/Lubavitch publishing house), and ArtScroll (the evedn huger and largesy Jewish publisher in the world), there is NEVER EVER a shvah-nah under the first letter of a Hebrew word.

I believe you are confusing an ordinary shvah (which inmdicates to the reader ti make a very short sound of the consonant above it), and a true shvah-nah ( is a series of two sounds, a continuation of the consonant/vowel combination of the set in the Hebrew letter BEFORE the Hebrew letter with a shvah under it, AND ALSO the short sound of the Hebrew letter with a shvah under it.

In your example from Exodus 17:12, the word with a shvah-nah is pronounced "tam-meh-chu". If it were only an ordinary shvah, it would be pronounced "tah-meh-chu".

The reason why the latter two examples did not have a graphic symbol indicating a shvah-nah, a circle around a small asterisk, is because the shvah is an ordinary one, and not a shvah-nah.

Wllliam,

In my limited experience, I still have not discovered a shvah-nah in a place belonging to an upper taamei mikra.

This makes me suspect that there is a relationship between the appearance of a lower taamei mikra and the appearance of a shvah-nah, making the rule in Hebrew grammar even tighter, and hence easily to implement as an automatic feature in carefully crafted OpenType Biblical Hebrew font.

This is unlike David's assumption, that because the shvah-nah will appear a lot, it can not be incorporated as a rule in an OpenType table in an OpenType Biblical Hebrew font.

John, what do you think?

 My $0.02: An initial sheva is always¹ nah, so it is simply not indicated.
 Also, Israel: I think you might be confusing the effect of sheva nah with that of the strong dagesh=mapiq (or weak dagesh; I can't recall which). To abuse the word, Example 1 as written “תָּֽמְכ֣וּ” would be pronounced "tam-chu"; if written “תָּֽמְֿכ֣וּ”, "ta-mə-chu"; if written “תָּֽמְּֿכ֣וּ”, "tam-mə-chu". (Of course there are grammatical rules that say which pronounciation to apply to the unpunctuated word “תמכו”, and not every version is possible.) Also, the sign above the sheva in the printed version is not what I'm used to seeing to indicate sheva nah: usually I see “מְֿ” (mem+sheva+rafe) rather than what looks like “מְ֯” (mem+sheva+masora-circle).
 At any rate, I think a font is the wrong place for sheva nah/nach detection. An external program can me much more intelligent & customizable to different rule-sets, while leaving the correct layout to the font.
 (Furtive patah might be an exception: I believe the word “נֹחַ” (Noah) is supposed to be encoded nun+holam+het+patah rather than “נַֹח” (nun+holam+patah+het); but detecting {ayin, het, heh+mapiq}+patah+word-end is relatively simple. John's font does something like that, I believe.)
Shabbat Shalom/Gut Shabbos and fast easy on Sunday,
—Joel

1. Almost always; I’ve heard a theory that the sheva at the begining of the word “שְׁנַיִם” should be nach, but I don't know how much credence to give it.

Israel,

What is your aim with this thread? A week ago, more or less, you said that you don't know grammar. Now you are an expert?

Here's your list, if you don't remember:
"Similar, I am interested in the various rules for shva-nah, shva-nach, komatz katan, komatz gadol, hataf komatz katan, hataf komatz gadol, and any other grammatical rules governing Hebrew."

> According to the Biblical Hebrew grammatical rules for shvah-nah employed.....there is NEVER EVER a shvah-nah under the first letter of a Hebrew word.

Here's the deal — otherwise don't waste my time. Please. OK?

whenever you are going to talk/post/state anything and everything about grammar, rules etc etc — post a proof; source; link; an image.
Let's start with the new "rule":
"there is NEVER EVER a shvah-nah [ nah=nun, ayin] under the first letter of a Hebrew word."
Please post the name of the book. Grammar book!!!

> According to the Biblical Hebrew grammatical....
Where? Who? When? What? Why?

Please: to the point. No stories.

And please read the classic work (part of it). Otherwise don't waste my time. Really.

1. Aharon Ben Asher — Diqduqe Hate'amim (Dotan Edition, 1967, 3 vol. about the shva start with pages: 29, 31-37, 76, 114, 126, 127, 189-191, 251-253).

2. Judeo-Arabic treatise Hidayat al-Qari.

3. David Kimhi (RaDaK) — Michlol , Sefer Hashorashim

4. Norzi

5. Ibn Janah -- Sefer Ha-Riqmah.

JCSalomon,

Thank you for your two cents... I have change of a nickel, if you want. I love to get rid of my pennies, those wretched useless things.

Well, you say with absolute certainty that an ordinary shvah at the beginning of every word is always nah (nuhn + ayin). I say with absolute certainty that an ordinary shvah at the beginning of every word is always nach (nuhn + chet - a furtive patach, David?).

What ia nah, and what is nach, you might wonder? Pray tell, whar is the meaning of this?

Nah means "moving", because it's transitionary between one letter before and the letter above it. I hope I'm right. Is G-d getting that mud ready to fling at my face?

Nach means "resting" or "stationary", because it only sit under and effects the pronunciation of the letter above it. Anyway, that's what I was taught (is the mud dripping down my shirt?).

A proof can simply be found among the largest sets of Hebrew books with nikkud, the books of Kehot Publishing Company and that of ArtScroll/Mesorah, where no graphic symbol indicating a shvah-nah is ever used above the first letter of a Hebrew word indicating a shvah-nah and not an ordinary shvah.

On the other hand, you seem to understand the terms shvah-nah and shvah-nach differently than me. How do you understand it?

> At any rate, I think a font is the wrong place for sheva nah/nach detection. An external program can me much more intelligent & customizable to different rule-sets, while leaving the correct layout to the font.

I agree with you, and I disagree with you. (something admitting my lacking in knowledge of Hebrew grammar rules, while at the same time allowing myself to represent having some expertise in the subject). To me it's not a contradiction.

I agree with you, regarding rules like dagesh, meteg etc., which should be delegating to the text entry and Unicode values.

I disagree with you, regarding rules like furtive patach, shvah-nah, and maybe even kametz katan.

This is because if we delegate them to text entry and Unicode values (assuming shvah-nah gets a Unicode value, John), the hell will freeze over before the Tanach gets this stuff put into its data. Besides, most people (including both of us, David) don't know our shvah-nah, and maybe even kametz katan.

Hence, the simple easy and quick way is font-based.

> What is your aim with this thread?

My aim is include the typographically related issues of shvah-nah, kametz katan, and hataf kametz katan, to the creation of a carefully and intelligently crafted OpenType Biblical Hebrew font.

Just like an amperstand is a vital part of every font, what is correct Biblical Hebrew in the Tanach, if shvah-nah, kametz katan, and hataf kametz katan, are missing?

It makes us look like "the people of the comin book"!

> A week ago, more or less, you said that you don’t know grammar. Now you are an expert?

Boy, I thought type designers had creative, flexible thinking.

It is explained by the Rebbe Reshab in the famous series of discourses called "Ayin-Beis" that the sign of a wise person is the ability to tolerate two opposites in his or her mind.

Patiently, they consider how both ideas are true, and discover a novel way of understanding them that people didn't consider before.

To address your question, just because you tell others that you lack COMPLETE knowledge in a certain field, does not mean there are areas of knowledge in that same field that are "givens" for you, and you express them like an expert.

In my humble limited view, I don't think anyone alive today is an expert in Biblical Hebrew grammar. They all died and were buried.

