The first type specimen is called "Meruba", which means in Hebrew, square. This is not the common name associated for this design.

Why then did Frank refer to this design as "Meruba"?

"Meruba" is both a very old and yet also a relatively recent design. Many hand-drawn books from hundreds of years ago appear with this typeface design, usually to present Biblical material.

Relatively recently, the huge Romm family printing establishments in Vilna, Lithuania standardized their print jobs upon a version of this typeface design. Their popular printing of the Talmud for over a hundred years used it. Hundreds of other Torah books, including those of great Chassidic masters, used it. And even hundreds of non-Torah books of literature, poetry, Hebrew grammar, children's primers, and secular thought, used it as well.

There are two reasons why this design style is referred to as "Merubah", or square.

First, the dimensions of the design is very wide and square-like. This is conducive to accurate reading, good comprehension, and overall clarity.

Also, the design in some ways is comparable to the type design of the style used in the Sefer Torah scroll. In fact, many laws are derived from aspects of the "Merubah" design that would invalidate the Sefer Torah scroll style of lettering.

The second reason is actually associated with all non-script Hebrew type designs, and not necessarily to the "Merubah" design. Here, the choice of the word "Merubah" simply means "block letter".

It is unlikely that Frank refered to this design because of the second reason. Clearly, the first reason accurately describes the most important aspect of the "Merubah" design, and seems to be the basis of Frank's intention.

Nevertheless, Frank revolutionized the Hebrew printing industry with his new bold FrankReuhl design.

Here are two examples of the popular standard Hebrew design, created by Frank.

The top one, in regular and bold weights, is the most like the original design, with certain differences. A radical change was introduced by Varityper, a now extinct photo-typestting firm, later purchased by Agfa(-Compugraphic).

The type design was later revived for desktop publishing as an early Hebrew PostScript font by FontWorld, the leader in software products for professional typesetting of non-Latin laguages, such as Arabic and Hebrew.

Recently, an early pioneer in desktop publishing software for foriegn languages, Linquists' Software, created an OpenType version for use in Biblical Publishing of a scholarly nature, in Micrsoft Word for Windows. It was incompatible with Adobe InDesign CS/3 ME.

Another example popular in Hebrew desktop publishing is Apple's New Pnimim, another knock-off of FrankReuhl. New Pnimim is based upon (Merganthaler-)Linotype's version of FrankReuhl. It contained many design differencs, depending upon the needs of metal type, which were varied besad upon the point size used.

Another example popular in Hebrew desktop publishing is FontWorld’s LinoNine, another knock-off of FrankReuhl, originally created by (Merganthaler-)Linotype, and FontWorld’s LinoTwelve, also originally created by (Merganthaler-)Linotype.

A sample of Raphael Frank's original FrankReuhl:

This was a major revision of the enormously popular standard at the time, "Romm", "Merubaas", "Vilna", or "Siddur".

If we look carefully at these two designs, we can ask, what is different about them to cause such an upheaval in the Jewish printing industry?

First, the proportions are very different. The "Romm" design is much wider than Frank's. This means, practically speaking, many more words per line typeset using FrankReuhl will fit in a given space. This is very economical to printers.

On the other hand, Romm is very wide, almost squarish. The letters are thicker. The results are much more conducive to repeated study.

A sofer, Hebrew scribe, once explained the advantage of the Romm typeface. "It has round soft edges," he said. "I know what it means to look at letters for a long time. The design of this typeface is easy on the eyes. You can look at it forever, and yours never feel strain."

Romm was designed for Bible and Talmud study, and the like. The prayerbook is typset in Romm. The Passover Hagada is typeset in Romm.

When Frank lived, the Jewish world was abandoning traditional Jewish study, and going away from use of books typeset in Romm. Frank's design fit a gap, a need in Jewish society, that was different, and reformed of tradition. We see today that most secular literatures, newspapers, even pornographic writing use FrankReuhl.

This has been the norm for over fifty years.

The question is, with a revival called desktop publish, and a new font format excellantly geared for Biblical Hebrew, called OpenType, will the Romm design regain its status of dominance, particularly if multiple weights and widths of it appear to meet the needs of Jewish publishers today.

Since the creation of the State of Israel, many different designs have come on the scene. Some are used as display faces, some are used as text faces, and some are useda s an italic, for italic in general is not used in Hebrew.

Other popular Hebrew designs

A popular display in Israel is Aharoni.

Many Israeli newspapers use Aharoni for their headlines. A narrow version of Aharoni exists, which news papers in Israel use for the headlines of minor articles.

Another very popular design is David, created by the great Israeli type designer, Mr. Itamar David a"h. It is a script-like upright design, very unlike FrankReuhl. It's light, not as wide, and very readable. Until the advent of Narkis, David became an exceedingly popular design, second to FrankReuhl.

FontWorld created another version, called King David. Purchased by Apple, MasterFont created, Raanana, as yet another knock-off of David.

Mr. David created many other remarkable designs, such as Itamar, but David was his claim to fame.

Your question of why Frank Reuhl won out is an interesting one to me.

Based on my own efforts to understand readability of roman text types, my guess would be that the ratio between counter and spacing is better in Frank Reuhl than in the older, wider styles, and that a better 'rhythm' resulted in higher readability in extended text.

Another very popular modern Hebrew design is Mr. Henri Friedlender's Hadasa, named after the printing school where he worked. Hadasa was created to be carved into stone on a new Israeli building. Friedlaeder resourched its design extensively, patterning it after motifs he took from very old Ashkenazic and Sephardic letter forms, and those of Bomberg and Soncino.

GoHebrew's Henri is a faithful rendition of Hadasa, approved by Mr. Friedlander before he died. Another version was drawn for the Israeli distributor of Esselte/Letraset products. Very recently, a third design was designed by FontBit, called New Hadasa. Also, John Hudson's Adobe Hebrew was inspired in part by Hadasa.

The very popular ArtScroll Orthodox Jewish publishing house based in Brooklyn uses Hadasa exclusively for its books. Mr. Friedlaender cried when he learned that the Bible today is studied by millions of Jews in Hadasa.

Although not as popular as David, Hadasa is a close third.

> the ratio between counter and spacing is better in Frank Reuhl

This is true.

To peruse text swiftly, comprehension is certained enhanced. Perhaps, that is the main reason for its popularity and longevity.

The wide Romm design nevertheless is preferred for lengthy concentrated study. Rabbi Akiva Eiger zatzal even strongly endorsed the Romm family efforts to produce the Talmud over the previous publishers of Slovita, causing a decade long batter over which publisher has exclusive rights.

Rabbi Eiger cited that study would enhanced with this typeface, and for that reason it was justified to replace the publishers of Slavita.

Today, new renditions of the Talmud are being produced, with the effort of Oz VeHadar leading the pact, followed by Zundel Berman Books. A third effort is being made by the Moznayim/Vagshall publishing house, for this very large market.

A fourth competitor is GoHebrew, whose near-identical version of the Romm and Rashi typefaces seeks to invoke Rabbi Eiger's ruling and capture the entire market.

The goal of GoHebrew is to remake the entire library of Jewish classics, with an English translation, too.

Israel, just out of curiosity, since you worked with Friedaender, did he pronounce his first name dropping the H, as the French would, or did he use pronounce it?

Israel,

Where's the head of this thread? What is subject? When you start a new thread try to take a little break; maybe drink... tea... coffee or something :) There're ton of images — try to group them to one or two; rest a little bit, post more.

