> There are basically three schools of thought...

...And one School of Headache.

Your last post on that subject was 2 years ago! What do you want now?

I was distracted for two years.

Experts suggest that though the shva-na and meteg are based upon grammar rules, a different set of rules can be defined by context.

Hence, three sets of shva-na replacements are required to support these three school:

1. Rabbi Zalman Hanau and most of Jewish thinking until about 225 years ago. The Chabad Lubavitch printing house in the USA, Kehos follows this approach.

2. Rabbi Eliyahu Bachur, and later the Vilna Gaon. The ArtScroll printing house follows this approach.

3. Minchas Shai. Shai LeMorah publishers of Jerusalem, and the Chabad Lubavitch printing house in Israel, Kehos, follow this approach.

Israel, Eli Fried at the end of this thread: http://typophile.com/node/51733 claims to do what you have been trying. But he had to include some kind of look-up for special cases. John Hudson argued that this belongs in an application rather than the font, but in any case it seems to have been done some way or other.

So what's wrong with his effort?

> I was distracted for two years.

Don't work and watch TV :)

So where's the problem?
You have 'two truly Hebrew language experts', 'three schools of thought' (maybe add 2 eggs, 1 cup sugar, 1/2 cup flour... and make Brownie)...
what do you need?

Bill,

I haven't seen or used Eli's fonts. What does it mean: "some kind of look-up for special cases"? If there are three views of the Radak's rules, should there also be three versions of each font, to insert a shva-na according to R' Z. Hanau, or according to R' E. Bachur, or according to the Minchat Shai?

I think that John's opinion was expressed when david and you were convinced that this would not be done. If we simply extend what John did for the furtive patach, to the shva-na, and to the meteg, then why would John conclude that this is out the realm for MS VOLT? John, am I correct?

I was in contact with a Rabbi Shmuel Goldstein of Florida regarding the rules of shva-na, at rebbeg@gmail.com, who has ideas as well on this subject.

David,

TV? A Lubavitcher?

Brownies? In the Sukkah?

I plan to post a sample with the Shva-na fonts soon.

As I am doing a few jobs for custom OpenType fonts now, I imagine the posts will only occur later than sooner. In Appletalk, "real soon now". :)

Israel, I thought I had been adequately clear all along that my objection to doing this with glyph substitution lookups has nothing to do with whether or not it might be possible; indeed, it if were not possible, what would be the point of having an objection? My point has always been that if an author or publisher wishes to visually distinguish sheva and sheva-nah, then it is presumably because he considers the distinction to be semantically important. If something is semantically important, then it should be possible to capture it and preserve it in plain text, i.e. at the character encoding level, not at the glyph processing level where it is subject to variant results in different software and is reliant on particular fonts. That is what I have stated repeatedly, and it has nothing to do with whether or not it is possible to do it at the glyph level in OpenType: it is about whether it should be done at that level.

John, my understanding is that the distinction between the sheva and sheva-nah is not semantic, but only a matter of correct pronunciation. David will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there are no words that become ambiguous in meaning when a distinction between the two marks is lacking.

I was careful not to use the word ‘semantic’ in my last post because I understand that it can be variously interpreted. What I said is that the distinction, if it is made, is meaningful to the person using it, and hence not something that should be lost in text interchange. A desired plain text distinction isn't necessarily one that conforms to the definition of semantic that you suggest: Unicode includes a number of mechanisms for preserving visual distinctions, or at least the desire for such distinction (e.g. the ZWJ mechanism for indicating a ligature), in plain text in situations in which these are meaningful to particular users or user communities. Such mechanisms include control character sequences, free variant selector characters, and also optional disunifications. Since we already have a good example of the latter in Hebrew in the disunification of U+05B8 and U+05C6 for optional plain text distinction of a difference in pronunciation, there is precedence for a similar approach to sheva-nah. Having multiple mechanisms, some character based and some glyph based, for parallel text processing issues strikes me as a bad idea, and clever though I am sure the glyph processing solutions are, the time spent on them might have been better employed in crafting and submitting Unicode and ISO encoding proposals. [Israel mentioned furtive patach; this is not a direct parallel, because the distinction is one of mark positioning, not glyph shape; the distinction is not lost in text interchange, since it is always reliant on intelligent layout capabilities, and a font that cannot correctly position furtive patach is actually broken, as distinct from the very many that deliberately make no distinction between e.g. qamats gadol and qamats qatan, or between sheva and sheva_nah.

David,

I am not a chef, or a chef's son - although I make a mean omelete, and have a secret recipe for techina (that I might tell John if he say l'chayim).

If you master MS Volt, you'll see that mixing in the right ingrediants is just a small part. Right, John?

Bill,

Rabbinic Hebrew language experts in Israel pointed out certain words (even in the Bible) in the prayerbook which differ in meaning by pronouncing a word with or without the shva-na.

Hence, on certain words or prayers which are chanted, the distinction is key.

Yet, to this day, John, the Unicode Co. ignores this real practical need.

Plus we need to teach Jewish children these matters, and serious Christian Bible students needs these matters as well. Are your contacts at SBL, John, aware of this?

>> My point has always been that if an author or publisher wishes to visually distinguish sheva and sheva-nah, then it is presumably because he considers the distinction to be semantically important. (John)

See above post.

>> If something is semantically important, then it should be possible to capture it and preserve it in plain text, i.e. at the character encoding level, not at the glyph processing level where it is subject to variant results in different software and is reliant on particular fonts. (John)

Here is the error.

Hence, we wait, David. No Unicode code, no Volt. No ticky, no washy.

John

>> ...it has nothing to do with whether or not it is possible to do it at the glyph level in OpenType: it is about whether it should be done at that level.

Because of this point, I had to banter with these for nearly a year. If you have said then: "...it has nothing to do with whether or not it is possible to do it at the glyph level in OpenType", then we could have argued about the Yankees and Red Sox - whose better? Yanks, Sox, Yanks, Sox...

John,

I'll respond to your John Hudson 1.Oct.2010 8.03pm soon, but you must catch my drift.

> Rabbinic Hebrew language experts in Israel pointed out certain words (even in the Bible) in the prayerbook which differ in meaning by pronouncing a word with or without the shva-na.

Israel,

Such as...?

David,

It's in an old email which I have (nothing gets lost on Gmail).

It's only a few words: one in Tanach; one is the prayerbook (even the Reform), and other is a very rare wierd word (it might be in Psalms).

John has software for every Hebrew word with all nikud taam etc in Tanach.

So, I can't tell you now, but poor Bill has been pronouncing incorrectly for years.
But G-d is merciful. :)

John,

Does the database know where a shva-na should go?

You might take a look at the article "Shva" in Wikipedia, which is accurate so far as I understand the issue. As a practical matter of phonology, we might benefit more from differentiating the dagesh kal from dagesh hazak, than worrying about the shva-na and shva-nach, which need less practical guidance. People from the Middle East pronounce the doubled consonants of the dagesh hazak quite naturally, whereas Westerners have trouble. The only Western language I know that has a similar doubled consonant is Catalan, which has a doubled L (lowercase) separated by a raised dot. It may well be an artifact of pre-1492 Spain.

> If you master MS Volt, you'll see that mixing in the right ingrediants is
> just a small part

What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say.

david,

I don't understand.

I do a few things, some for parnossa, some for future earnings, and others as Christians say because I feel that I have a calling.

Some work that I do is to create Biblical Hebrew fonts, very high level OpenType fonts with MS Volt. This is mainly graphical programming, requiring intense logic. Few people, far less a dozen, perhaps a half a dozen or less.

John Hudson is one of them; I am another. Besides having brilliant logic, John is a fine mensch.

I have not met anyone like him, with the exception of Scott-Martin Kesofsky. They are giants, and others are great but not giants. I wash dishes.

Israel (gohebrew)

"This is mainly graphical programming, requiring intense logic. Few people, far less a dozen, perhaps a half a dozen or less."

Before intense logic and all the rest of the mombojombo you must know what you'r doing, why are you doing it,who you are doing it for and what are you aiming for.

my personal filling is that you are somehow confused and not all that clear on the subject of this thread.

before befor you get involved in the different opinions
first get dwon the basics
first stgae, the easiest on = Dagesh Kal & Dagesh Hazak
then work out the basic sheva na/nach
then work out the basic Qamats Rahav/Qatan

from here on you strat refining the project.
for now don't concern your self with all of the arguments, just build a solid basic fonctioning font.
only then involve your self with the rest of the issues and take it as far as your "Call" calls for you.

Hi Eli,

I don't think that I am confused.

I use Volt mainly for the improvement of nikkud, meteg, and taam (and the combinations thereof) of Hebrews via GSUB look-ups, originally written by John Hudson.

Shortly afterwards, I used the Volt software professionally, I discovered serious bugs with it. After testing the results of dozens of different possibilities I pinpointed and defined the problems. I created work-arounds, which I currently use. I stopped using John's 'program' after I taught myself how to create 'look-ups', 'GPOS', 'GSUB', 'programs' etc., with initial help from Diane Collier, recommended by Microsoft Type.

I believe I no longer have these bugs, after months of frustration.

MS Volt is powerful software, even with the bugs. But its graphical interface appears for programmers, and not for designers, who seek something intuitive and easy to use.

Eli:
> before before you get involved in the different opinions, first get down the basics.
First stage, the easiest on = Dagesh Kal & Dagesh Hazak; then work out the basic sheva na/nach; then work out the basic Qamats Rahav/Qatan.

Israel:
I decided to start with shva-na and meteg (among nikkud) because they could be contextually defined, and used in MS Volt with the GSUB routine - as explained to me by Prof. Aron Doton, formerly a Professor Emeritus at Tel Aviv University in Israel, and Rabbi Shmuel Rabin of Toronto, Canada, the greatest Hebrew language expert that I've spoken to. I feel privileged to have spoken with Prof. Doton, who at first thought it was impossible to contextually define a shva-na, because this was never done before. But, as a true genius, he thought about it in less than a minute, and changed his opinion. Rabbi Rabin never had a doubt, but warned that according to the view of Rabbi Zalman Henna or Hanau, this was exceeding difficult, as his rules were more complicated than that of the Minchat Shai (who we have on the entire Tanach), and Rabbi Eliyahu Bachur.

Which view do you follow? Rabbi Zalman Hanau (Henna), Minchat Shai, or Rabbi Eliyahu Bachur.

Eli:

> From here on you start refining the project.
For now don't concern yourself with all of the arguments, just build a solid basic fonctioning font.
Only then involve yourself with the rest of the issues and take it as far as your "Call" calls for you.

Israel:

How can a font be created in general, not according any particular view? I am not intending to do the shva-na work at the font level in FontLab Studio. Rather, the font is completed, and every shva is nach, then at the Volt level the shvas are changed in real time only to eith shva-nas or shva-nachs, like the furtive patach changes certain patachs to a furtive patach.

This is doable, but the look-ups, GPOS, and GSUB, is very time consuming, because pages (books really) of material must be reviewed carefully according to each viewpoint.

Then, I must do the same for the meteg.

Are you suggesting that this can be done for the dagesh kal/chazak (is there a visual difference), and komatz rabah/katan?