> whenever you are going to talk/post/state anything and everything about grammar, rules etc etc — post a proof; source; link; an image.

Excellent suggestion.1

1. Laws of Derech Eretz; Pirkei Avot - Talmud

> 1. Aharon Ben Asher — Diqduqe Hate’amim (Dotan Edition, 1967, 3 vol. about the shva start with pages: 29, 31-37, 76, 114, 126, 127, 189-191, 251-253). etc. etc. etc.

I am very impressed with your collection of books, and I am even more impressed am if you know them too. Few people have personal libraroes at their disposal with great collections of Hebrew books. My oldest son has a father-in-law that surely has at least double of what you have. In fact, I'll ask him if I could borrow these books.

> 1. Aharon Ben Asher — Diqduqe Hate’amim (Dotan Edition, 1967, 3 vol. about the shva start with pages: 29, 31-37, 76, 114, 126, 127, 189-191, 251-253). etc. etc. etc.

Are all of these on Biblical Hebrew grammar?

I was told that there is also a view in a respected book on Biblical Hebrew grammar that shows how every Hebrew word that has a shvah at the beginning of that word, then that shvah is in deed a shvah-nah, just like JCSalomon suggests, and you cite from Aharon Ben Asher.

However, this view appears not to be followed by three major Jewish publishers, Kehot, ArtScroll, and Shay LeMoreh. Apparently, it is a valid opinion, but not widely accepted and used. Hence, if I would include in an automatic OpenType Hebrew font one rule for shva-nah or another, I would choose the widely accepted and used rule, and save the other room for a chat on Typophile.

1. Logical deduction - Human brain.

> ...don’t waste my time...

You reminded me of a line from a popular Dylan song:

"You just were wasting my precious time

Don't think twice, it's alright"

David, I enjoy when you read and offer an insight. But no one is compelling you to read and waste your time.

Perhaps, what I am saying contradicts a statement which you made.

Don't get riled over that. There are much more pressing issues to get riled about.

More observations from the kibbitzer.

According to what I was told the shva under a first letter is always a schva na, and so should be transliterated in English with an 'e'. But in fact Hebrew speakers today seem to avoid a spoken 'shva' whenever possible. Thus it's normally said "bracha" (blessing) and not "beracha." Though if you are singing or pronouncing it slowly a native might pronounce the shva, right?

The reason I say all this is that for the poor learner like me it's hard to tell what the heck is going on.

I mention this because when you go to Biblical marks of vowels and cantillation, nobody knows what exactly was in the heads of the masorites who did it, as far as pronounciation. And we have different histories of ashkenasi, sfardic, yemeni, iraqi, etc. pronunciations of Hebrew just to confuse us further in trying to think about these issues.

So wouldn't just leaving the masorite marks as is, admitting we don't exactly know, be a better course of action, rather than trying to create a system of pronunciation that is not modern, nor do we really know whether it's ancient?

I mean, Avot also says that the wise person when he doesn't know says, "I don't know."

Shabbat Shalom

William,

Regardless of my perceived expertise, or ignorance (whatever it may be), I also never know what's going on. Btw, which way does the wind blow?

I also searched on the Internet, and consulted knowledgeable friends (the very best source [everyone should have a Poindexter as a friend]), and the view stated emphatically that whenever there is shvah under the first letter of any Hebrew word, it is in fact a shvah-nah (and doesn't have any graphic symbol.

Yes, I was wrong. I admit it, the great me was wrong! Wrong, wrong, wrong!

As I wipe the mud away from my face, the grammatarian in me hides his face in shame, but the typesetter and type designer in me boldly declares, that the first letter of any Hebrew word that a shvah appears under it NEVER EVER has a graphic symbol indicating it is a shvah-nah, even though it is on deed a shvah-nah.

Confusing? I dunno. I don't even know which way the wind blows.

Ah hah. I am wrong, but I am right!

Toe-may-toe, to-mat-toe. The automatic OpenType Biblical Hebrew font still breathes; it's not dead yet. Maybe, it never will be.

Shabbat shalom. For those that fast, have an easy fast!

Joel, I didn't see your post.

> An initial sheva is always¹ nah
Yes, you're right. This is the rule #1; every book will start with this rule. Here's a sample ( with nikud, since I know that a lot can't read without the nikud):

> so it is simply not indicated.
Indeed. That's the reason. This shva is the easy one. And it dosen't matter if we are talking about Modern or Biblical Hebrew. Things are more complicated, or there's a controversy (well, there's more than one) if we are talking, for example, about initial shva + meteg. This issue is part of the well known controversy between ben Asher and ben Naftali -- Kitab al-khilaf (edited by Misha'el ben Uzziel). This is Hebrew-Arabic text:

-------------

>waste time.....
since sometimes this is like a conversation (deaf + blind) without language. I didn't say that I know everything. But when I don't know I'll never say that I know; If I'm not sure I'll say that. And you're saying that I don't know. And keeping saying:
"there is NEVER EVER a shvah-nah [ nah=nun, ayin] under the first letter of a Hebrew word."

----
Edit: and I didn't see your last post Israel, too.

> Are all of these on Biblical Hebrew grammar?

I was told that... and you cite from Aharon Ben Asher.

Well, yes. Grammar is grammar. But they are not "How-To" books :^). For example, Ben Asher does not give you an A-To-Z list;
He didn't write a concordance of the Bible :)

Shabbat Shalom

Now that the wind is calm; Tisha Be'Av is over.........

> But in fact Hebrew speakers today seem to avoid a spoken ’shva’ whenever possible. Thus it’s normally said “bracha” (blessing) and not “beracha.”

Right. And one more example: ge-do-lim -> gdo-lim. That's the spoken Hebrew. And I think that the “tam-meh-chu” or “tah-meh-chu” is more an issue of the spoken Hebrew/tradition, since this word is composed of 2 syllables.

> And we have different histories of ashkenasi, sfardic, yemeni, iraqi, etc. pronunciations of Hebrew

True. For example, the kamats katan which was never part of the Tiberian vocalization system.

Don't forget that we're talking about Biblical grammar. That said, nikud + cantillation! We need to be aware of the fact that (just several examples of course) 1. a secondary merekha could change shava nah (nun, het) to shava na (nun, ayin);
2. a meteg could change shva nah to shava na;
3. an etnachta could change shava to segol
etc etc etc etc.

(I'm talking about the same word!)

David,

> Don’t forget that we’re talking about Biblical grammar. That said, nikud + cantillation! We need to be aware of the fact that (just several examples of course) 1. a secondary merekha could change shava nah (nun, het) to shava na (nun, ayin);
2. a meteg could change shva nah to shava na;
3. an etnachta could change shava to segol
etc etc etc etc.

From where do you derive this from?

Your conclusions seem to be based on certain rules. Did you see these conclusions made in Shay LeMoreh books of Tanach (I have never seen shvah-nach and shva-na in any other Bible).

> From where do you derive this from?

The moon :^)

We studied that since..... but see for example Rabbi Menachem ben Saruk -- Rashi frequently followed ben Saruk; Aharon Ben Asher — Diqduqe Hate’amim; Norzi etc etc etc.

> Did you see these.....

You don't expect me to list every sample etc etc. The word keli (tool;utensil; weapon; etc etc etc): the base form of this word is shva na + dagesh; hiriq.
Sample1: Num 19: 15

Check every bible. Let us know.