Because right now this thread is a big mish mash. Moreover, try to play a fair game. Why do you say knock-off and not version? — "MasterFont created, Raanana, as yet another knock-off of David"? Maybe FontWorld created knock-off?

So, what is the subject? FrankReuhl ? Aharoni? Romm? text vs. display? text vs. display vs. decorative?

> Many Israeli newspapers use Aharoni for their headlines

I have here Israeli newspapers -- I don't remember the last time that I saw Aharoni.

> Hadasa was created to be carved into stone on a new Israeli building. Friedlaeder resourched its design extensively, patterning it after motifs he took from very old Ashkenazic and Sephardic letter forms, and those of Bomberg and Soncino.

Are you aware of Friedlaender's essay (appeared first in 1967, in German; 1975, Jerusalem) -- The Making of Hadassah Hebrew? He was influenced by the Scroll of Esther (1800; Ashkenazic letter forms) and by the Italian semi-cursive Drugulin (also Ashkenazic letter forms). There's nothing about Bomberg or Soncino.

His first experiment was in 1932; 1941 first draft; from 1932 to 1950 he was in Holland; From 1950 to 1970 he was head of Hadassah Apprentice School of Printing in Jerusalem.

So, "Hadasa was created to be carved into stone on a new Israeli building"? In 1932 he knew that? I didn't know that Friedlaender has encountered the supernatural powers :)

William,

Henri Friedlander was a very old man when I worked with him. He was retired. I spoke to him only on the phone. Out of respect, I never called him by his first name, nor did ever even refer to himself, by his first name or last.

I remember 3 things in particular:
a) He cried when I mentioned that much of Orthodox world was studying Tanach, the Bible, in his Hadasa typeface;
this caused him great satisfaction to know this. (We spoke in Hebrew, so he was apparently unaware of ArtScroll.)
b) He approved my interpretation of Hadasa as authentic;
c) He criticized one detail in a few letters, urged me to correct them, and added this was the secret of good Hebrew fonts.

The story how we spoke on the telephone was really amazing. I had just married and created a PostScript version of his Hadasa design for a very early system of Apple Macintosh operating system, when the IBM PC just began. It was System 5.

Anticipating to license it to Apple Israel, I sent Mr. Friedlaender a check for 100 old shekels. He return the check to me, explaning that he sold the rights to a now-defunct small European type foundry many many years ago. Hence, he was not entitled to any money. I was very impressed with his honesty.

Not long after, Mr. Friedlaender called me in Kfar Chabad. He said that "I noticed from the address that you live Kfar Chabad. Kfar Chabad is village which is inhabited with the followers of the Lubavitcher Rebbe." I replied, praised his work, extolled his important role in Jewish history, and added that the ArtScroll Orthodox publishing house in the United States had standardized their books on Hadasa. Then, I told him that even the Tanach, the Bible, appeared in Hadasa, and studied every day by many many Jews around the world."

Mr. Friedlaender was silent, and I heard him weeping like a baby.

David,

What a hostile post.

The theme of this thread is Hebrew Type Designs, like its name. The first post begins with Mr. Raphael Frank a"h, desiugner of FranReuhl.

FrankReuhl is the first main topic. To appreciate its position as the premiere Hebrew typeface design, I compare it to the Merubah typeface design. Merubah means square.
This design was popularized in many other forms, particular by the Romm family of Vilna, Lithuania.

The Romm family printing establishments were reknown for very high quality workmanship. Even though they were very modern Jews, Chassidic masters sought for their books to be produced by the Widow and Brothers Romm.

In order of popularity, I move on to David, Hadasa and the rest.

I am glad that you add important details about Aharoni and Hadasa. I was unaware of this. In Israel, during the eighties, many popular Israeli newspapers used Aharoni for headlines, and Aharoni Tzar, its narrow look-a-like, for headlines of minor articles.

I don't read Hebrew, except to pray or study, or read fascinating articles about Hebrew Type Design. Perhaps, another black typeface design is used, like Chaim Shamen, Fat Chaim.

I would be interested to read, as I am sure many others, for you to post a summary of Friedlaender's article in German, and an overview of facts that you know.

He sold the Hadasa design I think to the Amsterdam Typefoundry.

In Israel, I read that he used the Hadasa design to be carved in an Israeli building. The book even included his picture, the building, and a picture of the short inscription. I never said that he made it for that purpose.

How is Drogolin in any way similar to Hadasa? Look, I have samples above. When I first saw Drogolin, I thought it was an attempt to capture the flair of Romm/Vilna. FontWorld called Drogolin by th name of Belz, because the Belz logo featured Drogolin.

Actually, the font called Margoliot is not really Drogolin. Drogolin had a peculian curl on the lower left side of the aleph, and this version cuts it out.

David, you are a treasurechest of knowledge Hebrew type design. Please don't keep it to yourself. Share your knowledge with us, and post, post, post...

David voiced his objection to the subjective use of the term "knock-off". A knock off is an imitation of a popular design, simply with a different name, to avoid payment to its designer or copyright/trademark owner.

He cited the example of Tzvika Rosenberg, a popular Israeli font-maker, of MasterFont, who created Apple's Raanana. I called it a "knock-off". The bold version is a really poor knock-off.

I called it a knock-off because when it was first created and licensed to Apple Israel, the unrelated name, Raanana, a small city in Israel, was picked to avoid payment to Mr. Itamar David, in the early eighties.

David wondered why I did not call FontWorld's version, King David, also a knock-off, like Tzvika's Raanana. It's a valid question.

First, King David is not a "knock-off". It is a very carefully rendition, inspired by Mr. David's popular design. It is rendered not to divert from hiis designintentions, but to correct his design flaws.

The real differance is in appearance.

Raanana is a little, thinner, narrower, and not equally weighted in its strokes. Look at how David is different. Its strokes are weighted equally, making reproduction at even small point sizes looking right, while the same text, at the same point sizes, does not look right.

King David captures David's flow, but adds a unique touch, like raising a bit the height of the lamed, or raising the top of the left hand lower stem of the gimmel to increase its clarity and legibility, or the lowering of the top of the detached stroke on left hand side of the kuf, to allow better distinction and "breathing room".

FontWorld never issued Itamar David a"h any royalty out of "moral good sense" in the nineties, as it had no way to contact him (he was an invalid either living in an age hold or with a child in America). If anyone knows how to contact his descendants, please write to: ContactInfoforDavid@gmail.com

Ittai Tamari -- Digitization of Hebrew Fonts (pp.190-191, p.195), about Frank-Rühl:

"Among its numerous faults one may mention its too dense and heavy appearance, which needs very careful letterspacing when hand-set in sizes smaller than 12 point...clear distinctions between similar-looking letters (Daleth and Resh, Vav and Za'in, Heth and Thaf) were not made, although the designer was well aware of the problem.
However, what interests us most is not the shortcomings of the design -- rather, its incomparable success as the most-used Hebrew type....Any possible explanation is indeed a mixture of many factors: sociological, technical, human -- and most of all the lack of other, more compatible choices, which would comply with the current taste. The Frank-Rühl letters appaered (at first only in normal weight, the additional bold weight was a later adaption by other designers), fortunately, in a significant period for the Jews: the establishment of the Zionist movment...; the visualisation of their return to the Promised Land....; Jewish authors and poets were endeavouring to write in the future only in Hebrew. These developments needed, of course, means of publications, i.e. text typefaces, which needed to be different-looking from the then familiar ones. These were found in the Frank-Rühl design."