Israel, Some Sheva Na's And Qamats Qatan depend on the dageshim there for starting directly with sheva na/nach is a mistake.
Forget Meteg, your waisting your time.
You must first understand what builds on what.

Israel, regarding the 3 SHITOT, give it a rest.
First start on what they all agree on.
you are not there yet.

second, forget about the different views, and break it down to more detailed issues.
but again, you are not there yet.

after you hav a basic functioning font, then start talking about actual issues here on typophile every thing else is a bounch of mombojombo in the thin air and will lead you nowhere
for now, you are waisting yor own time and others who don't excactly understad what the hell you are talking about.

when you bump your self with an actual issue, post a thread regarding the particular issue.

btw, yor approach abount having the the defoult shevas as nachs is a mistake.
i sugjest you first make all shevas to na and the work it down to nach.

The main reason is because you cant check a first letter of a word that is in a begining of a line, and all shevas at the first letter of a word is allways NA

to start explaining to you why not to deal with meteg is diffcult.
but in general try avoiding inserting glyphs into text at an OT level that should absolutly be done at the charecter level, never ever by OT.

sheva na/nach ect, does not insert a sheva, just replaces them with alternates.

Eli,

> The main reason is because you can't check a first letter of a word that is in the beginning of a line; all shevas at the first letter of a word is allways NA.

Yes. We used to identify it with the boldened shva.

But today, we do not identify it. Hence, It appears like a shva-nach, no different in any way. Only when a shva appears in the middle of a word, then a floating graphic is inserted by the special OT font - on the screen, at the printer or PDF, but not in the file.

Again, my way seems logical and simpler, no? GSUB sees a certain string which according to the defined rules in GPOS look-ups based upon Gloyph Groups, then inserts above some shvas a floating glyph.

It doesn't need to know if a dagesh is kal or chazak.

A komatz katan can help define a shva-na I was told. In fact, I believe that the kollel is called Revach, in three words, the komatz is katan and then the shva is nach, but when the komatz is rabah, then the shva is na.

So, the three letters could simply be a Glyph Group. And we can save search for komatz katan later, if it can be defined contexually.

Eli,

> to start explaining to you why not to deal with meteg is diffcult.
but in general try avoiding inserting glyphs into text at an OT level that should absolutly be done at the charecter level, never ever by OT.

Here I disagree.

The who purpose of Volt and an advanced OT font is remove the difficult decision making about diacritic placement from the typeetter, and to place it in the responsibility of the type designer.

The user does not to know where to place the komatz or patach. The type design needs to know, and place it correctly. If it's an aleph, it goes here; if it's a reish, it goes here. If it's a patach at the end of a word, and a hei, then replace it with a furtive patach.

I want to do the same with a shva-na, and afterwards with a meteg if possible.

Why?

These are basic Hebrew grammar things that kids should learn, and teachers should teach. When a typesetter works on voweled Hebrew text, then these glyphs could be inserted automatically.

You people are talking AS IF all the rules of shva-na / sheva hach are universally accepted by all authorities and all you have to now do is program them and, presto - you're done!

Newsflash – nothing can be further from the truth! There are two major approaches to this subject alone. One the common one – (accepted by Academia LeLashon HaYivrit); the other one is that of Rabbi Zalman Henau. The differences between the two are so many, it will make your head spin. Like "malchuth" vs. "malechuth"; "ethchem" vs. "ethechem", etc., etc., etc.

Secondly, there are various masoretic traditions and one man's sheva-na is another man's chataf-patach, etc.

The same applies to quamatz-koton.

SO EVEN IF you wish to create a graphic differentiation between these vowels (and all attempts in this direction have thus far been hideously UGLY), you best leave this at up to the editor.

Lastly, the Tiberian system we use today doesn't distinguish between these vowels GRAPHICALLY. Why not just well enough alone?

I think you have to separate the various issues:
1) should the font even include automatic substitution.
2) is the font trying to be 100% correct
3) is the font trying to do this for a Tanakh with taamim or regular text
4) is the font trying to cover all situations.

1) Personally I don't think this should be encoded but if you are going to do it then...
2) Clearly to anybody who actually understands the subject, this is impossible. However, there is value in being 90% accurate and then the proofreading will be quicker. If you imagine a text probably has to go through at least 4 professional passes, if there is less things on the line to correct, this will be more accurate. Here it could be useful.
3) to those who understand the subject very well, then this point is crucial.
4) I think that obviously each publishing house will have it's own set of rules and no font can cover each system. And frankly a publishing house wouldn't need such a font! However, there is value in creating a font with a system for those who actually want this for a different reason and that is for using it as a basis of transliterating the text. I can definately see a teacher or school buying such a typeface for use and then they can easily make a transliteration for kids. As my time as freelance typesetter for major Jewish publishing houses in the USA, I saw that they had "experts" transliterating texts with sooooo many mistakes, clearly demonstrating their lack of ability to read the Hebrew language correctly by any system. Having inspected Typograph's sample of Psalms that he posted, a font such as this, even though "only" 95% accurate out of the box, would be fantastic for hundreds of thousands of students where the people behind the project of that particular book don't have the knowledge or more importantly the budget to do the job 100% correctly and do a job that's at best 60% good.

However, it is critical before embarking on such a mission to have the knowledge of grammar. It's clear that Typograph has this depth and breadth of knowledge, but with respect to gohebrew, I'm not sure a meeting with a Professor here (even it is Dotan) and Rabbi there is quite enough. I know that at Koren, the qualifications for doing this are at least a Masters in Hebrew grammar, preferably a Ph.D. so I would say to gohebrew, before continuing make sure you grammar knowledge is at the level of Typograph's otherwise I'm not sure what the point of the font is.

Rephael:
at the begining of my first response to this thread i wrote

"Before intense logic and all the rest of the mombojombo you must know what you'r doing, why are you doing it,who you are doing it for and what are you aiming for."

Before intense logic and all the rest of the mombojombo you must know what you'r doing.
++++ knowing the basics of the job at hand and what it takes.
why are you doing it
++++ what are you going to solve
who you are doing it for
++++ who is going to use it and does my work needed for them
and what are you aiming for.
to what level of accuarcy are you trying to get to.

No ISRAEL (gohebrew), i don't car who you spoke with and what was said to you.
right now you are not in a position to agree or disagree with me because you are clearly laking the basic knoledge.

I'm the only one (for now) who actualy programed this functions in a font (In VOLT) and actualy put it to test with sevral editors and print houses around the world who used it to print sidurim and chumashim. i have studied their problems and what can i solve automaticly and what i allow them manualy to change.

Proffesor Dotan With all do respect does not know programing nor volt.
So he can give you a theoretic opinion, I am sharing with you my knoledge after actual experience and know exactly what can be programed and what are the limitations of such a project.

so me to have no opinion.
I AM TELLING YOU ABSOLUTLY WHAT CAN AND CANNOT BE DONE!!!
I know that my writing right now aound arragent and all knowing, but my intention is to put you on the right path and save you houres of work.

Now, If you want to be a scientist then go right ahead and try your self what can and can not be done, be my guest. otherwise what i have said is absolute with no place of argument from your side.

When i tell you to give up on Metegs, I know what i am talking about.

Boruch:
There are basics way befor all the SHITOT.
All this issus are left to the editor to decide.
I have pre-made lookup for different issues wich i attach to the project according to different needs.

Gohebrew:
You can weist your time with all kind of proffesors.
My advice Again, Jump in to the cold water and then start dealing with problems and diffculties that you encounter as you go along.

and another tip.
knowing the grammer alone is not enough
you must understand them as well.
as you swim in to deep water, you will se that alot of rules you are going to make up yourself (The rules of grames i cal KLALIM GEDOLIM And the one i made up i call KELALIM KETANIM).

Eli,

First, I want to thank you for your advice and tips.

Second, realize that much of my seeming opposition is very like that of my brainy brother-in-law, the devil's advocate.

It seems that Boruch my friend, Raphael, and you, have not seen my lone tree in perceiving the vast forest of Hebrew grammar.

I am a simple Jew with limited knowledge and experience in these matters. I know Volt (which after one masters it, it seems very simple), how to define a glyph group, and the two kinds of look-ups, GPOS and GSUB.

And the great elderly Prof. Dotan, and the even greater young man, Rabbi Rabin, affirm that the shva-na can be defined contextually - and Volt can replace things contextually, so I feel that Volt can do the desired task.

I have no MA in Hebrew grammar, or even a BA in Hebrew grammar, Raphael.

I simply have a lot of Shai L'Morah books with nikkud and shva-nas, based upon the Minchat Shai's approach to the shva-na, two lots of ArtScroll books with nikkud and shva-nas, based upon Rabbi Eliyahu Bachur's approach to the shva-na, and three lots of Kehot USA books with nikkud and shva-nas, based upon Rabbi Zalman Henna's approach to the shva-na.

So, I believe that I have all the research material staring me in the face. I have the necessary knowledge of Volt. 1 + 1 = 2.

My intention is not financially motivated. I simply want to take the knowledge of when a shva-na is needed away from the scholars with MAs or PhDs, and to return it to children and their teachers.

Eli, your approach seems logical and tested, but I feel my approach works best for the contextual approach.

John Hudson, who has this database of every verse with nikkud taam and meteg? Do they have the Chapters of the Fathers with nikkud and meteg, and the Jewish prayerbook with nikkud and meteg as well? Can you hook me up with them?

If Unicode had a shva-na encoded, and professional scanning software supported nikkud taam and meteg, then I could create my own database.

So, Eli, Boruch, and Raphael, do you grasp my intent now?

Gohebrew.
to start learning a subject just to pass it on to children dos'nt seem logical to me.
second, if thats is your only intention so the ansawr allready exists why work a year on it????
as you stated before there are 3 main shitot, you want to teach it via a font??? that seems farfeched.

as i said befor, you are totaly not clear with your self, what you are doing? why? and for whom.

when ever you decide to land on planet earth, and talk about defined issues, I would be more than happy to discuse them with you, but the way things are going now, your "shtik" has no interest for any one on typophile.

Eli,

>> learning a subject just to pass it on to children dos'nt seem logical to me.
second, if thats is your only intention so the ansawr allready exists why work a year on it????

>> 200 plus years ago, our (very big) rabbis decided to limit teachers and students from understanding Hebrew grammar well, as they did in generations earlier. Why did they do this?

Israel:

At that time, the Maskilim (The Early Reform) knew Hebrew grammar very well, dressed as Chassidic Jews, and tried to lead actual Chassidic youth away from Torah observance. Hence, our (very big) rabbis decided that to identify and kick out Maskilim, that generation's frum youth should not know Hebrew grammar.

This went on for generations.

Today, there no longer are Maskilim. Even the modern reform seek Jewish values to enrich their lives, because they see their path leads to widespread assimilation.

I seek to bring Hebrew grammar back to the fold.

My primary occupation in Volt-based Hebrew type design. I plan to return to full-time ePublishing through GoHebrew at www.GoHebrew.com and other web sites. I am also coordinating the massive Schneersohn at www.GoTalmud.com - both of which are a year away from earning money.

This endeavor is pro-bono.

Eli:

> as you stated before there are 3 main shitot, you want to teach it via a font??? that seems farfeched.