David,

It seems from your examples and citings that your conclusion that under certain conditions, taamei mikra affect nikkud, even causing some shvah-nachs to become transformed into shvah-nahs.

Does this occur on reverse? A shvah-nahs to become transformed into shvah-nach?

Can you find an example, and then look it up in Shay LeMorah, and see whether Rabbi Winefeld replaces this too with a graphic element (the circle with a asterisk)?

Israel, it is not well known that Reform Rabbis don't know of the kamatz katan, it is false. Therefore what you are doing is lashon hara. And if you think it is well known because others in your circle are saying it, they are also committing lashon hara.

For a start, there are several examples of a kamatz katan in the Shabbat Kiddush, which Reform also recite regularly, and I always hear it correctly from the lips of Reform Rabbis. Reform Rabbis have extensive training in Hebrew, including a year in Israel. Also, just checking the curriculum at huc.edu, there are several semesters of required studies in dikduk. I am not saying that their Hebrew is as good as a well educated native speaker, like David, nor do they pretend it is, but it is certainly way above what you indicate.

Also the reform movement has been growing, not shrinking, which is I think inconsistent with what you say. Also I don't find your last statement credible, nor the 'statistic' in it. Can you cite a credible source for it?

William,

> Also the reform movement has been growing, not shrinking, which is I think inconsistent with what you say.

According to my limited understanding (I haven't been Reform for close to 30 years), Reform is in deed growing, but the born Jewish element is shrinking. Children of Reform parents are not becoming Reform, like their parents, by a very high percentage. Affiliation is any organized group is getting smaller, if we consider Jewish people as a whole.

Only Chabad House and Friends of Lubavitch is growing by big numbers. I'm not tooting my own horn, but Chabad representatives seem to have discovered the secret ingrediant to appeal to the mainstrean, and even to gentiles. Without compromise, with black hats and scaggly untrimmed beards.

> Also I don’t find your last statement credible, nor the ’statistic’ in it. Can you cite a credible source for it?

I saw it myself on PBS, during the big debate about the very unpopular 'Who is a Jew?' issue of the very late eighties and very erly nineties. I'm sure PBS has a written text of that interview, if not the actual recording. Even as a Chassidic Jew, I was very moved by his crying and shocking statement. He said: "Our children don't want to be Reform; soon, we'll only have the converts."

> Therefore what you are doing is lashon hara. ... Reform Rabbis have extensive training in Hebrew, including a year in Israel

I hope you're right and I am wrong. I prefer to think that Jews know, as we are the "people of the book".

I don't think this constitutes lashon hora. I will ask some experts.

On lashon hara, you don't need an expert. You should know that if you report a false rumor that it is lashon hara. After all, it is a direct prohibition in the Torah. And in my opinion, and that of Rabbi Telushkin (Orthodox) you have an obligation to check on the status of any rumor before you pass it on. Only if it has good grounds and would be a danger if people don't know it should you pass it on.

William,

> a false rumor that it is lashon hara.

I beg to differ. A false rumor is not lashon hora. It's simply a mistake.

If the intent is malicious, it's not nice, even mean.

If it's embarassing, or causes people to think less of Jews, it may be Chillul Hashem, an embrassment to G-d's stature.

I think if an outsider reading this thread is not caused to think poorly of Judaism or G-d. The person simply realizes that Reform Judaism and its rabbis are not representative of mainstream Judaism, the Torah, or G-d.

Hence, it is not a Chilul Hashem; it is rather a Kidush Hashem, a way to show G-d is special and holy.

I know that you regard Reform Judaism in a high regard, but in both Orthodoxy and the Conservative Judaism, it is regarded in a very low light (mainly because Reform Judaism claims it replaces Orthodoxy - the issue of dramatic compromise or even the promotion of anti-Halachic practices is not a reason to reject Reform Judaism - in halacha this is called 'horaat shaah', temporary laxity due to the circumstances).

I did ask about lashon hora and knowledge. The first reply that I received was that even if it would not be lashon hora, intonation is a major factor. Here, however, everything is written only. So, the determining factors is limited to words in writting.

Israel, are we reading the same Torah? Exodus 23:1 says "You shall not carry false reports."

It is false that Reform rabbis know so little Hebrew that they are not aware of the kamatz katan. If you don't believe me, just ask any Reform rabbi, and check the HUC.edu site on their education.

Either you made it up, in which case it is slander, and also clearly against Torah, or you have reported a false rumor and also against the Torah.

I just don't like seeing Jews bad-mouth other Jews, which is what you are doing here. Please stop it.

William,

You make a clear assumption to declare that one lacks knowledge of something, even if it's untru, is slander.

To support your assumption, you cite a verse.

You do this over and over and over, regardless of my repeated replies that this is not a given.

You might be right, and I made a mistake; or, you might be wrong, and repeated errors can not simply be a mistake.

Instead of thinking you are correct, and no other possibility can exist, why don't we be a little humble, and seek the oipinions of those greater in wisdom than us.

I am not an expert in the laws of lashon hora, nor are you. Or are you?

I know some Reform rabbis, and will inquire simply about a one paragraph definition of a komatz katan. I will ask ten rabbis. If the majority (6 or more) answer correctly, it warrants my seeming besearching of the holy Reform rabbis shlit"a. If 6 or more fail to reply, or reply incorrectly, then it would seem it is not untrue.

Do you agree on my trial litmus test?

William,

> Exodus 23:1 says “You shall not carry false reports.”

I reviewed the most fundemental commentary by Rabbi Shlome Yitchaki,. known as Rashi, and failed to find any reference to a definition of lashon hara as any statement about a person not knowing something difficult (even where the person knows it) as slander.

This discussion reflects a response that you made earlier elsewhere, and my father a"h made many times, that one is strongly perturbed by an indication of ignorance among the Reform.

Komatz katan is a difficult to describe difference to that of an ordinary komatz, the komatz gedol.

Would you like to clearly and succinctly explain komatz katan in a paragraph or two?

If the graphic form of komatz katan, the small komatz, is that the middle vertical segment is elongated, why is it call 'katan', small?

If the graphic form of the komatz gadol, the big komatz, is that the middle vertical segment is shorter, why is it call 'gadol', big?

William,

> Exodus 23:1 says “You shall not carry false reports.”

I reviewed the most fundemental commentary by Rabbi Shlome Yitchaki,. known as Rashi, and failed to find any reference to a definition of lashon hara as any statement about a person not knowing something difficult (even where the person knows it) as slander.

This discussion reflects a response that you made earlier elsewhere, and my father a"h made many times, that one is strongly perturbed by an indication of ignorance among the Reform.

Komatz katan is a difficult to describe difference to that of an ordinary komatz, the komatz gedol.

Would you like to clearly and succinctly explain komatz katan in a paragraph or two?

If the graphic form of komatz katan, the small komatz, is that the middle vertical segment is elongated, why is it call 'katan', small?

If the graphic form of the komatz gadol, the big komatz, is that the middle vertical segment is shorter, why is it call 'gadol', big?

Oy Israel, Israel....

We were laughing this morning (i was in a meeting with teachers, cantors, rabbis).... Why laughing? Oh, this one is good:

> used by all schools and appears in Hebrew nikkud books, then the next generation will understand it well, and pronounce Hebrew correctly.

Do you think that the Hebrew langauge is only shva & kamats? Come on, Israel, give me a break please.

Back to the secular world: Cut to the chase.