Line #1: the original -- Berthold
Line#2: Linotype linecasting machine
Line#3: Monotype
Line#4: AM International
Line#5: Linotron 202
Line#6: Autologic

Right now there's not a single revival that is close to the original.

> Why then did Frank refer to this design as “Meruba”?

Meruba= block letter, all non-script Hebrew type (page 9, 12 -- his little booklet). BTW, Monotype's version of Meruba was called Sonzino, Drugulin's was called Magalith; the font Miriam -- Frank also may have designed Miriam, since it appers in the 1924 Berthold catalog along with Frank-Rühl.

> These samples include rarely used examples of different type style designs,

Lettering. Don't forget that Raphael Frank was Sofer Stam.

> Right now there’s not a single revival that is close to the original.

I also think this conclusion is accurate. Considering the specimens that we have before us from his book, which are for large size body text, we actually don't have cpmparables.

Apparently, Frank made his design to typeset large Biblical texts, or Hadagas. The other venders aim were rabbinic commentaries, or political discussions, or literature in general, that appears at smaller text sizes, or even have very small footnotes.

There are multiple weights which I have from Linotype, 9, 10, and 12 point sizes. Vaityper's version is even lighter, and very suitable for small text sizes. We don't find a 18 pt. or 24 pt. FrankReuhl from Linotype.

Each one (the 9, 10, and 12 point sizes of Linotype's FrankReuhl) is very different from its siblings. 9 in particulars has major differences.

I also has from a very old job a revival of FrankReuhl from an artist commissioned to draw very large letters from an unknown machine. There also an interesting design that is unique to all other versions of FrankReuhl from other venders, except one of the 3 point sizes from Linotype (the nine) [maybe, it was drawn from the nine].

I also have another set of drawings that I was told was drawn from an old Linotype machine, where Frankruehl is somewhat crossed in design with Romm. I haven't revived it yet.

In these two versions (Linotype's 9, and the very large drawings) the bottom of the right side is lifted off (in part) from the baseline. It looks like a person standing upon his toes, with his heel lifted off the ground.

I debated whether I should include this detail. A professor at RIT (Rochester Istitute of Technology, a leader om printing technology and type design studies) suggested that this peculiarity in design was like the design of serifs, to allow ink to gather during the print process. He reasoned that sonce this was no longer an issye, I should abandon thos aspect of the design.

I was unsure, so I left it in the Varityper revival. Later, I found ot only in the small 9 point aleph of FrankReuhl from Linotype.

Perhaps, the professor was correct, but his conclusion in my view was not. What do you think?

[My scanner is suffering from a paper jam in the printer (its an all-in-one), so it'll be awhile until I can scan and post.]

Israel, I got hold of a Biblical grammar book, so I understand better now what David has been saying with regard to your idea of 'automating' the setting of the kamatz ketan and shva na, as you discussed in the other thread. This thread seems to be 'live', so I'll post here.

The grammar book is by a Chinese guy, but it corresponds exactly to what David was writing, so I'm assuming it's solid. It's called "Grammar for Biblical Hebrew" by C.L. Seow.

So the rule for the kamatz katan--which he calls a kamatz chataf--is simple: if it's in a closed syllable, then the kamatz is a kamatz katan, and otherwise not. This David wrote, and followed the rule with a 'smiley'.

Now I understand the 'smiley', because the rule leads you into a whole chain of questions.

How do you know whether it's an closed syllable? Simple, it ends with a consonant that has a schva nach under it, or is the last letter.

And how do you know whether it's a schva nach or schva na? Well, now you get a bunch of rules, one of which is that it's a schva na if comes after a letter with a strong dagesh.

So how do you know whether it's a strong or weak dagesh? Well, one of the rules is that it's a strong dagesh if it's preceded by a short vowel.

So how do you know whether it's a short or long vowel?

Well up till now I will probably forget all this, but a computer won't, so there's no problem programming it, I would guess.

But here is the kicker: you only tell whether it's a short or long vowel by whether it falls on an accented syllable.

So you've hit a brick wall if you are only looking at syntax, because nothing in the letters or nikud are going to tell you where accent is. (David mentioned the accent issue also.)

To know the where accent is you are going to have to have a 'look up' of the word in some kind of dictionary that will tell you where the accent lies.

So it looks to me like what you need is not open type programming to do what you want, but rather some kind of 'spell check' that will automatically put the kind of nikkud you want. That you could do with the look-ups. I know that one of the Hebrew typing programs already has 'auto-nikud', but I don't know whether they will distinguish a kamatz katan and the different kinds of schva. But I don't see why they couldn't do it in principle.

So with a kind of spell checker which you would run or would be active all the time, it seems you could do what you want. But not by just sticking to the sequence of letters.

ps. Oops I left out that the cantillation marks for Torah writings--taamei hamikra--might change where the accent is, according to what David wrote. That might force you to look at more than on word, but presumably a spell check program could do that in principle.

Whether it's worth the effort is another question.

pps. This book says that a kamatz katan is sometimes indicated by putting a meteg next to the kamatz. That seems to me typographically better than the line above the letter, or a bigger kamatz. However, I read somewhere that in the Siddur the meteg multiplied like measles so nobody really knows what they mean. So I don't know.

As I listed earlier, Frank-Rühl (aka FrankRüehl, FrankRuehl, FrankReuhl) usurped the role of Romm (aka Vilna, Siddur, Meruba) as the leading popular standard Hebrew typeface.

Second in popularity, is Itamar David's David. Third in popularity, is Henri Friedlaender's David.

Itamar David created many other and varied Hebrew type designs. I revived one of them so far, which I called, "Itamar", after hos first name.

William,

Thank you very much for the detailed explanation about Mr. C.L. Seow's printed observation s on Biblical grammar. Where did you pick it up?

It seems kinda dire for programming it onto OpenType, as OT needs to substitute a string of characters, and there seems no Unicode value for stressed and unstressed (I thought that is the role of the meyeg in nikkud but not taamei mikra text).

Effort is not the issue. In OpenType programming, you do it once for the first and you never have to do it again.

I still like a visual indicator above the letter for a shvana.

My remaining question is the seeming preplanned design for the upper graphic symbol for shvana, because every occurance of shvana never had an upper taam. That seems to indicate that the lower taamim can cause a shvana but the upper taamim are immune to them. Why?

The answer is that upper and lower taamim must have a connection not only to cantillation but to grammar as well.

> Itamar David created many other and varied Hebrew type designs. I revived one of them so far

Israel, do you have the type catalog with Itamar? and any other designs?

I got it from a college library. http://It is also available at Amazon.

Before I mentioned that a popular display face was Aharoni. It was designed by a deceased Israeli graphic artist. FontWorld renamed it Aaron the Cohen, and below is GoHebrew's rendition in two weights. David Hanuel objected to my statement it is used as a headline font in many Israeli newpapers. So, I am also showing the Chaim font: Skinny, Bold, and Fat (I am working on Regular), as I certain it is used now for headlines (I think it was designed in Germany). Perhaps, my memory does not serve me well, so David might be correct, as he has newspapers to prove it.

If anyone has other designs, please post then. Likewise, if you know further details about Hebrew type designs, their history, the names of their designers etc., your posts are very welcome.