Israel:

No, I am no teacher. The Volt-based shva-na fonts are the tools for the classroom.

Eli:

>> As I said before, you are totaly not clear with yourself, what you are doing? why? and for whom?

Israel:

I was and am clear. Bill, don't you think that this was clear? Don't you think every Jewish school would want this?

Gohebrew, again this is all talk in the air, no one is interested to read long threads about you wanting to do X and going on and on about it.

I think that after 2 years it's time to talk Haloche Lemaase.

Tachles, do you have any questions about X,Y,Z??? somthing people can relate too and discuse??? if yes so lets talk, if not it starts to be enoying.

As I explained, I am not ding this Hebrew grammar stuff as a job. So, it's slow.

First, I must complete research on what strings cause a shva to be shva-na.

This can be done according to the Minchat Shai, Rabbi R' Shlomo Yedidiah Nortzi or Rabbi Shmuel Yitzhak Schor of Munstritz, since the Shai L'Morah books are extensive, while according to Rabbi Zalman Henna, used by much of Chabad, this is less. Rabbi Eliyahu Bachur, used by ArtScroll at times, this is even much less.

Maybe, something will be tachlis on the tisch in another year or too.

Thank you for your help until now.

>Bill, don't you think that this was clear?

It's clear that you want to use open type to automatically set the kamatz katan and sheva na. It's not at all clear why and how you want to do this, especially now that Eli Fried has already done it—though Raphael Freeman thinks his effort is, and can be, only partially successful.

I think what Eli is reacting to in his comments is that you don't seem to understand the recursive character of the special grammatical rules here. Eli is telling you you need to first set what is a strong and regular dagesh before you can automate other stuff, because other stuff is dependent on that. Recursive here means there are rules built on top of other rules, and if you try to define only from immediate context it can't be done at all. So I think Eli Fried was telling you there is no way to avoid learning the grammar very well, to do this programming at all successfully.

As to whether Religious schools will want this, I think that depends on the religious school.

The history here is informative to me. Thanks to David Hamuel sending it to me, I have read William Chomsky's article "The Pronunciation of the Shewa." There Chomsky, as I read him, explains the history thus: these current "rules" were first laid out by David Kimhi, also known by the acronym Radak, who died in 1235. These rules were not only unknown before this, but were contradicted by other previous great scholars. Kimhi introduced the idea of long and short vowels, and a new view of when to pronounce the sheva. Chomsky argues that in fact, these rules were never followed before Kimhi. In other words, Kimhi didn't get Hebrew grammar right. He invented some complexities that never existed in spoken Hebrew, or the system of nikkud.

However, Radak's innovations—some of which were genuine and correct new insights—were accepted by later grammarians. Thus the partially incorrect ideas were accepted as "correct" and became traditional, even though incorrect. Now you have a situation in which, I gather, there are competing diverse traditions built upon Radak's mistakes, all of which are thought to be holy and correct by their adherents. But even they cannot be reduced to rules that don't have exceptions. So Raphael Freeman has four authorities who go over text to get it right by their lights—and another authority will probably disagree.

So what rules going to be helpful to a religious school or synagogue will depend on what tradition and authority they adhere to as relates to this.

Personally I find most helpful is what Chomsky explains as the current rules of spoken Hebrew for the sheva na, which he says were in fact followed by both Ashkenazim in Europe and Sephardi style in Israel. And they are simple. If there are two shevas in succession the first is silent, the second pronounced. You also get a spoken sheva at the beginning of the word, when the first letter is a "liquid consonant" (yod, lamed, men, nun, resh) with a sheva, or when it is a prefixed preposition (bet, kaf, lamed), or a conjunctive vav. Otherwise, all shevas are silent, including at the beginning of a word. There are some more complications, but that's basically it. These rules make total sense to my mouth and my brain.

For those of us who are struggling with learning Hebrew just an visual indication of those rules would be convenient. And as far as God understanding the prayers, I think He'll do just fine in any case. David tells me that Chomsky also got some stuff wrong, but in any case for me the actual rules of spoken Hebrew is what I'd be very happy with.

The whole Kimhi epicycles within epicycles stuff about the sheva na is, if William Chomsky is right, a wrong turn in Hebrew grammar anyway. However, Kimhi's work was I believe an inspiration for William Chomsky's son, Noam, to come up with "transformational-generative grammar" as a theory of the grammar of all languages, and that has made a big splash in the world of linguistics.

William:
Mainly, what i was triying to get to, is bringing this discution down to actual.
all of our talk abov and in general is a weist of time.

A project like this is based upon grammatical rules, however not every rule can be applied, so you must work your way arround it.

programing a project to work 100% is not possible.
the idea is not to make a project that one simply uses and there he as it, but to provide a powerfull tool for people who know the grammer to produce sidurim and chumashim with sheva na\nach faster.

so the font does its thing to 99.98% with taamei mikra and let say 98% without Taamey mikra. wich is acceptable.

furthermor, it is imposible to program this kind of project base only on grammer rule.
i cannot put in all the Shorashim Hatayot and so on in the font, I can only make disitions based on what i have before and after the sheva, wich means, i can not make desitions based on SHORASHIM, PEALIM and so on. (sometimes yes, but not every where).

any how, what i was trying to do, is bring this thread down to earth, discusing particular issues and not tawsing around opinions that have no actual perpose.

I read alot on typophile but hardly write.
one reason is because my english spelling is horrible.
Second, for most issues there are enough people here to ansawr them.
here i wrote because i thought that this discution could be interesting.
but as thing are going here i am getting bord.
I thing i have what to say or add in this topic, i studied this issue, but all of this high talk, is not for me

Eli,

>> A project like this is based upon grammatical rules...

I asked Prof Aron Dotan of North Tel Aviv, and Rabbi Shmuel Rabin of Toronto, two world class experts in Hebrew grammar, if the shva-na - normally defined by grammatical rules - could also be defined by context?

They both said yes.

Dotan advised to study the nikkud very carefully.
Rabin warn that Henna's system is very complex, but can be done.

> programing a project to work 100% is not possible.

they disagree. who knows more?

Eli,

Please explain why programming or even knowledge of dagesh chazak or kal is necessay to define a shva-na - as Bill interpreted you to say?

Gohebrew, I said before i dont care who you spoke with.

Tell me.
If i hav a word with a qamts and the next word with a sheva
how do i know if the qamats is qatan and the sheva is nach, or the qamats is gadol and the sheva is na???
So if i have a meteg next to the qamats it means that the qamats is gadol and the sheva is na, but if you alone are going to insert metegs then you are going to get in to a big mishqebabel

Just one example.
Israel, you can do what ever you want, but you are banging your head against the solid wall.

instead of talking as if you know your stuff, why not be huble and simply ask the right questions, question i can ansawr you in detail????

gohebrew in sefer Ester the word רִצְפַת the sheva is na or nach?????? and why???
ansawr that and the will talk further

Eli,

>> instead of talking as if you know your stuff, why not be huble and simply ask the right questions, question i can ansawr you in detail????

Do I claim to know anything from my own pupick?
Whatever I know is from what people told me or taught me.
I try to verify everything.

>> a word with a qamts and the next word with a sheva
how do i know if the qamats is qatan and the sheva is nach, or the qamats is gadol and the sheva is na???

words or letters.

john hudson, what is (if any) is the upward limit in a string of glyphs that Volt can handle.

Eli,

>> ... if i have a meteg next to the qamats it means that the qamats is gadol and the sheva is na ...

Where is the shva?

=========================
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT RULE
=========================

ISRAEL, PLEASE VERIFY IT

++++++++++++++++
----------------
****************

sorry, i mean a letter with qamats followd by a letter with sheva

gow hebrew, one of the usages of meteg aftar a qamats is to indicate that the qamats is GADOL and the sheva at the following letter is a sheva na.

by the way, you should know, that the qamats qatan is popular, but did you know that thers is also a segol qatan or patah gadol accourding to some MEDAKDEKIM???

>>> a letter with qamats followd by a letter with sheva

=============================================================
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-------------------------------------------------------------
*************************************************************

>> but did you know that thers is also a segol qatan or patah gadol accourding to some MEDAKDEKIM???

are they visually indicated?
can you cite examples for each?

john hudson, more glyphs?

Israel,

John Hudson, who has this database of every verse with nikkud taam and meteg? Do they have the Chapters of the Fathers with nikkud and meteg, and the Jewish prayerbook with nikkud and meteg as well?

Someone might, but not my sources, who are Christian Bible publishers working from the Westminster Theological College electronic Tanakh. [The WTC text uses a custom encoding to capture more distinctions than are possible in Unicode, e.g. between regular and furtive patach, and this is then converted to Unicode by various publishers for use with OpenType fonts such as SBL Hebrew.]

I've not come across electronic texts and analysis of Jewish prayer books etc., but then I have not been looking.

john hudson, what is (if any) is the upward limit in a string of glyphs that Volt can handle.

I don't think there is a limit, but I have not stress tested this.

I have two concerns with really long glyph context strings. First is processing time, i.e. such lookups might slow down text layout and rendering appreciably. Second is that if contexts involve word boundaries (which implies not only the word space but also maqaf) they may be broken by line breaking (OTL glyph runs do not cross line breaks). This is another reason why OTL GSUB is not an appropriate tool to implement grammar.

Oy, okay, here I get baited in again. Well done Mr Seldowitz.

I think this is what is happening. Gohebrew has heard that something from experts in the field that something is theoritically possible and he wants to go ahead and try and do it.

Now, an expert, in this particularly case, Typograph (and I'm calling him an expert) has done this nearly 100%. But typograph has stated that his purpose here is quite specific, ie to speed up the editorial process. This is quite a clever approach. That a fount is designed to help you editorially. This is not something that founts normally do nor are they classically supposed.

For example, the autocorrect rules of mispelling, or say space hyphen space could be substited on the fly with the correct spelling or typographical style (in my opinion, space en-dash space and in somebody elses, just a very long em-dash :-) )

Fonts are not supposed, to do that. But we all agree that it's okay for a font to substitute ffi for the appropriate ligature, so why not space dash space? And why not incorrect spelling.

Let's go down the avenue of spelling to clarify this thread and gohebrew's problem.

What typograph is saying is that yes, in theory, you could program a font to fix all your spelling mistakes, but in practice, let's just take the majority of common ones. To jump back to the substitution of shva na etc., to make it work for 99% is X amount of time, to make it work for 100% is 100 of years of work and VOLT wouldn't be able to compile it anyway.

BUT, the real problem is that gohebrew's knowledge is so far from understanding even the basics, that perhaps he should be focusing on font design and other typographic pursuits rather than getting involved in a whole area of expertise that he doesn't have and frankly, except for specialised situations that typograph is in where this bizarre autocorrect actually makes sense, it shouldn't be in most foundry's founts anyway!

Raphael,

My purpose (the dishe washer) and that of the fine type designer and knowledgeable Volt programmer Typograph are very different.

He seeks to speed up the editorial process with his custom commercial product.
I seek in contrast not to do this at all. Perhaps, it will have that benefit as well.