1. > You’re right, it isn’t the chirik which is the determining factor, rather the preceding letter joined with a chirik.

How did you get that? where did I say that? The answer is morphological or etymological. And that sample is/was an answer to your statement: "since we are dealing with defineable rules. That’s what grammar is all about."

2. > Komatz katan is distinguished by.... secular publishers.

Name one publisher! Name one book! Do you have an example?

3. > Komatz katan is distinguished by both Orthodox

Not all the time. EVEN if this is the same publisher. Do you have Yeִhavveh Daat (Rabbi Ovadia Yosef)?
As a type designer and typesetter you need to know what is going on out there.

4. > most Reform rabbis do not know this either.

Why do you say that? Do you know?

5. > as you see that really only David knows what’s flying here

Thank you; studied that for a long time. And still studying. BTW, studying is not just reading books. But my point is that I'll never say "Reform rabbis do not know", or "Orthodox rabbis do not know". A little bit of respect to their faith and way of life. Now with you, Israel, this is a different story :^) you're a special case :^) (e.g. the shva na case).

6. > I know some Reform rabbis, and will inquire simply about a one paragraph definition of a komatz katan. I will ask ten rabbis. If the majority (6 or more) answer correctly, it warrants my seeming besearching of the holy Reform rabbis shlit”a. If 6 or more fail to reply, or reply incorrectly, then it would seem it is not untrue.

Do you know what is kamats katan? Do you have samples?

שבת שלום

Shabbat Shalom!

David,

> Do you think that the Hebrew langauge is only shva & kamats?

I lived in Israel, and spoke Hebrew. I have made over 100 Hebrew fonts, with Hebrew letters, nikkud, and taamei mikra. I have studied many hundreds of Hebrew language books in the original.

Do you really think this? If yes, I really held you in much higher regard. Did I make a crude mistake?

> The answer is morphological or etymological.

You may be a knowledgeable Hebrew grammar teacher, and a fine Hebrew type designer, but I believe here you are incorrect.

Morphology (linguistics), the study of the structure and content of word forms. -Wikipedia

Etymology is the study of the history of words — when they entered a language, from what source, and how their form and meaning have changed over time. -Wikipedia

I think that the difference between declaring a shvah as either a shvah-nah or as a shvah-nach is purely grammatical. It neither relates to the structure and content of a word's form, or to its history.

For an intelligent person as yourself this is merely a way to save face, and pretend you know, when you really do not.

Look at William, when he does not know something, he searches and finds out.

Pirkei Avot declares that one who is shy does not learn, because he's afraid to ask. In order to learn, you must admit that you do not know, and seek out knowledge.

> Name one [secular] publisher

When I began making Hebrew fonts back in 1988/89, I read documentation from Apple Computer, Inc. about Hebrew encoding standards, and inspected Hebrew system fonts from Apple with a bit map font editor tool.

I found a komatz katan, and wondered what it was. I never saw one before, nor in ulpan years before no discussion centered around it.

As a Lubavitcher chassidic, I prayed daily, and knew that on Saturday night we recited a prayer called "Vetayn Lecha" that featured the final version of chof with a komatz and a dagesh, and a final version of nuhn with a komatz. But there was no komatz katan in the entire prayerbook.

I was an authorized Apple developer and called Apple in Cupertino, California. In those days, you could talk to someone. The person that I spoke to was the Hebrew language manager, a former Israeli (chiloni - secular).

I questioned his decision to encode kometz katan, but not character ligatures used in a prayerbook.

He answered that he never read in a prayerbook, and was unaware of these character ligatures... that no one prayed anyway... and that komatz katan was used in schools teaching children to read.

I replied that in a few years, many more religious people, children, teenagers, and adults, will use computers, and secular will eventually dwindle in number and know Hebrew poorly (as we see already beginning today).

> [about Reform rabbis not knowing things like katan] why say that? Do you know?

I don't know much for sure. I hope that there are a small percentage that know. Most Reform rabbis or students who were making their career to be Reform rabbis, know very little about Torah, Judaism and Hebrew, sad to say. They knew a lot about social issues, politics, movies, and how best to inspire people. They would make great social workers or therapists.

> Do you know what is kamats katan?

Like shvah-nah and shvah-nach, hataf-komatz katan and komatz katan, and an ordinary komatz (gadol), I understand the issue pertains to pronunciation.

Nah means moving; nach mean resting: when a shvah-nah appears we only slightly pronounce the sound of the consonant above the shvah; when a shvah-nach appears we do pronounce (a little more than slightly) the sound of the consonant above the shvah.

Katan means small; gadol means big: a consonant with a ordinary komatz (gadol) below it is pronounced with a big, full sound; a consonant with a komatz katan below it is pronounced with a small, shorter sound; a consonant with a ordinary hataf-komatz katan below, quicker sound.

I may be wrong. I am a type designer, not a grammaratarian, nor a Reform rabbi. :)

> Do you have samples?

I don't have my books here. I will ask one of my sons for some.

Rabbi Winefield of Shay Lemorah publishers has it all. He also wrote the Shay Lemorah commentary. It appears he's a gigantic scholar that only appears only after many generations.

We've reached the point of a pointless conversation.
Good day.

shtikah zu hodaah - the Talmud

It means that when one does not respond, this then is an admittance or agreement with the previous statement.

In American law, this is also a statement.

David, it's a shame that you feel that this is a "pointless" conversation.

It seems that you think too highly of yourself to engage in conversation. Like everything in life, I fweel this is an opportunity to learn.

Eizehu chacham, halomayd mekol adam.

Good night.

>I am not an expert in the laws of lashon hora, nor are you. Or are you?

Israel, not an expert, but I am a student of those who have been expert, as I read their books. And one of the first things I learned is that accusing someone of professional incompetence is serious lashon hara.

But I see you are impervious to correction, so I'll stop.

William,

> accusing someone of professional incompetence is serious lashon hara.

I think that you believe that not knowing a thing as rare as a komatz katan is professional incompetence for a Reform rabbi. I don't believe that not knowing a thing as rare as a komatz katan is certainly not professional incompetence for any rabbi.

> But I see you are impervious to correction...

I am not impervious to correction at all.

Rather, you feel that there is nothing except your view. And hence you draw only one conclusion, refusing to consider that you may be incorrect, and that another possibility exists.

Although I am frum, and considered narrow-minded by many secularists or non-frum people, when a person refuses to consider more than one possibility and that only he or she is correct, then this is clearly being narrow minded.

This recent display of stubborn shallow thinking convinces me that secular or non-frum attitudes is in deed lacking a lot. No wonder so many reject it.

Let's remember that I simply am seeking to better understand the usage of shvah-nah, komatz katan, hataf komatz katan, and even the meteg accent mark, in order to incorporate these grammar rules into a crefully crafted OpenType Hebrew font, like SBL-Hebrew.

Instead of assistance or encouragement, a debate has ensued about the merits of Reform Judaism, its rabbis, and I have been accused of lashon hora for speaking sharply about Reform Judaism and against Reform rabbis.

The very fact that the inquiry about these Hebrew grammar topics have produced very little shows how very little we know about them, besides their names.

>I don’t believe that not knowing a thing as rare as a komatz katan is certainly not professional incompetence for any rabbi.