Bill,

You're fast :)

> This book says that a kamatz katan is sometimes indicated by putting a meteg next to the kamatz. That seems to me typographically better than the line above the

Meteg is Always placed underneath the letter. Never above.

> the line above the letter,

This is custom mark(s) much like the segol above the letter -- metsudah siddur; horizontal line -- artscroll siddur etc. etc.

William, thank you.

My new hobbie: collecting Hebrew grammar books. :)

David,

Some 15 years ago, a paperbound book called Hebrew Typography was authored by Mr. Itamar David, with lots of designs that he made, including a few for the Hebrew Bible, including matching taamei mikra There no information in it at all. Just lots and lots of specimens. It looked like he knew his end was near, and wanted someone to implement his designs. Maybe, that person willo be you or me.

I haven't seen it for many years. I know I have it somewhere. When I find it, I'll post some scans. Each design is very different that the other.

David,

Why do you think that a graphic symbol besides the shva to indicate a shvana is preferable to a graphic symbol above a Hebrew letter, like in the Kehot Publication Society books (floating asterisk), or in the books of Shay Lemorah publishers (a floating asterisk with a circle closely around it)?

How about three dots, one on top of another?

> This booklet is special because it features a graphic symbol for a shvana.

Israel, do you have a scan/sample? samples of words with that mark?

edit: i need to go now; later on i'll answer your question.

Another useful text face in book and bold weight is Apple's Margoliot, created by Tzvika Rosenberg of MasterType, and GoHebrew's Belz (which I created many years ago, based on gigantic drawings from an earlier photo-typesetting system, in a rare book on Hebrew typography.

Both are inspired by the Dragonal design. There is an important design element in the mem, which I decided to implement, and Tzvika did not. Perhaps, Tzvika had a different set of original artwork than I, as you the weights and metrics of both the book and bold are different. See the direction of upper right hand element of the tzaddi in the regular/book weight.

> Why do you think that a graphic symbol besides the shva to indicate a shvana is preferable to a graphic symbol above a Hebrew letter,

Are you talking about the meteg? let's keep it simple: the meteg is part of the cantillation; placed underneath the letter. Any other graphic symbol e.g. floating asterisk isn't part of the cantillation and/or the nikud. But before talking too much I'll be glad to see that booklet:

> This booklet is special because it features a graphic symbol for a shvana.

> the shvana always appeared over the shva after the first letter of a Hebrew word, if that letter is a shooruk, a vov with a dot on it middle left side.

David,

A meteg as part of the taamim/cantilation set, true.

It is also a part of the nikkud/vowel set.

I don't lein, chant the Torah according to the taamei mikra (even though I do sing some made-up verses in the shower). Does a meteg represent a sound in the taamei-mikra?

In the nikkud/vowel set, it is a stress mark, indicating which syllable in the word is stressed. Is this how it is used in Tanach?

So, too, a shvana. It is universal, applicable in both text without taamei-mikra and text with taamei-mikra (even though I have only seen it used in text with only nikkud, and not in text with taamei-mikra [except in Rabbi Shmuel Winefeld's Shay LeMorah Tanach books]).

I don't see the two things are related?

There are more differences between Apple's Margoliot by MasterFont, and between GoHebrew's Belz besides the unique shape of the mem. Take a look closely at the shapes of the lamed, ayon, amd tzaddi. It is clear the the regular and bold weights of Margoliot were drawn by two different artists. Although there is design integrity to both designs, I believe GoHebrew's Belz is closer to Droginal's original design intentions in both matching Book and Bold.

Four weights of Belz

Earlier, I showed you the populars designs by Itamar David and Henri Friedlaender. Before are 4 weights from each designer by GoHebrew.

Israel,

A question or a statement:
I don’t see the two things are related?

David,

In nikkud text, meteg is a stress mark; it is also a part of the taamim. Always, it is a narrow vertical line that is placed below the Hebrew letter. Under a vov, zayin, yud, nuhn, there is barely enough space to position a nikud, lower taam, and meteg.

And you would consider adding another meteg between the nikud and taam???

Im nikkud text, a shvana is used; it is also a part of the taamim, though it is not placed there except in Shay Lamorah books (and in the future Tanach books I typeset). Under a vov, zayin, yud, nuhn, there is barely enough space to position a nikud, lower taam, and meteg.

And you would consider adding another meteg between the nikud and taam???

The Shay Lamorah publisher, Rabbi Shmuel Winefeld of Jerusalem knew want he was doing when he placed the graphic symbol above and out of the way. Rabbi Menachen M. Schneersohn of Kehot Publication Society (the seventh Lubavitcher Rebbe) knew want he was doing when he placed the graphic symbol above and out of the way.

David,

What are the names of books on Hebrew grammar and taamim that you recommend?

John,

I recall that you strongly recommended a certain book? What was it?

Re. meteg, in vocalisation and in cantillation:

The small vertical mark serves two functions with two names: meteg and siluq. Meteg is a vocalisation mark used to indicate secondary stress. Siluq is a cantillation mark signifying the end of a Biblical verse. Since the marks are visually identical but semantically distinguishable by context, Unicode unifies their encoding as a single mark.

It is the nature of chant -- not only Jewish chant but also Byzantine chant and the varieties of Latin chant -- that melody arises out of text. This means that it isn't really possible to talk about cantillation independent of vocalisation; so, for instance, the marking of secondary stress using meteg has a musical function that derives from the musical function of syllable stress as a punctuating and rhythmic principle. Or, as Joshua R. Jacobson puts it: 'Where there are too many consecutive unaccented syllables, the rhythm of the chant may sound rushed. Accordingly, to slow down the pace of the reading, a secondary stress is often indicated on words with more than two syllables.... A syllable with a meteg should be chanted slightly louder and longer than a syllable that has no accent at all.'

Jacobson's book, Chanting the Hebrew Bible, is excellent, and I learned more from it about vocalisation and cantillation than from any grammar I have consulted (and I have grammars dating back to 1539!)

John,

> Jacobson’s book, Chanting the Hebrew Bible, is excellent, and I learned more from it about vocalisation and cantillation than from any grammar I have consulted (and I have grammars dating back to 1539!)

Thank you.

Are some of yout very old grammar books in Hebrew by the Jewish grammar scholars of Spain, known as the Rishonim, the early dutactors of Jewish law?

A definition of shvana, kamatz katan, and hataf kamatz katan, is there. I believe Rabbi Shmuel Winefeld derived his information from there.

John,

> The small vertical mark serves two functions with two names: meteg and siluq.

> Meteg is a vocalisation mark used to indicate secondary stress.

> Siluq is a cantillation mark signifying the end of a Biblical verse.

This is very questional.

Are you confusing it with sof pasuk?

A meteg and sof pasuk has similar designs. Meteg though is small, like a nikud. Sof pasuk is much taller, does not descend below the base line, but does protrude above the other letters, like a lamed.

> Since the marks are visually identical but semantically distinguishable by context, Unicode unifies their encoding as a single mark.

If so, meteg and sof pasuk should have two distinct Unicode values. They appear together in a single verse.

Accoording to your definition of metrg, how then is a secondary stress indicated?

The grammar of Biblical Hebrew by Seow that Bill mentioned is a very good basic text. It manages to be a lot clearer than many other textbooks.

Genesius' Hebrew Grammar remains extremely important, despite being well over a hundred years old now. I still refer to it when I want a really thorough explication of a topic.