I seek rather to return the 'crown of glory to where it was', as we say in Hebrew, and Rabbi Meir Mazuz Shit"a wrote to me regarding the Standard Edition of the Talmud, entitled "The Schneersohn Talmud" (www.GoTalmud.com):
להחזיר עטרה ליושנה

My intention in that all students of Hebrew grammar shall see wherever text has nikkud, and they should know what is.

I think that is a valid reason. Don't you?

Nope for all the reasons that I've already mentioned half a dozen times.

Well, you think Koren was created only in Eliyahu's pen...

Eli, I'm afraid I wasn't clear why I dragged in William Chomsky's views. There was actually a practical point, which I'm afraid I wasn't clear about. The practical point is that I think in *liberal* Jewish siddurim it would make more sense to use the system of spoken Hebrew for the sheva na, as Chomsky outlines, rather than the arcane rules developed after Kimhi, and over which there is disagreement. I am guessing that over 90% of the time the sheva na appears, it follows the simpler rules, anyway, though I don't know.

gohebrew >>> "Well, you think Koren was created only in Eliyahu's pen..."
what is this to do with anything.

I am starting to get the feeling that I am talking to the wall.
your not interested to learn and studie the subject, you just want to force the world to agree with your NARISHKEIT.

Well, Good lock doing so.
BTW, in sevral cases you quote people for things they never said or mean to proove some kakamaiky point that makes no difference in the world.
that is annoying

Bill,

The 3 views of shva-na are 'above' the manner in which one pronounces Hebrew words, the manner in which one prays or thinks.

A kamatz katan and kamatz katan are pronounced the same in Israel, I believe.

It's just Hebrew grammar - no Reform this or that.

gohebrew.
also in spoken hebrew there is a differens.
people say kol haolam and not kal haolam.
they say oniya and not aniya.
Chochma and not chachma

in written modern hebrew thay don't care for graphical indication, but in pronounciation for sure there is a differens

>>> they don't care

I disagree.

U disagree?????
try selling the idea in Isreal and tell me your findings.
I check it out and found that in normal hebrew "they don't care for it"

so stop agreeing or disagreeing and do your research and check out what is happening in the real world.
BTW, I do get the feeling that you are talking from your PUPIK

I'm not selling the idea, get it.

My target audience is not necessarily the State of Israel.

GoHebrew will grant it to qualified applicants, like schools, students, teachers, and scholars, and deduct from their taxes. It's really not for business.

I starting doing serious research months ago.

My pupik says to grow my hair long, have a few girlfriends, and live on some beach.

Gohebrew, why work so hard if the solution already exists?
just because you want to be the one to do it?????

I saw your fonts, they are all copies of existing fonts.
why not invest your time in designing a new typeface (not a renewal of old fonts, or font that already exists???? Like haddasa or vilna.

copying existing fonts does not qualify you as a type designer.
try designing new fonts with a new design concept.

I'll tel you what, if you design a special font for schools, I will add to it the functions of sheva na/nach for you, and like this you save months and months of hard work.

but you are going to say NO to my offer, wich means your perpose is not schools nor students.

so stop bobling around and start defining what is it exactly you are doing.

again, it might be clear to your self your purpose, but no one else gives a damn.
people here want to talk actual in a way they can learn somthing new.

the only thing you are talking about is a personal "SHTIK" of yours that no one cares about.
and doing so you are irritating and lowing the level of this forum.
if you just want to show off do it some were else.

you are realy getting on my nervse.
allthough others here do not express their feelings about your on going blobber,I believe they feel exactly like me.

all your talk on typophile is trying to show your self off that you hav a say in typeographical matters, where the truth is, you are showing people here who are real experts that you have no clue of what you are talking about.

insulting KOREN, or Mike tompson (who i cam to like alot) and your rude talk and long posts,and mis quoting proffesionals to proove a kakamaiky point.
I am suprised they hav'nt banned you from typophil a long time ago.

what ever you are doing, stop it.
Typophile is a place for proffesional talk, or for people who wish to learn more about typographical subjects, not for people who knock down others and talk rubbish just to proove to the world that they also exist.

no one cares about the fact that you are doing research, some might care to here the results of the research.

up untill now, i havn't learnt any thing new from all of your bluble.
so please, take a break, and when you hav some informative information you wish to share or discuse post them, and be sure i will be the first one to participate.

your talk now reduces the trust in your threads.

I normally don't attack in forums, but you crossed the line a long time ago.

Eli,

Do you want to give your automatic shva-na away for free? I doubt it.

Romm Vilna has not existed for about 100 years. The Communists closed the plant just after the revolution over 100 years ago. The Nazis ימח שמם burned the plant down during their occupation of Western Russia.

Nobody created it since, until my efforts. It will be commercially available in 2020, after I (and others) complete the "Schneersohn Project".

Third paragraph...phhh!

>> copying existing fonts does not qualify you as a type designer.
try designing new fonts with a new design concept.

See the font Purim Party in another blog on font designs. The goal there was to make party invitations with Broadway.

>> I'll tel you what, if you design a special font for schools, I will add to it the functions of sheva na/nach for you, and like this you save months and months of hard work.

Let's take by Skype next week. I have your contact number. When is a good time to call? Your time.

But the first shva-na at the beginning of a word is not necessary.

Can you add automatically the kamatz katan and gadol, the dagesh chazak and kal.

Why can't you add a meteg?

> so stop bobling around and start defining what is it exactly you are doing.

Three things.

a. Type for parnasa.

b. GoHebrew for selling online.

c. The Schneersohn Talmud and DPO to finance it.

the main reason is, is that i use the meteg to decide all kind od stuff regarding sheva and qamats.

second reason is becuse meteg is widly missed use for all kind of other perposes
1. melail and melera
2. they use it as Kav-Mafsik.
3. as meteg as you know it.
4. never insert glyphes that do not exist in the actual text.
using different forms for existing characters is one thing, allowing an open type to insert glyphes that were not typed by hand is a big NO NO

Eli,

Did I ever insult Mike Tompson or Koren.

Mike is doing land-breaking work. In the Hebrew at leat.

I always said Koren was a world-class type designer.

Like Narkiss, Koren neglected to cite his sources. Typical dib.

Who is Mike Tompson?

Israel,

I like the way Eli is banging your mombojombo. I'll do the same shortly (I'm just tooooo busy).

> Eli,

> Did I ever insult Mike Tompson or Koren.

> Who is Mike Tompson?

Israel,

Who's Israel?

David,

It would be an honor.

Btw, I saw some of your fonts at MasterFont. There must be a better way.

One of our customers bought Narkissim from MasterFont yesterday, for me to do special custom work on it. We always insist that they purchase fonts that I work on.

The outlines for Aleph-Beit were superb, but the nikkud stunk and some were missing. Not professional. Does MasterFont test their products?

> Btw, I saw some of your fonts at MasterFont

Huh? good to know. Do you have a link?

I'm sorry; it was not MasterFont, by www.MyFonts.com. Most of the Hebrew fonts at MyFonts are from MasterFont. It was my mistake.

The link is:
http://new.myfonts.com/fonts/lighthouse/hamuel-nine-five/

The company that published was LightHouse.

The fonts are very attractive, and professionally made.

It said there:

Hamuel Nine Five was inspired by two sources, both with few letters, and different styles.

The first one was a fresco in the el-Transito Synagogue, Toledo, built in 1357 by order of Samuel Abulafia, treasurer to the king of Castile.

The second one was a mezuzah cover, Morocco, 19th century.

Hamuel Nine Five is an OpenType/TTF Unicode font.

Designers: David Hamuel
Design date: 2006
Publisher: LightHouse
MyFonts debut: Jan 4, 2007

Lighthouse Type is the foundry of type and graphic designer David Hamuel.

David’s versatile career began working on the other side of typography as a reporter & editor for newspaper, tv, and radio.

Among his experiences, as a political and election consultant he combined his knowledge in journalism, type design, and graphic design.

David Hamuel specializes in designing Hebrew, Latin, Arabic, Greek, and Cyrillic fonts, as well as multilingual typography, and lettering.

Lighthouse Type is the foundry of type and graphic designer David Hamuel.

David’s versatile career began working on the other side of typography as a reporter & editor for newspaper, tv, and radio.

Among his experiences, as a political and election consultant he combined his knowledge in journalism, type design, and graphic design.

David Hamuel specializes in designing Hebrew, Latin, Arabic, Greek, and Cyrillic fonts, as well as multilingual typography, and lettering.

Participating since: Jan 4, 2007
Location:
LightHouse Type
Chatsworth, CA 91311
United States of America

David Hamuel

actually, yes you have insulted Koren many times. You insulted Eliyahu Koren, you have insulted the company and you have insulted me personally.

before opening a font and customising it, you have to make sure that the font license allows this. I know that Fontbit and Masterfont DO NOT allow this.

The fact that you say categorically that in Israel we don't distinguish between kamatz katan and kamatz gadol is evidence of the absolute drivel you post. Of course we distinguish both in speech and every kid learns it in school!!!!

Please please please before posting rubbish, check that it's true.

I don't think I ever insulted you. If you are offended you, I am sorry.

I don't think I ever insulted your company. If your boss is offended, I am sorry.

I don't think I ever insulted Eliyahu Koren obm, the great Israeli type designer. If he is offended, I ask his forgiveness from heaven. How many people studied Tanach because of him?

I mere said, and I still contend that, like all firms, your firm spurns height and OK, its just hype. A four letter word called hype.

Soon, it will be documented that the great Israeli type designers, Tzvi Narkiss a"h and Eliyahu Koren's designs were based upon much older designs of unnamed designers.

You disagree. You have a vested interest to disagree.

I saw Tzvi Narkiss' design on a concentration camp poster. Scott-Martin Kesofky knows the name of the Nazi concentration camp, and the date. I still have the image in my mind's eye.

Regarding the Koren design semi-look-alike, I no longer have the image in my mind. I did go to RIT and saw many many Hebrew letter designs. The Koren-like intrigued me, as I recall. I asked for it and others to be copied, and I scanned all the copies.

Also, Ari Davidow, the great Californian Hebrew and Yiddish typesetter, as good as you, sent me a package of Hebrew type wood-cuts copied or printed, when he traveled to New York city to visit the super-great Hebrew type designer, Itamar David obm.

I have already implemented one of his drawings, and called it, Itamar. My goal is to revive all his some 15 drawings. Only David was made in his lifetime.

Eliyahu Koren and Tzvi Narkiss pale in comparision to Itamar David. Only Henri Friedlaender obm is second to Itamar David.

Before you went to KP, you thought the same.

>> The fact that you say categorically that in Israel we don't distinguish between kamatz katan and kamatz gadol is evidence of the absolute drivel you post. Of course we distinguish both in speech and every kid learns it in school!!!!

I didn't sat that "in Israel we don't distinguish between kamatz katan and kamatz gadol".

I said that in Sephardic pronunciation both a kamatz gadol is pronounced 'ah', and a kamatz katan is pronounced 'ah', while in Ashkenazic pronunciation, they are pronounced.

If you reread the post, that's what I wrote.

It's based upon what I was told by another in an earlier post, as I do not pronounce words with a Sephardic pronunciation.