Israel, you are not getting it. Conservative and Reform congregations these days pray using the Israeli pronunciation of Hebrew (with an American accent). In it, a patach and kamatz are pronounced the same, but a kamatz katan is pronounced differently. Thus in order to pronounce the prayers properly, you have to be aware that 'kol' (all) is pronounced that way rather than 'kal'. So Reform kids today in elementary school are taught about the existence of the kamatz katan in their early Hebrew classes. And that's why some prayer books for Reform and Conservative print the kamatz katan differently. That's why your statement that 98% of Reform Rabbis don't know of the existence of the kamatz katan is so absurd.

Now do you understand?

William,

> a kamatz katan is pronounced differently...Reform kids today in elementary school are taught about the existence of the kamatz katan in their early Hebrew classes...

Fascinating explanation.

I don't think that you are correct that this distiction is so widespread throughout the movement. I would like to do some researchg. Your statement might be as accurate, as it is plausable. (As I abhor lashon hora, I believe in limud zchus, like the American legal rule of "innocense until proven guilty".

If your explanation is in deed accurate, then every Reform rabbi should know the basics of komatz katan (pronunciation) in order to pray.

Israel, I accept your statement that you abhor lashon hara and believe in the principle of judging "l'chaf z'chut". But judging by this thread, you don't recognize when you are violating both principles, regularly.

As the Talmud makes clear, judging "l'chaf z'chut" means that you try to put a good construction on what the other person does, or in other words try to view their action with the best interpretation, in the most favorable light.

But here you say you have had no contact with Reform for thirty years, but are willing both to judge in the worst light and than to say publicly that 98% of Reform Rabbis have never heard of a kamatz katan. If that is judging 'l'chaf z'chut,' and avoiding lashon hara, then I'm the Pope of Rome.

Pope of Rome (he might know komatz katam even better),

Actually, I am using "l'chaf z'chut" in a very broad sense, more than its "geder", limitations in Jewish law. The law of "l'chaf z'chut" applies only in a limited context.

Really, if you reread my statement, you will see that I was obly referring to you and your claim; I was not referring to the subjects of your claim. Dai lemayveen - an allusion suffices for the wise.

You repeatedly taunt "lason hora, lashon hora", like school kids sing: "nah, nah akish, kish". You even claim expertise in the subject, having studied well the pertinent books.

1. If so, please cite at least a single source in an expert's book on lashon hora that supports your claim.

2. Do you know for sure what Reform rabbis know and don't know across the country to substantiate your claim?

3. Do you know for sure that children in Reform school recite a Hebrew letter with a komatz katan differently than an ordinary komatz?

My guess is that matters in the Reform movement have only decreased in matters of Judaism, its laws, language, and custom, in the past thirty years. So, it stands to reason if I never was taught in a Reform Hebrew school for about ten years even the existance of a komatz katan, it is unlikely that Reform reformed (sic).

I think I have my old Reform books on Hebrew. No komatz katan.

Pope of Rome (he might know komatz katam even better),

Actually, I am using "l'chaf z'chut" in a very broad sense, more than its "geder", limitations in Jewish law. The law of "l'chaf z'chut" applies only in a limited context.

Really, if you reread my statement, you will see that I was obly referring to you and your claim; I was not referring to the subjects of your claim. Dai lemayveen - an allusion suffices for the wise.

You repeatedly taunt "lason hora, lashon hora", like school kids sing: "nah, nah akish, kish". You even claim expertise in the subject, having studied well the pertinent books.

1. If so, please cite at least a single source in an expert's book on lashon hora that supports your claim.

2. Do you know for sure what Reform rabbis know and don't know across the country to substantiate your claim?

3. Do you know for sure that children in Reform school recite a Hebrew letter with a komatz katan differently than an ordinary komatz?

My guess is that matters in the Reform movement have only decreased in matters of Judaism, its laws, language, and custom, in the past thirty years. So, it stands to reason if I never was taught in a Reform Hebrew school for about ten years even the existance of a komatz katan, it is unlikely that Reform reformed (sic).

I think I have my old Reform books on Hebrew. No komatz katan.

Pope of Rome (he might know komatz katam even better),

Actually, I am using "l'chaf z'chut" in a very broad sense, more than its "geder", limitations in Jewish law. The law of "l'chaf z'chut" applies only in a limited context.

Really, if you reread my statement, you will see that I was obly referring to you and your claim; I was not referring to the subjects of your claim. Dai lemayveen - an allusion suffices for the wise.

You repeatedly taunt "lason hora, lashon hora", like school kids sing: "nah, nah akish, kish". You even claim expertise in the subject, having studied well the pertinent books.

1. If so, please cite at least a single source in an expert's book on lashon hora that supports your claim.

2. Do you know for sure what Reform rabbis know and don't know across the country to substantiate your claim?

3. Do you know for sure that children in Reform school recite a Hebrew letter with a komatz katan differently than an ordinary komatz?

My guess is that matters in the Reform movement have only decreased in matters of Judaism, its laws, language, and custom, in the past thirty years. So, it stands to reason if I never was taught in a Reform Hebrew school for about ten years even the existance of a komatz katan, it is unlikely that Reform reformed (sic).

I think I have my old Reform books on Hebrew. No komatz katan.

Pope of Rome (he might know komatz katam even better),

Actually, I am using "l'chaf z'chut" in a very broad sense, more than its "geder", limitations in Jewish law. The law of "l'chaf z'chut" applies only in a limited context.

You on the other hand are using "l'chaf z'chut" as a general rule, applicable everywhere, to everyone, and at all times. Halacha limits it though because it's in a person's best interests to not be "l'chaf z'chut" everywhere, to everyone, and at all times.

Really, if you reread my statement, you will see that I was only referring to you and your claim; I was not referring to the subjects of your claim. Dai lemayveen - an allusion suffices for the wise.

============

You repeatedly taunt "lason hora, lashon hora", like school kids sing: "nah, nah akish, kish". You even claim expertise in the subject, having studied well the pertinent books.

1. If so, please cite at least a single source in an expert's book on lashon hora that supports your claim.

2. Do you know for sure what Reform rabbis know and don't know across the country to substantiate your claim?

3. Do you know for sure that children in Reform school recite a Hebrew letter with a komatz katan differently than an ordinary komatz?

My guess is that matters in the Reform movement have only decreased in matters of Judaism, its laws, language, and custom, in the past thirty years. So, it stands to reason if I never was taught in a Reform Hebrew school for about ten years even the existance of a komatz katan, it is unlikely that Reform reformed (sic) and teaches it now.

I think I have my old Reform books on Hebrew. Let me check. No komatz katan.

I just sent some email inquiries to the a) Reform high school in Cincinnati, b) the Hebrew Union College language department, c) the Reform Judaism head office in charge of the Union and its rabbis, and d) their Ask A Rabbi service with Rabbi Sharon L. Sobel.

I asked about the little known and little used komatz katan, an alternative form of the ordinary nikkud known as komatz.

Is this taught?

Is it known and used in Reform temples by Reform rabbis?

Or is it a relic of Jewish history, language, and culture, just a thing of the past?

Let's see what are the replies.

I know what the answers will be as I have taught in Reform and Conservative religious schools, and have heard a lot of reform rabbis across the country, and have looked at the HUC curriculum.

But the answers don't matter to my main point: you have shown you are willing to disparage people when admittedly you don't know the truth about them. That is lashon hara however you slice it. I repeat my accusation, because it's true, and according to Torah I have the obligation to rebuke, but only three times. So I'm done.

William,

> disparage

To know or not know komatz katan is to disparage? Come on!?!