Some of the older grammars have lovely woodcut or engraved alphabets to illustrate pronunciation of the letters. I have my eye on one of these as a source for a possible display typeface. And then there's this beautiful piece of writing inside the back cover of my copy of Happellio's Lingua Sanctae Canones grammatici (1561). The larger letters are about 3mm tall, and the small letters only 1.5mm.

Are you confusing it with sof pasuk?

No. One of the ways you can distinguish siluq from meteg is that siluq will always be followed by a sof pasuq. Siluq always occurs on the last word of a verse, so if you see what looks like a meteg on the last word, it will actually be a siluq unless there is another accent. [There are a few cases of polysyllabic words that have both a meteg and a siluq; the latter, of course, is the one nearest to the end of the word.] The siluq is specifically a cantillation mark: it indicates a melodic ending to be sung.

Accoording to your definition of meteg, how then is a secondary stress indicated?

By a meteg. In the cantillation system, the meteg is used to indicate secondary stress. Primary stress is indicated by one of the other accents -- which one depends on the melody --, but where a number of unaccented syllables follow in succession, the meteg is used to signify a secondary stress, which musically is a rhythmic device.

[Note that I only know about Biblical Hebrew. I don't know how stress works in normal spoken Hebrew or understand what role meteg plays in the vocalisation system other than in cantillated text.]

Again, I strongly, strongly recommend Jacobson's book. It comes with an audio CD, so you can hear the correct interpretation of the different 'trops'.

John,

The sample contains a beautiful poetic prayer.

"I will praise You, my Father, Master of the Heavens and Earth, who arranged
Your will, from the wise (?) ones and the understanding ones,
And you make [your will] pleasant to youth."

"From the flowing of the heart, will speak the mouth."

Wow, where did you get these books from? Want to sell them? :)

The typeface design is Stam.

Regarding the first inscription, what does the arrangement of G-d's will have to with pleasing youth?

Regarding the second inscription, this statement is reflected in the expression in Chassidic thought [on the opposite] that the more you speak, then the more you wake up feeling about that subject.

===

Did you see anywhere the discussion that there is a relationship between the nikud and the taamim? Or the taggim? I think there must be, but we must figure it out.

> I learned more from it about vocalisation and cantillation than from any grammar....

John,

The only complete book/work is by Mordechai Breuer Ta’amey ha-mikra (The Poetical Books +The Prose Books) +
Pisuk Te’amim sheba-Mikra
And of course Keter Aram Tsovah by Israel Yeivin!!!

About the meteg, there are ten different kinds of metegs.

Israel, how much do you know about linguistics and how much about music?

Because of the nature of chant -- all chant, not just Jewish --, there is a strong relationship of music to text and hence to the characteristics of spoken language, particularly stress, which performs a rhythmic role in both speech and chant. So yes, there is a relationship between the ta'amim and the nikudot, but -- and this is important -- vowels are the most fluid elements of language. They are fluid in their individual and regional interpretation and they are also historically fluid (consider the 'great vowel shift' in mediaeval English). So what the nikudot signify is something less fixed than either the consonant letters or the ta'amim. Note also that what the ta'amim signify is also changeable, although in a different way: how particular accents are interpreted by the cantor depends on the calendar, the same mark will be expressed musically in different ways depending on the text and the holy day. Historically, the ta'amim have also been given different melodies in different diaspora communities. Jacobson has a nice example of the intersection of these phenomena on page 16, where he shows six different melodic interpretations of the ta'am tevir -- respectively for Torah, Haftarah, Esther, Lamentations, the Song of Songs, and Torah on a High Holiday -- in a Lithuanian tradition.

The typeface design is Stam.

Better to say that Stam is a typeface in the style of this (probably 18th century) Ashkenazic formal writing.

John,

> Stam is a typeface in the style of this (probably 18th century) Ashkenazic formal writing

Stam is as acronym foe three kinds of holy objects, the S-efer Torah parchment, Tefillin, and Mezuzah. That is why this design for religious writings.

> Ashkenazic

Now, do you see why I suggested (based on my research) when we worked on FrankRuehl and then Henri that the Romm design of Vilna, Lithuania, was based upon a Sephardic style of writing, and Adobe Hebrew, Henri (Hadasa), Koren (Crown), was based upon an Ashkenazic style of writing.

.
Each of the alephs have a left upper arm facing leftwards.

Henri right lower leg, and Adobe Hebrew's, face to the right (in this, they blend traditions). Do you remember that I said that Hadasa inspired Adobe Hebrew?

John,

> Israel, how much do you know about linguistics and how much about music?

Not much, but I want to know, to learn...

Are there books which connect the two?

David,

Thank you. Do you know from which book stores I can acquire them, or libraries, or are they even in print?

Israel,

Part of the list:

Mordechai Breuer Ta’amey ha-mikra — this is the only book that covers The Poetical Books +The Prose Books;
Pisuk Te’amim sheba-Mikra
Aharon Ben Asher — Diqduqe Hate’amim (Dotan Edition, 1967, 3 vol)
Keter Aram Tsovah by Israel Yeivin
Norzi, Minhat Shai
Wolf Heidenheim, Mishpete Ha-Te’amim

And the rest... from the first thread e.g. Ibn Janah — Sefer Ha-Riqmah; David Kimhi (RaDaK) — Michlol , Sefer Hashorashim;

since they are dealing with issues/subjects/problems that no other book deals with.

John,

This is history now.

I don't even have that Dell desktop anymore. I recall it was Word XP, or Word 2000, definately not an Office version.

I have an old Compag Presario though. I'll test it there. It has Word. I have .doc files of the Bible in Hebrew. I'll download SBL-Hebrew. If it crashes, great. It not, it was a fluke.

I recall that it happenned AFTER I installed Phil Payne's New Jerusalem OT font. It had its own installer (didn't use the control panel's font installer) to unencrypt the font. I had to unencypt his data files of the Bible, too. Maybe, it was a delayed reaction to his software.

> the special contribution of OTF is lost at this time

Part of it still is. Here is some doc on fonts in luaTeX (still beta).

Israel: the ayin changes from the form where part of it dips below the baseline, and is replaced a different ayin

Here is with Iorsh's David CLM using XeLaTeX:

Michel,

Who makes the contextual analysis, the font or the application?

Here are a few more Hebrew type designs:

Featured is the first complete Biblical Hebrew OpenType font by John Hudson, called "SBL-Hebrew", made for the worldwide SBL organization. It both captures very old Ashkenazic and Sephardic scripting technigues, and is also modern, and original in design.

There are a few classic designs from Microsoft, "FrankRuehl" and "David". In my opinion, they are authentic faithful versions.

Note the faithful rendition of the aleph in Microsoft's bold weight. Notice also the aleph in FontBit's bold weight. The aleph from Apple's Raanana Bold is very sloppy, and amatuerishly produced. The design is made to simulate the strokes of a quill. Here it looks highly unnatural.

> Who makes the contextual analysis, the font or the application?

It is the application (Word, pdfTeX, XeTeX, inDesign) that does the processing; the font can in some way be seen as a program that is interpreted by the application but, in order to do so, the application often relies on system calls or libraries. It is my understanding that Adobe applications depend much less on system calls (or non Adobe libraries) than most other applications.

If you are curious, you can look at sources for a layout engine used by XeTeX (or just look at the filenames). One of those files is ContextualSubstSubtables.cpp.

Israel,

Where are your images? Shay La'mora? didn't fix your scanner yet?