Therefore, I was told by the Revach Kollel in Israel, that those who pray with a Sephardic pronunciation must intend, have כוונה, for a kamatz katan when in occurs in prayer to communicate accurately.

True, we fulfill our responsibilities even if we neglect the correct pronunciation or even intention, for G-d sees into our hearts, as we chant in the Machzor. But if we are learned intelligent people, we should not act like simple folks.

>> ... every kid learns it in school!!!!

Come on.

Most people who speak Hebrew anywhere know very little Hebrew grammar.

The average Israeli knows what is a kamatz katan and where it appears???

Btw, David is selling the Brooklyn Bridge. It's a great investment for KP!

"Before you went to KP, you thought the same."

no I didn't.

"I said that in Sephardic pronunciation both a kamatz gadol is pronounced 'ah', and a kamatz katan is pronounced 'ah', while in Ashkenazic pronunciation, they are pronounced.
If you reread the post, that's what I wrote.
It's based upon what I was told by another in an earlier post, as I do not pronounce words with a Sephardic pronunciation.
Therefore, I was told by the Revach Kollel in Israel, that those who pray with a Sephardic pronunciation must intend, have כוונה, for a kamatz katan when in occurs in prayer to communicate accurately."

this is absolutely wrong. Therefore either the Kollel is wrong or you misunderstood. Since you seem to misunderstand everything, let's assume you are wrong.

"The average Israeli knows what is a kamatz katan and where it appears???"

yes the average Israeli will pronounce the kamatz katan correctly without realising it. I have yet to meet an Israeli that pronounced chochma as chachma or kol as kal. Again you are talking about something you just don't understand. Further, whether they remember the rules of grammar or not, they still learn it. It's part of the curriculum!

"Btw, David is selling the Brooklyn Bridge. It's a great investment for KP!"

there you go again, insulting the company!!!!

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamatz

Qamatz Qatan and Hataf Qamatz

[edit]Qamatz Qatan
A Qamatz Qatan (Hebrew: קָמַץ קָטָן‎, "Small Qamatz"), is a qamatz in a closed syllable. A closed syllable is one which ends in a consonant with shwa nakh (zero vowel) or in a consonant with dagesh khazak (essentially two identical consonants, the first of which has shwa nakh). For example, it is used in the word תָּכְנִית (program, pronounced [ˈtoχnit]). It is identical in appearance to the standard qamatz, but is pronounced as [o], rather than [a]. According to the standard Hebrew spelling rules as published by The Academy of the Hebrew Language, words which have a qamatz qatan in their base form must be written without a waw, thus the standard vowel-less spelling of תָּכְנִית is תכנית, although in practice many Hebrew speakers do add a waw and spell it תוכנית. This nonstandard spelling is common in newspapers and is even used in several dictionaries, for example Rav Milim. Words, which in their base form have a holam that changes to qamatz qatan in declination, retain the waw in vowel-less spelling: the noun חֹפֶשׁ (freedom, pronounced [ˈħofeʃ]) is spelled חופש in vowel-less texts; the adjective חָפְשִׁי (free, pronounced [ħofˈʃi]) is spelled חופשי in vowel-less text, despite the use of qamatz qatan, both according to the standard spelling and in common practice.
Some books print the qamatz qatan differently, although it is not consistent. For example, in siddur Rinat Yisrael the vertical line of qamatz qatan is longer. In a book of Psalms used by some Breslov hassidim the qamatz qatan is bolder. In the popular niqqud textbook Niqqud halakha le-maase by Nisan Netser, the qamatz qatan is printed as an encircled qamatz for didactic purposes.
Unicode defines the code point U+05C7 QAMATS QATAN, although the appearance of the character in the code chart is identical to that of U+05B8 QAMATS and its usage is not required.

Perhaps, you are correct. It's the opposite of what I said.

Sephardic pronunciation distinguishes, but Ashkenazic doesn't. Hence, many prayerbooks of people who pronounce words Ashkenazic do not identify the kamatz katan but identify the shva-na.

Because an Israeli has said chochma and not chachma does not mean that he or she knows what is a kamatz katan.

Raphael, when the sale of the Brooklyn Bridge is mentioned, it's a joke. JOKE. 4 letter word. Maybe, living among all those suicide bombers have caused you to forget how to laugh.

As you see from the above admittance, I am just a ignoramus.

GOHEBREW, Take a break.
go do your research. when you know what you are talking about share it with us.
for now, you are totaly on the wrong path with absolutly no idea what you are talking about.
give a call to shmuel riarchi, a very nice person who knows his stuff, he produced the Tanach SIMANIM.

Try larning the hierarchy of the grammer.
and again, don't truble your self with the shitot for now.
start with the basics.
2 shevahin the first is nach second is na
2 of the same letter like haflala, or rivevom the sheva is na
a sheva under a letter with dagesh
2 shevaim at the end of the word are both nach
a sheva after a tenua gedola is a sheva na
a sheva at a begining of a word is a sheva na
a sheva after a vav with a dagesh (melupum) if this vav is the first letter then she following sheva is nach, if the melupup is in the nittle of the word the sheva is na.
a sheva before a kaffinal with a qamats is in most cases a sheva na

and so on and so on.
most are this rules are not absolute and depends on other facts.
you cannot avoid working with out kamats katan becaus as a qamats is a Tenua Gedola
Qamats katan is a tenua ketana.
so if the sheva is after the qamats gadol it is a sheva na
but if it is after a qamats qatan the it is a sheva nach
and the rules for qamats qatan somthing you are going to have to deal with and it's not simple.
lets take a word based on PAALA wich means X qamats X sheva X qamats HE (X means any letter) how do you know if its a POAL or SHEM TOAR or ETSEM ????
Sp if you hav a Mapik in the last He so I know that the first qamats is qatan and the following sehva is nach, but without Mapik He????

I am just introducing you to some problems that you will encounter.

so stop bobling to me about P.Dotan and the different SHITOT

Through yor self in the cold water and start developing your project.
if not, in 2 years from know you will open this sames topic again, and start hacking us a chainik in kop arain

so as you see even building a basic project will take some time.

so i said that not allways this rules work
lets take one of the rules
Normaly if i hav a sheva after a tenua ketana it is a sheva nach
but... if the tenua ketana has a meteg and the letter after the sheva has no dagesh and the letter is one of the beged kefet the that sheva will be Na and not Nach

and here is another
sey i have a word like הרשעים how do i know that the qamats is gadol and the sheva is na?
so you makes an asomtion that if the first letter in the word is a HE following by a word that cant have a dagesh like Alef,Het,Resh,Ayin So I assume that this HE should realy be with PATAH but because that the following letter is one of thos who don't get dagesh the qamats of the he is TASHLUM DAGESH and there for it's not a qamats that can ever be a katan so this qamats under HE HAYDIA is gadol and the following sheva is Na

Gohebrew: there is so much to know befor you even start working on a project like this.
and its not enough to know the rules, you must understand them in depth.

From all my writing you understand why you can't insert automaticly Metegs, and why you cant decide if the sheva is na or nach with out having the project knowing what is a dagesh kal or chazaq and with out knowing if the qamats is qatan or gadol.

>> ... Through yor self in the cold water ...

I go to a mikveh each day. It's kinda cold at the bottom.

Yes, a project takes a long time. I started a year ago, even though most everyone said at first, impossible, then after a year, they said, but typograph did it already.

My approach and purpose differs from you. My project has another 5 years to go at least, as by me it's a low priority at this time.

At this point I must learn well some books of Hebrew grammar in my spare time. Then, study well the structure of Ralph Hancock & John Hudson's furtive patach replacement scheme, and repeat it (abeit much more complex).

I admit I have all the research to do Minchat Shai's shittah, system, but I want to do Rabbi Z. Henna's shittah together. I do not plan to do Rabbi Eliyahu Bachur's shittah, on account of what Prof. A. Dotan told me.

Things are not as you blabber, Eli.

Teamim can help you alot in deciding your stuff, with out teamim you will hav some more dificulties.

What shittah did you follow for the shvah-na?

From your words, you didn't follow any one.

Eli, I noticed in Shai L'Morah books (which follows the Minchat Shai), a shvah na never ever appears in the place of a taam elion.

To me that means that the taamim are connected to Hebrew grammar.

Has anyone written anything on this subject? David, do you know?

Are the taggim related to the taamim?

Taamim are musical notes.

Do the chanting sounds relate to the seeming adornments (taggim) in the Sefer Torah scroll.

John H., what do you think?

Do we know the sounds associated with chanting (leining the taamim of) the (Nach) Prophets and the Writings, like the Psalms?

"Things are not as you blabber, Eli."

So if I am blabbering, so what is the truth???

in my last three posts i talked about actual isues regarding this topic in detail.
and you call it blabber, I would get insulted if it wasn't you saying it.

"Qamatz Qatan and Hataf Qamatz

[edit]Qamatz Qatan
A Qamatz Qatan (Hebrew: קָמַץ קָטָן‎, "Small Qamatz"), is a qamatz in a closed syllable. A closed syllable is one which ends in a consonant with shwa nakh (zero vowel) or in a consonant with dagesh khazak (essentially two identical consonants, the first of which has shwa nakh). "

the Hataf Qamatz and the Qamatz Qatan (fun spelling on wikipedia) are indeed pronounced the same! Clearly gohebrew doesn't know the difference between a chataf kamatz, a kamatz gadol and a kamatz katan. The chataf kamatz has a shva next to the kamatz. IT'S NOT THE SAME NIKUD AS A KAMATZ. It's a completely different vowel!

And you want to teach kids grammar! Oy vey!

Eli,

>> From all my writing you understand why you can't insert automaticly Metegs, and why you cant decide if the sheva is na or nach with out having the project knowing what is a dagesh kal or chazaq and with out knowing if the qamats is qatan or gadol.

I think from this it is clear that you do not grasp my very simple approach.

I am perusing the entire Tanach, Siddur, Chapters of Our Fathers, Zmirot etc. (anything we have with shva-nas). I am identifying patterns, strings of Unicode data. Then, I am compiling lists of Glyph Groups.

If things you suggest help, and some very likely will; some are superfluous but you mean well.

Regarding blabber, I don't refer to intelligent words. I refer to stuyot.

Teamim are much more than just musical notes.
teamim are devided into 4 types and they have actual functionality.
Taam MAAMID is not Taam MOLICH ect'

I have no intention of teaching you grammer or teamim over the forum.
But i can tell you this, Stop talking so much before you are clear on what you are saying!!!

I have nothing further to say in this thread, because it does'nt seem that i am getting through to any one here. aspecially not to you, you know it all. You are now the number 1 expert on the subject after talking with P.Dotan.

So fair well, hope so ear from you in another 5 years.

Raphael,

>> ... And you want to teach kids grammar!

I never claimed to be a teacher. Nor am I a teacher's son.

I simply want to create an automatic shvah-na like John Hudson's automatic furtive patach.

In this way, a teacher can shoe text side by same, the very same appearance, except one has text without shavah-nas, and the other has shavah-nas. Then, the teacher explains why.

Later, I'll add kamatz katans, etc. automatically.

How many different words in Tanach, Siddur, Chapters of Our Fathers, Zmirot etc. have a kamatz katan: 25? Not 25 kols, but different words.