This sounds like grade school, and the teacher catches a kid with a comic book, shouting: "Ah, hah, do you know that this act could lead to World War III?!?"

> I repeat my accusation, because it’s true, and according to Torah I have the obligation to rebuke, but only three times.

Accusation, true???

Everything in Jewish law, known as halacha, has a context and a "geder" - a framework, of where the rule applies, and where it doesn't.

When you study Jewish ideas and rules, you learn these matters, possibly even in depth, but your vast knowledge lacks understanding a rule's "geder".

I think that this is the case of your understanding of "limud z'chus" and "lashon hora".

> but only three times. So I’m done.

This is childish, and immature.

First, this rule of three times has a "geder" too. It refers to three different scenarios, not three each the same, as here. You must take me aside in private, say by private email, and do this three times, in different contexts or scenarios.

Second, the laws of rebuke also have a "geder". No one can simply rebuke anyone. Basically, you may not rebuke those "younger" in knowledge, or "older" in knowledge. You may only rebuke a person of equal standing, who you can influence for good. Here, age is not measured by calender years, but by knowledge of Torah and practice of halacha (although age is a strong factor for honor even if the person lacks knowledge of Torah).

Why is this?

If the other person is not on equal standing with you, then your rebuke will not influence them for good. And if this happens, the "aveira", the resulting transgressions, are your fault too, not only that person's fault.

So, we see that giving a rebuke is complicated.

Regarding those that are "younger" in knowledge, or "older" in knowledge, the correct way to rebuke is by educating the person.

If the person is older and wiser, like a rabbi or teacher, one says: "But didn't we learn such and such in (and then cite the source?)?

If the person is younger and less knowledgeable, like a child or ignorant (in Torah knowledge) person, we explain kindly and patiently.

If the person is of equal standing, and the rebuke fails to have an impact, we are not allowed to feel: "So I’m done." Rather, then, one is obliged to confront the two person's respected authority figure, and report that the other person committed such and such offence, was rebuked in such and such manner, but failed to change.

Then, one's done.

This is clearly explained in the Codes of Jewish Law, and even translated in English by a few different parties.

It is unfortunate that these ideas in halacha are learned, but their "geder" is ignored.

> > a kamatz katan is pronounced differently

In Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niqqud in deed the pronunciation difference of modern Hebrew between a regular kamatz (an "ah"-like sound), and a kamatz katan.

When I was a boy, and learning in a Reform Judaisn Sunday school, the prononciation taught to us was not for modern Hebrew, or Sephardic. Rather, Ashkenazic pronunciation was taught, and this distinction was not taught at all, as it was not not necessary.

Also, in various ulpanin (schools of Hebrew language in Israel), where I was taught pronunciation for modern Hebrew, no distinction was taught. Similarly, on a kibbutz-ulpan, at college age, I never was taught about the kamatz katan.

Only in my late twenties, when I became a professional type design on the Apple Macintosh computer, did I discover the existance of a kamatz katan. I learned that it was sounded like a kamatz, but was shorter in the length of its sound, and hence called the "small kamatz".

I received the following very explicit statement from "Ask a Rabbi" at the Reform Judaism web site.

...please be advised that the "kamatz katan" is a very important part of Hebrew grammar... It IS taught as part of the Reform Movement's Hebrew curriculum...

Rabbi Sharon L. Sobel
Executive Director
Canadian Council for Reform Judaism and ARZA Canada

According to this statement, Reform Judaism schools clearly teach use of the kamatz gadol "as part of the Reform Movement's Hebrew curriculum".

Hence, I was incorrect in stating that Reform rabbis do not know kamatz katan today.

In my defence, I clearly recall that when I was a child in a Reform Judaism Sunday school never learning about it. Also, in interacting with both many Reform rabbis in the USA over the years, and with many Reform rabbinical students in Jerusalem, I didn't find them knowledgeable understandingly about issues of Jewish law (halacha) or the Hebrew language.

If Rabbi Sharon Sobel is correct, perhaps Reform has reformed during the past three decades, or the movement and certain affiliate temples and schools embrace this knowledge, but the bulk is much less knowledgeable.

According to William's explanation that a kamatz and patach represent an "ah" sound, like the Sephardic-style puctuation used in Israel, and the kamatz katan represents the "oh" sound, how did Askenazic Jews traditionally distinquish between there "oh" sounding kamatz and kamatz katan?

I received the following very explicit statement from "Ask a Rabbi" at the Reform Judaism web site.

...please be advised that the "kamatz katan" is a very important part of Hebrew grammar... It IS taught as part of the Reform Movement's Hebrew curriculum...

Rabbi Sharon L. Sobel
Executive Director
Canadian Council for Reform Judaism and ARZA Canada

According to this statement, Reform Judaism schools clearly teach use of the kamatz gadol "as part of the Reform Movement's Hebrew curriculum".

Hence, I was incorrect in stating that Reform rabbis do not know kamatz katan today.

In my defence, I clearly recall that when I was a child in a Reform Judaism Sunday school never learning about it. Also, in interacting with both many Reform rabbis in the USA over the years, and with many Reform rabbinical students in Jerusalem, I didn't find them knowledgeable understandingly about issues of Jewish law (halacha) or the Hebrew language.

If Rabbi Sharon Sobel is correct, perhaps Reform has reformed during the past three decades, or the movement and certain affiliate temples and schools embrace this knowledge, but the bulk is much less knowledgeable.

According to William's explanation that a kamatz and patach represent an "ah" sound, like the Sephardic-style puctuation used in Israel, and the kamatz katan represents the "oh" sound, how did Askenazic Jews traditionally distinquish between there "oh" sounding kamatz and kamatz katan?

I received the following very explicit statement from "Ask a Rabbi" at the Reform Judaism web site.

...please be advised that the "kamatz katan" is a very important part of Hebrew grammar... It IS taught as part of the Reform Movement's Hebrew curriculum...

Rabbi Sharon L. Sobel
Executive Director
Canadian Council for Reform Judaism and ARZA Canada

According to this statement, Reform Judaism schools clearly teach use of the kamatz gadol "as part of the Reform Movement's Hebrew curriculum".

Hence, I was incorrect in stating that Reform rabbis do not know kamatz katan today.

In my defence, I clearly recall that when I was a child in a Reform Judaism Sunday school, I never learning about the kamatz katan. Also, in interacting with both many Reform rabbis in the USA over the years, and with many Reform rabbinical students in Jerusalem, I didn't find them knowledgeable understandingly about issues of even basic Jewish law (halacha) or the Hebrew language.

If Rabbi Sharon Sobel is correct, perhaps Reform has reformed during the past three decades, or the movement and certain affiliate temples and schools embrace this knowledge, but the bulk is much less knowledgeable.

According to William's explanation that a kamatz and patach represent an "ah" sound, like the Sephardic-style puctuation used in Israel, and the kamatz katan represents the "oh" sound, how did Askenazic Jews traditionally distinquish between there "oh" sounding kamatz and kamatz katan?

I know that William felt strongly that the honor of Reform rabbis or even the entire movement was lowered from my remark. This certainly was not my intention. So, I apologize if anyone thinks less of Reform rabbis because I said they sdon't know the meaning of kamatz katan.

Honestly, I admit that I am unsure, too. William said that it's an "oh" sound. So, too, say Wikipedia on the Internet. Is this for Ashkanazim, too? So, does that mean its just another vowel, and not a grammatical issue?