The original designs by Itamar David;

so what faithful rendition of the aleph?

David,

My HP All-In-One had to be shipped back to HP, due to its paper jam. Real technical problem. (Btw, HP discontinued the model, and replaced it with a similar one. Makes a person suspicious.) It may take over a week.

I asked my son for Vayikra (Leviticus). Will pick it up on Friday.

Where did you find those images of Itamar David's three weights? I never saw the third very black poster weight. It's not in David's book on Hebrew Type Design, nor was it among my excellent collection of drawings of popular Israeli type designs (even though he wasn't Israeli.)

It shows a design similar to Tzvika's. Touche, it might be a design integrity, but I doubt Tzvika saw that.

If I was a design critic, the third design is a big leap from the second, and its right side looks unevenly weighted than its left side. The part connecting the right arm to the center is ackwardly too thin.

The first appearance of a shva-na in the middle of a word in the Bible is in Genesis 1:2, "The earth was void, without form...".

Earlier John Hudson agreed in part with the distinction between Ashkenazic type designs and Sephardic type designs by the pinpointing of the direction of the "flag" in the upper right hand side of the aleph. When the flag was pointed rightwards, this indicated that the design was Ashkenazic; when the flag was pointed leftwards, this indicated that the design was Sephardic.

He preferred the concept brought in Misha Beletsky's analysis (in his essay on Zvi Narkiss’ work in the book Language Culture Type) that the style of the stroke movement was an indicator, as Ashkenazic stroke movements were typically different than Sephardic stroke movements. See above.

In my view, both are distinct issues. I am pointing out design traits. John, if I understand him correctly, is emphasizing the use of the medium to compose. In the comparison below, the issue of design traits appears the main factor, as these designs are "full", and are not reflective of the stroke movements associated with composition.

Israel,

you didn't get it. A revival is not a copy; we don't need an extra copy when we have the original. so what is faithful rendition?

David,

What is a "revival"? What is a "faithful rendition"? David re Raanana; Hadasa re Henri; Koren re Crown; Narkis Tam ne Neshika (inspired Ariel Hebrew)?

Let's take Hadasa, for example.

Many foundries have created near-faithful versions or adaptations of Hadasa, either called Hadasa, Hadas, or New Hadasa. Each one was a little different than Friedlaender's original design. FontBit's New Hadasa is a lot different.

FontWorld's Queen Esther and GoHebrew's Henri stayed faithful to the original design. To preserve the designer's original intent, this then is a "faithful original". Henri Friedlaender himself saw FontWorld's predecessor, Otzar Haoht's Esther, and commented: "This is the closest to the original to date." This was after Linotype, IBM and others attempted to offer their versions.

A modification, even where the design is changed to comply with accepted design principals, is similar, a close interpretation, or even a poor knock-off, is not faithful.

A revival, for better or worst, is a new popularization of a dormant design.

Take "Romm" for example. In the 1800's it was the most popular and most used Hebrew type design, until "FrankReuhl" tooks its crown. In the mid and late 1900's, "Room" disappeared. If one could say kaddish and keep yahrzeit for a type design, we'd be making it a yahrzeit every year.

GoHebrew's faithful rendition of this design of the Romm family of Vilna, Lithuania is in deed also revival.

To stick 100% to the original design, and to suppress any creative innovative urges, no matter how good, requires tremendous self-discipline and dedication.

Are we speaking the same language now?

> To preserve the designer’s original intent, this then is a “faithful original”.

so...for example, Itamar is a “faithful original”? you didn't change, modify any letter?

David,

The veis on Itamar was changed, so the protrusion on the bottom right side was longer and more distict, than the chof. A client insisted on this change, as this design was implemented with nikkud/taamim etc. and used in a series of study books for children on the haftorahs.

This was about 14 years ago. It was an Apple Maintosh, System 7.x, Quark XPress (US edition), a custom keyboard driver. And a special nikkud/taamim etc. input system called "XPressions".

I haven't decided whether to change the veis back, as the new one is much easier to read.

Otherwise, I would say: "Yes, Itamar is a faithful original." I'm sure that Itamar David a"h is pleased.

John,

> More on meteg and siluq:

Maybe the computer was tired :) see this one:

2 Chronicles 21:2

David,

> Shay Lemorah Tanach, Leviticus 14: 8-12

Lev. 14:9 - third word, hash'vee'ee - the shin has a shva, and above the shin is a symbol for a shva-na

Lev. 14:10 - second word, hash'mee'nee - the shin has a shva, and above the shin is a symbol for a shva-na

There are no other symbols for a shva-na in these verses.

Again, since the shva-na ever occurs with an upper taam mark, there must be a relationship between the uppere taam marks, or even all the taamei mikra and with the shva-na.

Israel,

> Shay Lemorah Tanach, Leviticus 14: 8-12

Lev. 14:9 - third word, hash’vee’ee - the shin has a shva, and above the shin is a symbol for a shva-na

Lev. 14:10 - second word, hash’mee’nee - the shin has a shva, and above the shin is a symbol for a shva-na

There are no other symbols for a shva-na in these verses.
---------
Sheva na (without the sheva under the first letter):

David,

I'm running around today doing errands.

It seems you and Rabbi Winefeld are using different rules for shva-na. I heard about two sets of rules, based upon two views of different Rishonim, early redactors of Bible and Talmud.

Btw, Shay Lemorah and Kehot place different sets of shva-na on texts. Kehot places symbols over shvas that Shay Lemorah does not.

I seek to understand the two kinds of rules. Where in Dr. Chomsky's book is this discussed?

Israel,

> It seems you and Rabbi Winefeld are using different rules for shva-na

I don't think so. Sheva na is sheva na. Why "Kehot places symbols over shvas that Shay Lemorah does not" — very simple: Editorial decisions.

See, for example the siddur Tehillas Hashem (kehot,2002), page 17 — kriat shema: do you see the custom mark above the first letter bet (word #1)? This is sheva na, right? But some say this is sheva nach!!! That said, according to the Rulings of Rabbi A this is na; and Rabbi B this is nach. Do you have any solution?

Word #2, page 118 & page 17: what do you see?

David,

> Editorial decisions? ...according to the Rulings of Rabbi A this is na; and Rabbi B this is nach.

I think that we're actually saying the same thing. You call it: "editorial decisions". I call it: "different rules".

I think that this is because you are more from a secular background, where people who have different views is very common. I prefer it this way; no, I prefer it another way.

In ultra-Orthodox circles where I masquerade (baalei teshuva are a different species, knowing "both sides of the coin", the secular life and the very observant lifestyle), there is no room to make a decision based purely upon ones preference.

If respected rabbinical scholars espouse different views, if it is based upon a set of reasoning, an earlier opinion, etc., then there must be a set of rules underlying all this decision making afterwards.

I believe if Hebrew grammar is logical, if greats like Chomsky, Kimchi, and even earlier Rishonim addressed this subject in a scholarly manner, the basis of different ensueing views must be due to a different set of rules.

Israel,

> In ultra-Orthodox circles....there is no room to make a decision based purely upon ones preference.

Really? The same siddur by Kehot, the introduction:

Can you read and understand the Hebrew? Grammatically the meteg is not light meteg, firm meteg etc. etc. etc.; the goal of the meteg is just to help the reader; the meteg is millera and mille'el; This is an editorial decision!!! Compare this siddur to Koren or ArtScroll.