>> Taam MAAMID is not Taam MOLICH

Isn't this just two kinds of sounds?

>> you know it all.

I never said this nor do I seek to make this impression.

Avot says habayshan lo yilmad - if you are shy to ask, you don't learn (new things)

To know more, you have to ask...talk...even blabber

If you prefer to not come here because you feel that your views are not heeded, that is your choice. I think that it borders on self-righteousness, because we gain from your wisdom.

>> You are now the number 1 expert on the subject after talking with P.Dotan.

I never said that. Please don't put words in my mouth. My tongue can't take it.

Prof. Dotan is a world-class expert. At half his age, Rabbi Rabin knows twice as much.

I wash dishes.

there is a huge difference between the patach ganuv and shva na!

R.,

I think you are missing the point, even though I spelled it out:

>> I am perusing the entire Tanach, Siddur, Chapters of Our Fathers, Zmirot etc. (anything we have with shva-nas). I am identifying patterns, strings of Unicode data. Then, I am compiling lists of Glyph Groups.

I merely seek to replace strings, based on patterns I have found in the entire Tanach, Siddur, Chapters of Our Fathers, Zmirot etc.

I cseek grammar just to find the patterns better, and to reject certain patterns.

Get it?

Eli,

I think I understand what you did in your Volt font.

First, you replace all shvahs with a Sephardic kind of boldened shvah-na.

Then, through some clever programming based on rules of Hebrew grammar, you sorted out certain coverted shvah-nas back to plain shvahs (shvah-nachs).

You tried to the same with metegs and ran into dead pan alley.

So, you told me to avoid metegs.

My approach is very simple. I merely replace strings with strings, like the furtive patach, but in larger scale.

Prof. Dotan and R. Rabin said: "Go for it." If I succeed, then Israel Chomsky will write a great book, entitled: "Shvah-na Strings". :)

Just some things about hatafim
the hatafim get devided by 2
hataf patah, hataf segol is one set
hataf qamats has its own issues.

a hataf is a sheva attached to a qamats, segol or patah
in general hatafim (the hataf patah and hataf segol) are use under otiot alef,het,ayin,resh.
in general this sheva is a sheva na so a letter with a sheva followd by a letter with a hataf will normaly be a sheva nach.

hataf qamats is allways a qamats qatan
in some cases the hataf X will be used also under other letters like
מרדכי, although in general names in tanach might not absolutly follow the grammer.
then you have the arameic words that have to be dealed with in a slight different maner.

Gohebrew: I am not self righteous, but talking to walls is fustraiting.
I thing rephael will agree with me on that.

listen, ask a question and I'll try to ansawr, arguing with you about topics that you hav no idea what you are talking about is a totaly weist of time.
so why am i writing????
because maybe there is some one out there that might learn somthing from this discotion.

but you gohebrew have your own crusade that interests no one.
your threads are not typography nor grammer but gohebrews biography.
So why not write a book or make a film about your own biography, why Typophile???
The reason i am talking so harsh is because you cross red lines in your manner of speach.

most people here are gentle gentleman, I have no patience for Narishkeit.
you are annoying and irritating people here wich causes the not to write

Paul Simon (another Jew-boy) sang "I am a rock".
So, "I am a wall".

The Zohar says a wall is just a pile of rocks.

ya, and talking to a pile of rocks is also not all that fun :)

>> you are annoying and irritating people here wich causes the not to write

In Chabad Chassidism, self-nullification is the name of game. When a person can't stand the presence of another, then this lack of self-nullification is just an expression of arrogance. My presence fills all the space. So, there is no room for him. (Hehaltzu)

from the Talmud, Seder Nezikim, Chapters of Our Fathers, 1:1-2

In this sample we see the two very different views for the shvah-na of the viewpoint of the Minchat Shai on the left, and that of Rabbi Zalman Henna on the right.

In the first mishna chapter alone there are only two words in common that have a shvah-na.

Minchat Shai has only those two words, while Rabbi Zalman Henna six more words for a total of eight words.

Look at the arrows. They place the nikkud differently. This affects the meaning of the sentence about Moses' transmission of the Torah to his successor, Joshua, according to the Minchat Shai. Or is the meaning like Rabbi Zalman Henna: Moses turned [the leadership over] to Joshua. Hence, the mem is not part of the shoresh, 3 root letters; rather, the hei is part of the 3 root letters. The word does not have a dagesh, which indicates an indirect pronoun.

This difference reveals Prof. Dotan's immense genius, for he alluded to everything by saying: "It is all in the nikkud".

Curiously, they both menaked, place the nikkud, on the same word in plural, but without a dagesh, which indicates not an indirect pronoun.

Please explain, Eli.

Eli, Lot's wife turned into something like that.

I am not Lot's wife. I don't look back.

Perhaps, R. Henna had a dagesh there, but in printed versions it fell out.

If so, why is there no dagesh in the similar word, mas-ru-ha. It's with a kamatz and no dagesh.

Why?

Btw, John, does Arabic and other semetic languages have a complex nikkud system like this or even a simple one?

Could Hebrew have a divine origin?

>Could Hebrew have a divine origin?

Maybe the letters but definitely not the nikud :)

There is no one standard text of Avot, and the medieval nikud for Avot vary and are problematic, so just forget about learning anything definitive about nikud from a printed edition.

Israel,

> In this sample we see the two very different views for the shvah-na of the
> viewpoint of the Minchat Shai on the left, and that of Rabbi Zalman Henna on
> the right.

We said that before....

Based on the Tiberian tradition the sheva after vav + shuruk (shuruk = malfum, מאלפום by Rabbi Zalman Henau) was pronounced as sheva nach. See for example Zur Masoretischen Grammatik.

Based on Rabbi Henau the shuruk is long and that is why the sheva is na. But the shuruk is there not because the vowel is long, but because of the vav (In order to understand better the subject we need to talk about the pre-ashkenazi pronunciation).

However, Rabbi Shabtai Sofer (ashkenazi tradition) didn't see the sheva as na but nach!

The root doesn't change! The "dagesh"( letter he) is mapiq!

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mappiq

Mappiq
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mappiq
ּ
IPA h
Transliteration h
Same appearance dagesh, shuruk

Example
גֹּבַהּ

The word for height in Hebrew, govah. The centre dot in the leftmost letter is a mappiq.

Other Niqqud
Shva · Hiriq · Zeire · Segol · Patach · Kamatz · Holam · Dagesh · Mappiq · Shuruk · Kubutz · Rafe · Sin/Shin Dot

The mappiq (Hebrew: מפיק‎, also mapiq, mapik, mappik, lit. "causing to go out") is a diacritic used in the Hebrew alphabet. It is part of the Masoretes' system of niqqud (vowel points), and was added to Hebrew orthography at the same time. It takes the form of a dot in the middle of a letter (usually he). An identical point with a different phonetic function (marking different consonants) is called a dagesh.

The mappiq is used to mark the letter he (and rarely aleph), indicating that it is to be pronounced as a consonant, although in a position where the letter usually indicates a vowel.

Before the vowel points were invented, some consonants were used to indicate vowel sounds. These consonants are called matres lectionis. The letter he (transliterated H) at the end of a word (Hebrew is written from right to left) can indicate the vowel sound a or e. When it does, it is not acting as a consonant, and therefore in pure phonetic logic the Biblical name Zechariah (among others) should be spelled "Zekharya" without the final "h". However, silent final h being also a feature of English, it is usually retained in Hebrew transliterations to distinguish final he from final aleph.

The divine name Yah has a mappiq (a dot inside the last letter), so the last letter shall not be read as a vowel a, but as the consonant H - and therefore Yah (and not Ya).
The most common occurrence of mappiq is in the suffix "-ah", meaning "her".

A he with mappiq is meant to be pronounced as a full consonant "h", and in Mizrahi and Yemenite Hebrew it is pronounced more strongly than a normal he, sometimes with a slight following shwa sound (this rule is also followed by Dutch Sephardim). In modern Hebrew, however, it is normally silent.

from: http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_pamphlet9.html

... R' Shlomo Yedidiah Nortzi in his Minchat Shai

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

or

from: http://www.jewishgen.org/yizkor/Piotrkow/pit073.html

Rabbi Yehuda Meir Shapira was born in March 1887. His father was Rabbi Yaakov Shimshon of Schatz (Bukovina), son of Rabbi Yehuda Meir, son of Rabbi Dov of Tlost, son of Rabbi Yehuda Meir of Shpitovka, son of the famous tzaddik and friend of Besht (the founder of Chassidism), Rabbi Pinchus of Kuritz, a descendant of Rabbi Natan Shapira, author of Megalah Amukot of Cracow. In his youth, he caused a stir in the world of the Torah with his wisdom and great knowledge. This is confirmed by the great sage, Rabbi Shalom Mordechai Svedron of Berzan, in the ordination certificate he issued for the Rabbi Meir, in which he writes, “I saw a young man named Meir and I offered the blessing Yotzer Ha'meorot (creator of the lights).”

Rabbi Shapira had studied with his maternal grandfather, Rabbi Shmuel Yitzhak Schor of Munstritz, author of Minchat Shai, mastering all aspects of Torah and knowledge; soon he became known as a great scholar. A wealthy Galician Jew named Rabbi Yaakov David Breitman of Tarnopol gave him his daughter's hand in marriage.

Rabbi Shmuel Yitzhak Schor of Munstritz, author of Minchat Shai
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

David,

So, 'uh-m-sarah' can mean "and transmitted it" according to both R. Zalman Henna, and according to the Minchat Shai.

So, why does R. Zalman Henna add a shvah-na by the mem, and according to the Minchat Shai there .is no shvah-nah?

Israel,

Do you have the original text? a scan? the printed text -- year? publisher/s?

> So, why does R. Zalman Henna add a shvah-na by the mem....

I told you why: based on Rabbi Henau the shuruk is a long vowel! and that is why the sheva is na.

But others don't think the same.

BTW, from his book: "There is no difference in reading between Sheva Na and Sheva Nach in the matter of the speed and quickness of reading".

But again that was his opinion.

Bill,

I wasn't referring to the historical graphic form of the nikkud in my question about Arabic and other semetic languages (based on our earlier blog discussion by Hebrew's divine origins).

Rather, I was referring to nikkud's complex oral tradition, reflecting Hebrew grammar.

Avot are Mishnaic teachings from before the medieval period, as you know. They did not exist in a vacuum. They were pronounced. This pronunciation was the 'nikkud' system that later was transcribed into a graphic system, to which you refer.

R' Zalman Henna and the Minchat Shai differ upon how it was pronounced.

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages

Middle Ages
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ninth-century depiction of Charlemagne with popes Gelasius I and Gregory the Great
The Middle Ages (adjectival form: medieval or mediæval) was a period of European history from the 5th century to the 15th century. The period followed the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476, and preceded the Early Modern Era. It is the middle period in a three-period division of history: Classical, Medieval, and Modern. The term "Middle Ages" (medium aevum) was coined in the 15th century and reflects the view that this period was a deviation from the path of classical learning, a path supposedly reconnected by Renaissance scholarship.