If it's another vowel, and not the result of a grammatical rule, then it is not possible to program itsappearance into OpenType, unless it follows some definable pattern. Strike kamatz katan.

I am also interested in whether there are any rules concerning the komatz katan, though this is just curiosity in my case. One possibility is that it evolved in Sfardic pronunciation to disambiguate words that would otherwise be confused. But maybe it has a grammatical basis; I have no idea.

> disambiguate

??? Boy, I'll have to look this one up.

http://www.answers.com/topic/disambiguate

disambiguate

To establish a single grammatical or semantic interpretation for.

disambiguation dis'am·big'u·a'tion n.

Bill,

Kamats is katan in an unstressed & closed syllable. Simple, no? :)

What else do you want to know? :)

> Kamats is katan in an unstressed & closed syllable.

Can you give two examples?

How is a syllable unstressed, how is it close?

Please explain.

It seems that according to this, it is a logical condition, and can be defined and programmed, and simply another vowel sound. No?

> How is a syllable unstressed, how is it close?

You don't know that yet?

"25.Aug.2008 5.25pm
In order to talk or to know what is shav na (and nach) we need to know about syllabic stress — mille’el & millera’; open & closed syllables; dagesh kal & hazak. And more, of course."
"And more...." — e.g. verb pattern groups.

Buy couple books — 99.999% have the same title: Biblical Hebrew An Introduction....; That said, you'll touch the basic, but this is better than nothing, or google/googling.

Lamdeinu rabbeinu.

(This is a yeshiva catch phrase, meaning: "teach us, our teacher", asking one who knows how to turn on a switch to bring light into the room, to share that knowledge with others.)

I could do as you suggest and "grapple in the dark", but if you know this already, and clearly, why then can't you just share that knowledge?

For example, I am a professional type designer, plus a Lubavitcher chassid with smicha to boot. So, I can share knowledge about type design, and Judaism.

Your field is Hebrew grammar. Share your knowledge!

Again. Do you know the story (Talmud, Shabbat 31a) about Hillel, Shammai, and the gentile? You don't want to learn or study — just to know; the easy way.
So, give me a break with your Quotes of the Day: "Lamdeinu rabbeinu" , "shtikah zu hodaah"," Eizehu chacham, halomayd mekol adam"

> why then can’t you just share that knowledge?

With you? I don't have time for nonsense + Pearls of Wisdom:

> For an intelligent person as yourself this is merely a way to save face, and pretend you know, when you really do not.
> You may be a knowledgeable Hebrew grammar teacher [who said I was/am???] and a fine Hebrew type designer, but I believe here you are incorrect.
> it isn’t the chirik which is the determining factor, rather the preceding letter joined with a chirik.
> In the two examples that you cite, there is no shvah-nah.
> These six words do not feature the need for a furtive patach.
> I think that the difference between declaring a shvah as either a shvah-nah or as a shvah-nach is purely grammatical. It neither relates to the structure and content of a word’s form, or to its history.

Clear and Sharp?

It apears that your reluctance to share your expertiose in Biblical Hebrew grammar stems from either of two factors:

1. You think that it's just a waste of time to teach another this knowledge, because I am not a worthy recepient, or

2. that your opinion is that this knowledge can not be used to create a contextual replacement in OpenType, like success has been made with furtive patach.

The first reason is subjective and personal. If I posted as a picture a bearded long-haired woman, with rings along the side of my face, and not a Chassidic Jew with a kipah, maybe you would be condescending and agree...

The second reason assumes you have a valid reason for your conclusion, but you have not demonstrated it.

===

When I worked professionally with the OpenType master John Hudson of SBL-Hebrew fame, I received greater respect and cooperation. He's a very proud Catholic and Biblical Hebrew expert.

I believe with a clear understanding of the applicartion of shva-na, kamatz katan, and hataf kamatz katan, similar achievements as were for the furtive patach can be accomplished.

I incorrectly believed that this understanding could be found here.

Instead, I mainly found opposition and narrow-mindedness. Good type design requires an open-mind, creativity, and an attitude of "I can". not the opposite.

> When I worked professionally with the OpenType master John Hudson of SBL-Hebrew fame....

Well, if John is your role model... why aren't you respectful, resourcefulness, knowledgeable, wise.... much like John, huh?

But I guess that reading a book or two is too much.

When you're going to understand that rules-shmules are nothing; you need to know:
1. the verb system
2. verb pattern groups: pa'al, nif'al, pi'el, pu'al, hitpa'el, hif'il, huf'al; verb tenses
3. root composition: week verbs & strong verbs / irregular & regular verbs
4. particles
5. the noun system
6. pronouns
7. biblical/cantillaion stuff

There are students that learn Introduction to Biblical Hebrew for two years (four semester course)!!! what do you think that I'm going to sit here and post 24/7? Get it?

About the rest of your post....There is nothing new Beneath the sun.

BTW, If I pretend to know, when I really do not ("this is merely a way to save face, and pretend you know, when you really do not") — what do you want from me, huh?

David,

> If I pretend to know, when I really do not (“this is merely a way to save face, and pretend you know, when you really do not”)

This was in deed a rude statement. You clearly do know a lot about Hebrew grammar. So, this was uncalled for by me - I'm sorry.

Not to justify, but to clarify, I was upset by your initial statement: "So, give me a break with your Quotes of the Day: “Lamdeinu rabbeinu” ..."

This was actually intended as a compliment.
After you made little of it, I made little of your words.

> what do you want from me, huh?

Assist me to define an create a CSUB/CPOS rule in OpenType to address shva-na/shva-nach, kamatz-katan/hataf-kamatz-katan, somewhat like what John Hudson (and some other guy) did for the furtive patach.

Originally, you stated that this was not possible. Perhaps, you are right.

Paul Nelson, formerly of the Microsoft Typography Group refered me to Diane Collier, who expressed her view that she blieves that this is possible, based upon the information presented to her by me. So, perhaps, you are incorrect.

I sincerely believe that you hope that I find a way to do this.

The result will mean that a Hebrew text in Unicode without Unicodes for shva-na, kamatz-katan, and hataf-kamatz-katan will then automatically appear and print with glyphs for shva-na, kamatz-katan, and hataf-kamatz-katan.

David,

> But I guess that reading a book or two is too much

Please give me a recommended reading list, prioritized from 1 to 5. Do you know if I can get them at the Barnes and Nobles web site, or from some other place?

I read and understand scholarly Hebrew.

Usually, older books on Hebrew grammar, particularly great works from the Rishonim are out of print. There is a book store in Boro Park, Brooklyn, that has almost every book imaginable made up of bound photocopies.

Do you know Beigleheisen (sp) on 15th Avenue?

I know about Beigleheisen by coincidense. About 12 years ago, I published for test marketing purposes volume 13 of the Talmud, with most of it newly typeset totally with a private set of Hebrew typefaces which replicated the classic Vilna, Lithuania fonts, of the Widow and Brothers Romm family.

David,

> When you’re going to understand that rules-shmules are nothing; you need to know:
1. the verb system
2. verb pattern groups: pa’al, nif’al, pi’el, pu’al, hitpa’el, hif’il, huf’al; verb tenses
3. root composition: week verbs & strong verbs / irregular & regular verbs
4. particles
5. the noun system
6. pronouns
7. biblical/cantillation stuff

I know much of this already. I like knowledge, and believe in refresher courses.

I think the issues of shva-na, kamatz-katan, and hataf-kamatz-katan can be understood without any knowledge of "biblical and cantillation stuff.