And you didn't answer my questions.

David,

Let me look at Koren and ArtScroll, and compare? Koren siddurim are not used widely in America (people stack them on top of upside down Jastrow dictionaries in Brooklyn).

Let me review your questions again.

Whose words are these that you quote from Kehot? They are not from any Rebbe. In the title page or foreword, a name should be presented.

> ditorial decisions? ...according to the Rulings of Rabbi A this is na; and Rabbi B this is nach.

That statement was enough for me to look a bit on the internet and I found those comments concerning in particular the sheva under the khaf in red

If I rely on the above text in french, the sheva would not be pronounced according to Radak, Ibn Ezra and Gaon of Vilna. The sheva would be pronounced according to Rabbi Shelomo Hanau, who influenced the habad movement.

Michel,

Shavuah tov.

> ...according to the Rulings of Rabbi A this is na; and Rabbi B this is nach. ...Rabbi Shelomo Hanau...

I wonder if he was the Minchas Shai (a great expert opinion on Hebrew grammar and definition of a shva-na), for his name may be an acronym for Shai.

Regarding the Radak (Rabbi David Kimchi), Ibn Ezra and Gaon of Vilna, these were much greater scholars that the the Minchas Shai.

However, Shay Lemorah cites that his editorial decisions regarding the shva-na are based upon the views of the early Rishonim (Ibn Ezra was in deed a Rishon, as was the Radak) and the Minchas Shai).

The Vilna Gaon, Rabbi Eliyahu, was fairly recent, about nine generations ago. He is a widely accepted scholar, highly respected for his broad knowledge, but he promoted opinions based upon his own analysis of the Talmud, in opposition to the views of great Rishonim before him, an attitude greatly frowned upon by the Rebbes of Lubavitch.

For example, a left-handed Jewish male must put the arm-tefillin upon his right arm, whereas most Jewish men, who are right-handed, must put them on their left arm.

What consitutes left-handedness? Is your stronger arm the arm you throw with (brute power), or write with (intellectual dominance)?

Until the Vilna Gaon, the major redactors of Jewish law concluded that the hand you write with belongs to the stronger hand. The Vilna Gaon disagrees, based upon his understanding of the Talmud, contradicting sages greater than him.

Rabbi Shneur Zalman, the first Lubavitcher Rebbe, and his replacements, strongly opposed the Vilna Gaon's ruling. I was fortunate to show how the Vilna Gaon erred by citing an Talmudic explanation from Rabbi Shneur Zalman's younger brother, the Maharil.

Another example in in the perception of the universe according to the teach ancient Jewish mystical literature (very similar to recent discoveries in modern physics). Rabbi Shneur Zalman explained the Baal Shem Tov's understanding of the holy Arizal's teachings. The Vilna Gaon's opposed this understanding, and promoted an alternative view.

Today, we only have one perception of the G-d's precence in the universe, based upon Rabbi Shneur Zalman's explanation of the Baal Shem Tov's understanding of Arizal's teachings. No one understands anymore what the Vilna Gaon was trying to express (indicative that it did not make sense).

Michel,

Who is behind the web site www.dikdouk.free.fr ? The person seems very knowledgeable?

I am having a very difficult time finding knowledgeable people about Hebrew grammar in the Orthodox Jewish world. With the exception of this very old man, Rabbi Shmuel Yehuda Winefeld (of Shay Lemorah publishing house of Jerusalem), no one seems to know this stuff expertly.

You see here, there are a very small handful of knowledgeable people, but no one is an astounding expert. No offense, anyone.

I really feel that knowledge of Hebrew grammar must be achieved by many thousands of people, before this knowledge dies altogether.

I wonder if he was the Minchas Shai

Solomon Hanau (1687-1746) would be שלמה זלמן הנאו and that link refers to Hanau, Solomon Ben Judah. In his article The Pronunciation of the Shewa: The Meaning of the Term, William Chomsky refers only indirectly to him and uses the name "Solomon Hanau".

Israel, why not learn from Israeli experts on Hebrew language, such as Aron Dotan, mentioned above?

Who is behind the web site www.dikdouk.free.fr ? The person seems very knowledgeable?

I found that link on the French wikipedia Prononciation de l'Hébreu and it simply says: "Robert B, tunisien sépharade, fournit une étude intéressante bien que très prolixe sur son site Dikdouk, le site francophone de grammaire de l'hébreu biblique". One thing is clear, he is sephardic.

Michel

William,

I'm not against Prof. Aron Dotan of Tel Aviv University (I grew up as a teenager in nearby Shikun Bavli). I only found links to sites that sell his books. Do you know how I would contact him by email?

(Btw, you never replied to the email I sent you. Boy, is this a mensch? :) )

Michel,

Is Michel a French name similar to the English name Michael?

As you likely know, Michael is one of the names of the prominant angels. He visited Abraham, and later was assigned to deliver destruction to Sedom. He is associated with the attribute of "severity" or "gevurah" in Jewish mystical writings.

> Solomon Hanau (1687-1746) would be שלמה זלמן הנאו and that link refers to Hanau, Solomon Ben Judah...

My guess that he was not the Minchat Shai, although the initials ש and י do spell the acronym ש"י Shai.

Did you read Chomsky's book? Isn't it poorly organized. He does have a structure, but the text seems to be written for other scholars (peers in knowledge of Hebrew grammar).

Clearly, it is not intended to raise a person to become a peer.

Israel, I didn't get your e-mail my address is my last name @mentsh.com . Note the spelling.

There is an e-mail for Prof. Dotan at this site. You ought to meet my friend Mr. Google:)

William,

I clicked on the link for emailing you "only your last name" @mentsh.com.

Mr. Google is my friend, too. His name is John, btw. :)

Thank you anyway for the link.

I typed "Aron Dotan" in a google search and got this page, and a page from Wiktionary with this quote: "Modern shva na collapse is predicted algorithmically, and may not always necessarily represent real world desyllabification."

What is the difference between modern shva na and the old kind? It can be "predicted algorithmically". Hmmm, John. Are you thinking what I'm thinking?

> I typed “Aron Dotan” in a google search and got this page, and a page from Wiktionary with this quote:

Can you explain to me how that page and Aron Dotan are related? When I search for Aron Dotan, I do not get that page.

The only page with that quote that I can find is this unfinished project on Tanakh names. When I look at the line for אַשְׁקְלוֹן, the table gives "ashklon" as the current accepted pronunciation. I would like to know from native hebrew speakers who does not voice the sheva under the qof in אשקלון. A voiced sheva is a tiny thing, but it makes the difference between בְּרֹאשׁ (at the head) and בְרוֹשׁ (cypress). My understanding is that those entries were computer generated; that would care for the "algorithm".

Michel

Michel,

> Can you explain to me how that page and Aron Dotan are related?

My error. my Google history (I have Vista, and Google is built in with its own history) says I typed "Aron Dotan" after "shva-na" from an earlier time, and got "shva-na, Aron Dotan".

re: the latter part of your post: So, it seems you are saying that "computer generated" is referring to the nikud placement of a shva, and not to shva na in particular.

In my opinion, the representation of the sound associated to shvas for the modern pronunciation was computer generated. It was represented with "e" when the algorithm considered the shwa is vocal, and by the absence of that "e" when the algorithm concluded that the shva is quiescent.