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirkei_Avot

Pirkei Avot
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Rabbinical Eras
Chazal
Zugot
Tannaim
Amoraim
Savoraim
Geonim
Rishonim
Acharonim

Pirkei Avot (Hebrew: פרקי אבות Pirqe Avoth in Classical and Talmudic Hebrew‎), which translates to English as Verses of the Fathers is a compilation of the ethical teachings and maxims of the Rabbis of the Mishnaic period. Because of its contents, it is also called Ethics of the Fathers. The teachings of Pirkei Avot appear in the Mishnaic tractate of Avot, the second-to-last tractate in the order of Nezikin in the Talmud. Pirkei Avot is unique in that it is the only tractate of the Talmud dealing solely with ethical and moral principles; there is little or no halacha found in Pirkei Avot, except for the Ein Mishpat Ner Mitzvah.

...

Structure of the work

The tractate consists of six chapters. It begins with an order of transmission of the Oral Tradition; Moses receives the Torah at Mount Sinai and then transmits it through various generations (including Joshua, the Elders, and the Neviim, but notably not the Kohanim), whence it finally arrives at the Great Assembly, i.e., the Rabbis (Avot 1:1). It contains sayings attributed to sages from Simon the Just (200 B.C.E.) to shortly after Judah haNasi (200 C.E.), redactor of the Mishnah. These aphorisms concern proper ethical and social conduct, as well as the importance of Torah study.

The first two chapters proceed in a general chronological order, with the second focusing on the students of Yochanan Ben Zakkai. Chapters Three and Four contain various attributed sayings in no clear order. Chapter Five departs from the organization and content of the preceding four in that it consists mostly of anonymous sayings structured around numerical lists, several of which have no direct connection with ethics. The last four paragraphs of this chapter return to the format of moral aphorisms attributed to specific rabbis.

In liturgical use, and in most printed editions of Avoth, a sixth chapter, Kinyan Torah ("Acquisition of Torah") is added; this is in fact the eighth (in the Vilna edition) chapter of tractate Kallah, one of the minor tractates. It is added because its content and style are somewhat similar to that of the original tractate Avoth (although it focuses on Torah study more than ethics), and to allow for one chapter to be recited on each Shabbat of the Omer period, this chapter being seen well-suited to Shabbat Shavuot, when the giving of the Torah is celebrated. (See below.)

...

Thank you, David.

David,

In reviewing different printings of the prayerbook by Kehot USA (Chabad), I see that the dagesh in the hei of uh-m-sarah' in Avot 1:1 simply fell out in this print (small and unclear), but in most other editions of Kehot USA, the dagesh does appear.

Soon, all printers' plates will be PDFs and this will never occur.

David,

Do you know?

David,

Do you know?

Just came across this interesting discussion of nikud. This is notes of a student in a class on Hebrew linguistics at Yeshiva U. Note that he says that even medieval authorities agree that the nikud are not mi-sinai—do not have any sacred authority. I needn't have put a smiley above when I wrote that!

The basics of the shva na are simple, but beyond that not only get incredibly complex, but it seems to me without justification for the decisions. These complex systems derive from Rabbi Kimhi in the 13th century—long after the Tiberian system was fixed, a system that doesn't record the sheva na. Thus there is not much basis for thinking they actually reflect ancient spoken Hebrew. In the link, it also explains that even in ancient times there were competing systems of nikud in Bablyonia and in Tiberias. It may be that choosing the Tiberian one was well justified, but it brings out the problematic character of the complex rules. That seems to me to justify following the current way Hebrew is pronounced by native Israelis, as Chomsky says.

I recognize that this won't affect those who regard one or another of these traditions as authentic. I'm just saying from a liberal Jewish point of view—or dispassionate scholarly one—it doesn't make much sense to enshrine these as proper.

Eli Fried, who seems to know more about this than anybody, could perhaps tell us at what point the "rules" about the shva na get tenuous.

By the way, I write shva na, not "sheva" na, because in spoken Hebrew the word contains a shva nach, not a shva na, contrary to the artificial "rules", but consistent with the real rules, according to Chomsky.

I am trying to determine the difference between these two views, in order to create the appropriate glyph groups in Volt.

ggs are glyph groups.

I believe I will need 3 or 4 ggs:
a. one common to everyone
b. one for R. ZH
c. one for the MS
d. [if I make R'EB]

The each gg is sub-dived into small ggs based on nikkud types, with all their contextual replacements.

Those ggs is divided into 4 ggs:
a. Bible - Ta
b. Bible - Nach
c. Mishnaic and like
d. Prayerbook and like

I think the string is:
letter, nikkud, letter, shva.

The string might be longer. The letters might be defined.
There may be a dagesh or mapik.
There may be wildcards to accomamate taamim etc.

Can wildcards also apply to nothing?

Then, is GPOS, a single look-up is used, with the different ggs.
Two font 'programs' s are made in Volt, based on a single font outline.
I would make it at first monospaced a monospaced font to give away for free.
I think a version of Miriam is suitable.

If it is this simple, perhaps this year it can be done.

Eli, does this system make sense?
If yes, the automatic shvah-na can be made rather quickly.
My research has been completed.

R' Zalman Henna is complete, without the Tanach. But this new font would add the shvah-nas as needed.
Minchas Shai is complete, without the siddur. But this new font would add the shvah-nas as needed.

Bill,

I think Eli did a grammar-based automatic shvah-na addition, and not a pure contextual replacement.

He's alluding to that in each excellent post, albeit with some go hebrew-crashing. :)

ps I learned החלצו, so I can endure, from the Reshab.

>I think Eli did a grammar-based automatic shvah-na addition, and not a pure contextual replacement.

That's what I understand—there are look-ups of roots involved. I suspect that the root look-up is necessary, as there are ambiguities that you can't resolve from context alone, or at least not without look-ups that amount to the same thing. That's why Eli (and I) don't see the point of your "context only" approach, when Eli has already succeeded in doing this. And his system is flexible enough to change for different systems, as I understand him saying.

David,

Do you know?

Eli, why?

Bill: Thus there is not much basis for thinking they actually reflect ancient spoken Hebrew.

Indeed not. Some of the differences between ancient pronunciation and the later pronunciation applied to the Bible text by the Masoretes are evident from the text itself. The best known example is the change in pronunciation of yerušālēm to yerušālayim, which required the Masoretes to add hiriq between the lamed and the final mem in order to approximate the new pronunciation as yerušālaim, while preserving the consonant structure of the ancient manuscripts. The final four characters of this word are correctly encoded in the order lamed + patah + hiriq + final mem, and the hiriq is conventionally positioned under the right side of the final mem, following the Masoretic codices.

[This is also a good example of the unfortunate collision of the Biblical text with Unicode's canonical combining class assignments for Hebrew marks, which were based on modern practice. If Unicode normalisation is applied to this word, the order of the patah and hiriq is reversed.]

Eli, please explain why?

A nuhn + hirik + shin + shva + shvah-nah
but not
a yud + hirik + siin + + dagesh + shva
or
a yud + hirik + shin + shva
or
a yud + hirik + siin + shva

Does that mean nuhn yes but yud no?

>differences between ancient pronunciation and the later pronunciation applied to the Bible text by the Masoretes

That too. But I was speaking of whether the Rabbi Kimhi and later views on the shva na and other fine points not reflected in the Tiberian Nikud actually reflect the Tiberian pronunciation—which is presumably something like Mishnaic Hebrew, a thousand years after Joshua settled in the land of Israel. As to how those who wrote the Torah spoke, we know there are variations in spelling that probably reflect changes in Hebrew language, with different layers from different eras. So how it all was originally pronounced—God knows :)

Here we have the types of patterns:
a yud before a nuhn that make the subsequent shva a shvah-na

and

a yud before a sinn, shinn, that make does not make the shva a shvah-na

Here, lets add to our assumptions.

guys, Lets make some order here.
On the net there are plenty og forums discosing hebrew grammer.
typophile is not one of them.
typophile is a place to talk about font design, font development and open type solutions.

Who ever dealt with volt for real complex functions learns real fast that volt is a powerfull tool but not without it's limits.
there is just so much you can do with Volt.
more so, Volt has a limit of the amount of lookups and context that when exceeded it simply won't compile.
furthur more, the fact that some function works correctly in the volt proofing tool does not mean it will work in indesign.
different versions of indesign behave differntly
in indesign CS4 they changed the way they deal with right2left and left2right characters.

when one (in this case gohebrew) wants to develop a project that will deal with sheva na\nach ect' he must first know what can be done and what cant be done. what is important and what's not, what should the project solve and what to leave for the user to decide.

I am saying again and again "forget all of the Shitot".
some of the arguments are about the grammer rules other arguments are about specific words.

acourding to some opinions there are also a PATAH GADOL, HIRIQ GADOL and TSERE QATAN.
I ignore all that.

then you have different opinions what is a TENUA GEDOLA and what is a TENUA KETANA
acourding to my project
Qamats, Tsere, holam are TENUOT GEDOLOT
Hiriq, segol, Patah, Shuruq are TENUOT KETANOT
Melupum if its the first letter in a word its a TENUA KETANA and if in the middle of the word the its a TENUA GEDOLA.

Some wont agree on that 100%
Some say that a sheva after a meteg is allways a sheva na, my project does not behave that way.

I do take into consideration a meteg when trying to decide if the qamats is qatan and the sheva is nach or if the qamats is gadol and the sheva is na.

There are differnt issues that people argue about but alot of them in VOLT terms are insignificant.

So not every differance of opinion should be taken into consideration.

Gohebrew, you say its all in the nikud, I disagree.
Alot can be decided acourding to the nikud but to say that its all in the nikkud is incorrect.
some things are to do with the teamim which indicates some things.
some things are simply masoret.

some time things change if the word is BESMICHUT and some times where is the word in the sentence.
in a lot of cases you cant do a sheva na\nach without reconing if a qamats is qatan or Gadol (RAHAV)
and the qamats qatan issue is a whol thing by it self.
even if you do say that it is all in the nikud, you have to check some issues back and forth again and again until its refined, any change you make can effect the behavior somwhere else.
so hierarchy is very important

Personaly, if i want to talk hebrew grammer in general, i have better places to do so.
if you want to talk in VOLT terms, that is somthing else.

Gohebrew

שאל אביך ויגדך
ותגלנה בנות ציון

here are 2 samples where after a tnua gedola the sheva is nach and not na.
the word לילה, why is the sheva nach??? or the word המותה.

So you would say that there are YOTSE MIN HAKLAL. Or yo will realize that at some cases the teamim make the differance

Gohebrew, just by having printed text is not enough to studie the issue
you have to learn the grammer, trying to learn this by common denominators won't work.

some distinuish between a hiriq gadol and hiriq qatan, others say a hiriq is allways qatan meaning a hiriq is allways a tnua qetana.

if you wish to discose these matters, subscribe your self on PROG
www.prog.co.il

they have a DIKDUKE forume there with some guys who realy know their stuff and would be more than happy to ansawr all of youer questions about hebrew grammer.

R Shmuel riarchi is another jew i would sugjest you to talk with, he printed TANACH SIMANIM and has much to say about this particular issue.

If you realy want to extend, talk to some yemen medakdekim, they have their own masora.