Nevertheless, after learning matters in Jewish mysticism about nikkudot, taggim etc., I believe grammar, nikkudot, taggim, and taamim, are inter-related and one causes the other. Hence, I would like to understand grammar, nikkudot, taggim, and taamim, in depth, and this understanding would shed intense light on each subject.

David,

> About the rest of your post....There is nothing new Beneath the sun.

What are you refering to?

In yeshiva, people often asked: "What's new?" with the Biblical phrase: "There is nothing new under the sun", "Mah chadash tachat hashemesh?"

I used to reply: "Babies".

David,

> Well, if John [Hudson] is your role model... why aren’t you respectful, resourcefulness, knowledgeable, wise.... much like John, huh?

First, people think that I am very respectful etc.

I do respect John very much, and consider him both very talented and super-intelligent, but he is not my role model. Maybe, you define this term differently than me.

The Talmud teaches us that a wise person can learn from everybody. In that sense, everyone is my role model. John, William, even you ( :) just kidding).

Bob Dylan said that everybody sets an example, either a good one to emulate, or a bad one, not to follow.

As a chassidic Jew, my ultimate role model is the seventh Lubavitcher Rebbe.

David,

> There are students that learn Introduction to Biblical Hebrew for two years (four semester course)!!! what do you think that I’m going to sit here and post 24/7? Get it?

It is clear possible to absorb what takes others two years, to do this and even more within a much shorter time.

I am unaware if this understanding exists yet in secular knowledge.

Chassidic thought explains that every person is endowed with two sets of talents: kochot giluim, and kochot ne'ehlamim (tangible powers, and 'hidden' powers).

Using our ordinary talents (kochot giluim, tangible powers), something like Biblical Hebrew may take two years to absorb. Using our unusual talents (kochot ne'ehlamim, 'hidden' powers), something like Biblical Hebrew can take even a short time to absorb.

Koreen Publishing was purchased by another firm. In addition to creating a special typeface only for their Bible (based upon drawings of Ashkenazic sources), contravercial rules for Hebrew grammar were introduced as well. This was attributed to Mr. Koren. You say differently. I think you’re right, and they’re mistaken, confusing the name of the company with the details of contraversy maker.

Just to set the record straight. Israel, please please please check your facts before posting on forums. I am going through all your posts to check for incorrect postings.

So firstly, Koren Publishers Jerusalem Ltd was bought out a year and a half ago. The typeface was created over 45 years ago. We are simply redigitising the font. It's identical to the original font created by Eliyahu Koren except rather than being cast in metal, it's being cast in OpenType :-)

The rules for Hebrew grammar that were used are the same. Nothing has changed for the past 45 years. The Bible was proofread for 10 years before being published.

As a fact, it is considered to be the most accurate Bible in Israel. Contrary to what Israel wrote, Charedim do not like Breuer. Breuer was an academic and actually it's the Modern Orthodox Gush Etzion Yeshiva bochurim that like Breuer. Charedim actually buy Koren. We have huge sales in Bnei Brak!

Finally you will find Koren Bibles in every shul, be it Ashkenaz, Sefard, Edot Mizrach, Moroccon or Yemenite. If anybody has a problem with the kriat hatorah, then the Rav of the shul, regardless of his ethnic, political or dress code, will invariably say, "what does it say in the Koren".

Regarding your comments on kamatz katan, shva na and furtive patach. Yes the furtive patach can be encoded (we have done so in the digital version of the Koren fonts). However, you cannot encode a kamatz katan or shva na. The reason is that there are so many opinions as to when a shva na should be put as well as a kamatz katan. I, when starting at Koren, also thought that this would be a simple grammatical process, but after months of understanding the complexities, I realised that you can't encode the entire Bible with all it's opinions into a font. It also serves no function. What are you going to do if Publisher B wants to print his Bible and disagrees with the opinions that you have relied on for the meteg vs gaaya thus changing whether it should be kamatz katan or shva na?

In terms of siddurim with shva na at the beginning of a word. The Koren siddur which came out in 1981 has a shva na and shva nach indicated in the non-Tanakh parts of the siddur and the first letter is indicated as a shva na. I thought that this was daft since obviously it's a shva na, but Israel, you have proved Mr Koren correct in that some people think it's a shva nach!

Raphael,

>...it’s being cast in OpenType...

What does this mean?

Is this FontLab Studio limited OpenType? Adobe's code based tools known as the "Tool Kit"? Or MicroSoft "Visual Opentype L-something T-something? (Help, Simon)

When a person says OpenType, to which kind does he refer?

"Smart" OpenType, with GSUB and GPOS? The mediocre kind with Liga support? Or the candy wrapper kind that's no big deal?

R.,

>Charedim actually buy Koren. We have huge sales in Bnei Brak!

No Cheredi buys a Tanach without at least Rashi and Onkelos, as Chazal advise.

It's well known that such Bibles are popular among IDF-nics, tourists - Jewish and Christian, and non-learners.

To who do you refer?

Granted, it is a sacred book, prepared meticulously, but rejected by most Charedim.

Ask a knowledgeable rabbi if one could buy a Koren Bible or one with Rashi and Onkelos, which one should he or she choose?

Raphael,

I believe to create a set of fonts with automatic placement of kamatz katan and shva-na is possible.

In practicality, there are two systems; one is more generous with attributing a shva-na than the other; they do share 65% to 75% in common. although different context analysis is used for nikkud/meteg only data, than for Tanach data with taamim, because in Tanach data with taamim the meteg does not help determine certain shva-nas, but one of the taamim does this.

It's simple to generate two versions: Kehot=like, following Rav Henna's system, or ArtScroll-like folowing Vilna Gaon's system. What the customer pays for, the customer gets.

What does this mean?

Is this FontLab Studio limited OpenType? Adobe’s code based tools known as the “Tool Kit”? Or MicroSoft “Visual Opentype L-something T-something? (Help, Simon)

When a person says OpenType, to which kind does he refer?

“Smart” OpenType, with GSUB and GPOS? The mediocre kind with Liga support? Or the candy wrapper kind that’s no big deal?

Sorry. I should have simply said it was being done on the computer.

No Cheredi buys a Tanach without at least Rashi and Onkelos, as Chazal advise.

It’s well known that such Bibles are popular among IDF-nics, tourists - Jewish and Christian, and non-learners.

Again, you are talking without knowing the facts. I have our sales figues at hand, you don't. The army for the past few years has actually produced it's own illegal copy of our Bible so they haven't bought from us. Yes, tourists buy. And yes, even though you think you know what all Charedim in Israel do, it just so happens that you are completely wrong in this matter too and that we have very high volume sales of Koren Tanachim to Charedim here in Israel who need a pure text. But again, our sales have nothing to do with typography, but then again neither does Lubavitch Chasidism.

Let's stick to the topics at hand. I know you are desperate to create a font that has kamatz katan and shva na grammar rules according to once system programmed into it. Good luck, I hope you find a system that works. It didn't work for Koren, but where one person fails, another can succeed.

But please, Scott, I implore you, please please please, don't post things which aren't true. If you wish to state your opinion, state it as an opinion not as a fact. You have written time and time again incorrect things about Koren and I wonder what other incorrect things you write and this does a diservice to every one here. Finally, why are you asking about grammar rules of such an esoteric topic such as taamey mikra on a forum for typography? Aren't you completely off-topic?