Michel,

I am attempting to include a set of algorithms to be part of OpenType Hebrew fonts, which perform a contextual analysis of a string of Hebrew letters, nikkud, taamim, metegs, that make up a Hebrew word.

The goal of each algorithm, if warranted, is to replace a kamatz with a kamatz katan, a shva with a shva na, a kamatz katan with a hataf kamatz katan, and to insert a meteg as needed. (My long term goal is automatic addition of nikkud etc. - this is done already in software, so I am confidant that it can be done in OpenType as well.)

If the logical grammar rules for kamatz katan, shva na, etc. can be discerned and defined, this then is doable.

I am trying.

Question
======

Is there anything different between Joshua R. Jacobson's Chanting the Hebrew Bible: The Art of Cantillation - hardcover edition, and his Chanting the Hebrew Bible - Student Edition?

I recall that Prof. Jacobson wrote an older more comprehensive book on Chanting the Hebrew Bible and the taamim. Is this simply the hardcover edition? Are there any differences?

this is done already in software, so I am confidant that it can be done in OpenType as well

Software can access dictionaries. That is how spell checkers work. Opentype fonts are not meant for that purpose. I don't see how it is possible to add nikkuds without accessing a dictionary, and maybe do more (i.e. perform some grammatical analysis).

Michel,

Of course, I hope that you are incorrect. I recognize that you have more experience here, but I am very determined. This determination is not deluding, but motivates me to try creative solutions that you may not consider.

OpenType, according to my limited understanding can access a database, and features a replacement mechanism. In my view, a string with wide-card variables can be replaced with another string from a database, and the kind of variables can refer to another database that modifies the replaced string, if the specific grammar rules can be defined.

I am not considering the an OpenType font perform grammatical analysis, but simply replace a string for a different string.

Perhaps, this is not doable; perhaps, it is.

According to my poor understanding of Hebrew, its languaguage and grammar, it's rules are logic-based, with exception tables. Hence, once the rules are defined, and the tables constructed, grammatical analysis is not required.

I might be incorrect, but I hope and think not.

Adding nikkuds to a text without would mean that the font would need to decide whether to put a tsere or a hiriq under the lamed in the following examples:

You cannot do that even with the help of a dictionary that gives you all the forms a word can take.

Michel,

From your example and your recent postings, you appear to be focused upon the issue of automatic nikkud via an OpenType font, which I proposed may be a feature of a "smart" OpenType font of the future.

Truly, in a peripheral and wishful thought, I think it's possible. You clearly do not.

I wasn't going to put my focus upon it at this time, until after I knew OpenType's GSUB and database capabilities, and the intracasies of Hebrew grammar, both much better and first hand (which I don't yet).

In my stubbornness, I still (perhaps, naively) think incorporating it into OpenType is possible.

As I understand it, the dictionary/spell-checker look-up is to correct the error factor of the software. Meaning, the algorythm in the software performs the job with an error ratio, and the spell checker's purpose is to correct these errors.

At first glance at your examples, the difference in spelling seems only contextual. When one spelling follows after a type of word, eg. כי, the string (the spelling is with a tsere) is one way, but if it's following a different type, eg. not כי, the string is not this way.

It would appear that a wildcard and a qualification table would address this, eg. if the string is such and such, with various wildcards, and it is not such and such, with various wildcards, then it should be replaced as such and such.

Your examples convince me that OpenType can achieve this (although there may be some percentage of inaccuracy, as there is no spell-checker).

Again, my immediate goal is not auto-nikkud or auto-taam or auto-meteg. These are lofty goals.

Rather, my immediate goal is a set of algorythms to automate replacement of certain shvas with shva-na, of certain kamatzes with kamataz gadols, and certain kamatz gadols with hataf kamatz gadols.

First, I want to see if they are doable, and if they are, can it be processed in a reasonable amount of time.

Spell checkers are tools used to correct mistakes when you type in a text editor. There are spell checkers for modern Hebrew, for instance HSpell on which Dan Kenigsberg (Ph.D. in computer sciences) has worked.

My knowledge of biblical hebrew is very limited but it is my feeling that the string "כי בליל חמיץ יאכלו" might have occurred in the Tanakh and the "כי" would not help deciding to what dictionary entry בליל corresponds.

As for identifying "certain shvas", some may be easier than others indeed. What's the need to identify the easy ones if the reader should already know? And how do you decide the sheva under the bet in בליל without looking up the dictionary?

Michel

Michel,

About whether the word כי influences the nikkud spelling of בליל is unclear to me yet. I simplt don't know enough Hebrew grammar.

The custom of publishers who identify the shva-na is to only deal with those that appear in the middle of a word, and not to a shva that appears under the first letter of a word. I am told that it is always a shva-na.

===

David,

The Eretz Chemdah organisation of Israel, a Halacha deciding institute of the Orthodox Union, informs me that a shva following a kamatz katan is always a shva-na. Does that mean that every kamatz before a shva-na is a kamatz katan?

I asked Eretz Chemdah for the name of a book of Hebrew grammar to verify this statement.

I am told that it is always a shva-na.

It is from this citation taken from Chomsky's paper that I had concluded that the nature of the shwa at the beginning of the word was not so automatic

Israel, I don't understand why you are so insistent that nikkud be done through open type, when it already can be done by dictionary look ups. Dagesh, the word processor, already has auto-nikkud, which will automatically insert nikkud.

If you want to distinguish shva na and shva nach, then I think that could be done also to a great extent by dictionary look ups. (I assume auto-nikkud doesn't do this as yet.) David has said that whether the shva is voiced or not may also depend on cantillation marks. That being so, then what is the problem with just doing that ad hoc? The Tanach is long, but finite, and the computer has no problem in remembering what is what. And, as Michel points out, there is anyway sometimes ambiguity as to what word is meant, when the text lacks nikkud. So that surely has to be resolved by an already pointed text of the Tanach. You have to go with a look-up.

I just don't see your point in trying to do everything by open type, which is only syntactical. What you want can be done anyway by other means, and seems to be impossible only relying on syntax.

Michel,

Thank you for citing and posting Chomsky's distinction about the shva that begins words.

If that shva is not a shva-na, but one of the exceptional kinds, I nevertheless have never seen a graphic symbol placed over the first Hebrew letter with a shva when it is applicable, to indicate that it is not one of the exception types.

Michel, thanks for that reference, which corresponds more with modern Hebrew. Now the shva is starting to make more sense. In this grammar, which I found on Google Books, p. 50 on the "shewa", it is clear that the distinction between the shva na and nach--i.e., when the shva is voiced and not, was never really clear.

And in modern Hebrew the shva is generally pronounced when it is grammatically significant, and otherwise generally not, unless it is really a tongue-twister. Thus 'bracha', blessing, and not 'beracha', but "berosh hashanah", on rosh hashanah, and not "brosh hashanah". And what may be tongue-twisters for non-natives, like 'gdolah' (big) instead of 'gedolah' is utterly unproblematic for native speakers.

All of this leads me to a philosophical issue. In the Tanach itself, since scholars argue about how exactly to interpret the combination of nikkud and ta'amei hamikra, whether to introduce distinctions not already existing in the Tiberian system them seems an editorial decision--which scholar are you going to follow?

And when it comes to the Siddur, the prayer book, it seems to me the better path is just to follow modern Hebrew, if you are going to specially label the shva na and kamatz katan. After all, Hebrew is now, thanks to God and the Israelis, a living language, and we don't know how it was pronounced in the days of Isaiah or whomever.