Eli:

>>> Gohebrew, you say its all in the nikud, I disagree.

I did not say this.

At the end of our long conversation, he stressed that nikkud played a gigantic role in context-based shvah-na results. He said that phrase, "Everything's in the nikkud".

I don't think that he meant 'everything' literally, as I showed by the shvah following the chirik. But will be ever find a 'shvah following the chirik' where the chirik is under the nuhn, and the shvah does not become a shvah-nah?

eli,

>> typophile is a place to talk about font design, font development and open type solutions.

I agree with you in general.

Talmudic sages predict: החכם רואה את הנולד, a wise person sees the outcome.

This discussion is not to clarify Hebrew grammar, but to use OpenType via Volt with GPOS in an innovative manner, to address certain Hebrew grammar issues in an unconventional way, namely contextual.

A hiriq is a TENUA KETANA, the following sheva should be Nach.
If you follow the shita that there is a hiriq qatan and hiriq gadol then after a hiriq gadol you would get a sheva na, but go figur it out.

"This discussion is not to clarify Hebrew grammar, but to use OpenType via Volt with GPOS in an innovative manner, to address certain Hebrew grammar issues in an unconventional way, namely contextual"

I would agree with you if you talked in volt terminalogy, but you are not.
as i said before, researching the hebrew grammer, there are forums like on PROG Or TAPUZ

Eli,

>> A hiriq is a TENUA KETANA, the following sheva should be Nach.
If you follow the shita that there is a hiriq qatan and hiriq gadol then after a hiriq gadol you would get a sheva na, but go figur it out.

So, you are saying that normally, a chirik is a tunua ketana, or a chirik ketan.

But here under the nuhn, the chirik is a tenua gedola, or a chirik gadol. Why? Because the chirik gadol is under the nuhn, or at the beginning of the word, or both.

>> I would agree with you if you talked in volt terminalogy, but you are not.
as i said before, researching the hebrew grammer, there are forums like on PROG Or TAPUZ

Can you give me the links?

www.prog.co.il

for others, google it

i am not saying that normaly a hiriq is a tenua ketana, a hiriq is allways a tnua ketana in modern hebrew, i am just saying that there are diffirent SHITOT about which nikudim are tnuot ketanot and wich are gedolot and not every one agrees on this.
to some shitot you can hav a hiriq qatan or hiriq gadol a tsere qatan and tsere gadol.

but again, go figure it out

What are the differences between Hebrew grammar versus moder Hebrew?

When I was a teen living in Israel, I was told that there was only a difference in Hebrew vocabulary. And that Eliezer Ben Yehuda made a new up-to-date lexicon, as we live in modern times, and need to use words for modern objects, which did not exist long ago.

Bill, you suggested that there are differences of pronunciation. Are you merely referring to Sephardic versus Ashkenazic?

Eli, you seemed to say that these differences are in Hebrew grammar as well.

>differences of pronunciation

There are different issues here.

1. Traditions of different communities. As is well known, different communities, such as Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Yemeni, Iraqi, etc. had different pronunciations of Hebrew by the time of the modern settlement of Israel by Jews. Scholars have discussed which of these most reflects ancient pronunciation. There is an Encyclopedia Judaica article on this. Eg. the ayin is pronounced "ng", there are distinctions between the tav and daled with and without dagesh, etc. I don't think a single scholar believes that either Ashkenazi pronunciation, such as the Chassidim use, or modern Israeli, accurately reflect ancient pronunciation.

2. The differences between pronunciation by the "rules" of grammar vs spoken Hebrew, now and in the past. William Chomsky's argument in the "Shewa" article was that some of the "rules" deriving from Rabbi David Kimhi, and now enshrined, are in error, as they probably never were followed, and not today. These rules affect pronunciation, so that some of the supposed rules of "holy" and correct pronunciations in fact are just blunders. For example, as I understand it, the "rule" is that a shva under the first letter is always pronounced—a mistake in Chomsky's view. Chomsky says that both Ashkenazi and Sephardic speakers in the 20th century did not pronounce the shva under the first letter, except in specific categories of letters: the "liquid consonants", prepositional first letters, and the conjunctive vav. Nor do Israelis today. So, for example, in the words k'tana and g'dola (feminine for small and big) there is no pronunciation of the shva. Nor is there in the word sh'va itself.

Israel,

Re: Tenua gedola, short, nun, vav, shin.... etc. etc.

This is not a matter of 'patterns', but a matter of knowing Hebrew grammar and how to add the nikkud. This has nothing to do with different points of views.

The word ישראל is divided into syllables. How many syllables? The same as the number of its vowels. In this case יש/ר/אל
The first syllable is closed and unstressed -- and will get a short vowel, hiriq.
The second syllable is open -- and will get a long vowel, kamats.
The third syllable is closed and stressed -- and will get a long vowel, tsere.
How do we know if it is kamats and not a patach, tsere and not a segol? You need to know and understand, among other things, how the Vowel diagram works (e.g. see the IPA vowel diagram).

Here is another example: נ�צּ�ל�ה
This word has two meanings, the same root (נ.צ.ל) and in both cases the tense is past. But If it is used in the context: the girl was saved by the doctor... by the fireman, etc. etc. then the binyan/conjugation is Nifal.
This binyan is identified by a prefix n/ni. The dagesh is hazak. Its aim is to compensate for the lost letter. That is why this dagesh is also known as Mashlim.
Since the word already has the letter nun נצל and adding the prefix n/ni will create this: נִנְצְל�ה, we drop one nun and add dagesh: נ�צּ�ל�ה.
If the word is used in the context: she took the opportunity to.... then the binyan/conjugation is Piel. This binyan is identified (again don't forget that we are talking about past tense!) by the hiriq (ayin hapoal, עי"ן הפועל ), and dagesh hazak (pe hapoal, פ' הפועל ) in any form. That said the hiriq & the dagesh are part of the binyan! In this regard, one time you'll have a word that starts with the letter nun, and another time a different letter.

The word שִימִי, as you can see, has a hiriq and a yud; this hiriq is gadol, a long vowel. In this word נ�צּ�ל�ה there's no letter yud; this hiriq is katan, a short vowel.

Are we clear about "101 Hebrew Grammar"?

1. Norzi, Minchat Shay: Norzi was not a grammarian in the full sense of the word, rather a Masorah researcher. In his own words:

Since he saw printed text with errors his goal was to provide a reliable source. In this regard his was work valuable!!!. Norzi didn't develop any grammar specific rules, nor any rules that related to the ta'amim. Also his Ma'amar ha-Ma'arich is more articulation rather than writing rules from scratch.
What are those rules that were "formed" by Norzi? There must be something if you're designing a font based on those rules.

2. Traditions: It is no secret that none of traditions are homogeneous. Each of them has a sub-category/tradition. For now, I'll mention a couple of them.
The Yemenite tradition accepted the Tiberian tradition who pushed away the Babylonian tradition. They accepted the Tiberian rules when reading the Bible, but not in other fields.
If you own their Babylonian Talmud you'll see something interesting:
(A) Segol: the vowel segol is not printed at all. They don't use it. It is not printed! Instead they use a patach. Why? Because they pronounce the segol and patach the same!
(B) Hataf: the same applies to the hataf (e.g. hataf-patach). They don't use it. It is not printed. Why? Because they pronounce it like sheva na!
(C) Sheva Nach: the sheva nach is not printed at all! In their real tradition the sheva nach doesn't exist.
Moreover, their rules of beged kefet while reading the Bible are not the same when reading the Talmud. They are different.
But wait. Their reading tradition of the Aramaic of the Targum is not like their Babylonian Aramaic.
Now this is not just about the number of words, but knowing and understanding the differences that exist. Otherwise how could a person give a solution without knowing the "problems".

It is also not a secret that the Targum, or Onkelus, has different MSS. What do the printed texts look like? Let's just view several of them:

Other traditions are not so different, for example, Jews from Tunis (and again I'm not getting into specific areas , towns, etc. etc. as differences are existing).
When they read the Bible, for example, they adopted the rules of Eliyahu Bachur.
But what is interesting is that they don't use the third rule: sheva na after a long vowel. In other words they don't read this sheva as na!
More interesting is the fact that when they read a word from the Bible e.g. קרבן
with "o" sound , or kamats katan; however, they read it as "a" sound, just kamats , when they read the Mishna ( e.g. סוכה ה, ז; תר' ח, א; מ"ש ד, י)

And this is not even showing the tip of the iceberg. Would you mind teaching me the logic behind finding a solution first, and later looking for the "problems"? How does it work?

3. Meteg: in the siddurim the Biblical meteg does not exist unless, of course, you cite a verse, or half a chapter, or the whole chapter with all and the same ta'amim and nikkud.
That "meteg" should be called SM -- Stress Mark, or MM -- Milel/Milra Mark (whatever the intention of the publisher).
What should we (or your font) teach about that "meteg"?
Very few will notice that a couple editions of the Bible have two graphic marks for the Biblical meteg/ga'ya. One that is longer than the other, or one that is shorter than the other.
Should we add that to the Unicode?
In terms of grammar there are 10 different kinds of Biblical meteg. They could be divided into 2 main groups, with five in each group: the must or have to group is based on the Masorah; the second group is the reshot, or non-obliged, where the Masorah gave a free hand to the scribe, and hence the many differences that exist between MSS.
Now, which meteg should the font try to "teach"? Should we add that to the Unicode, ten differents kinds of vertical lines? It is important like the dagesh & sheva.

Would it be wiser and easier first to familiarize yourself with the subject based on true investigation, understanding your subject(s), limitation, and then working with a specific client/publisher/editor on a specific solution/project?

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

Bill,

What does English Transliteration have to do with Hebrew, Modern Hebrew, or Spoken Hebrew???
We could find sewa, seva, schwa, shva, sheva etc etc.

David hamuel: all my blobber through out these threds, you nicly summorized in one single thread.

Thanx

David,

This was a great lesson. Also, thanx.

Eli, I thought it was my blabberring. Yours was only virtual.

I rethought Prof. D. and Rabbi R.'s remarks, and propose that if we transpose all Hebrew grammar rules into different graphic symbols, where a dagesh chazak or dagesh kal, are two different symbols or codes, and same for patachs x 2 = 2 different codes etc., then create GSUB rules, every shvah-na can be accurately replaced, and perhaps others as well.

This is major endeavor, and would require a grant of sorts.

Eli, is this what you did?

I would prefer to reinvent the wheel, because I see the logic of these GSUBs could definately have commercial applications in security-sensitive fonts for security-sensitive environments, and I doubt that you would release your source code.

I agree that the 3 views come after everything, for they simply differ on how the rules are applied.

Clearly, my major hurdle is finding out in English a systematic definition of all the rules. I need a compact portable David, ie David in an iPod :) - perhaps, it's Chomsky's book on the Radak (RAbbi DAvid Kimchi zatzal) - although it was so poorly written.

First GSUBs: replace all nikkud and dagesh with two different codes, referring to GyphGroups - all vowels
Then 2nd group of GSUB: applying different Hebrew grammar rules, and replacing those strings with new strings which insert shvah-nas

Everything is in the nikkud: P. Dotan meant that the two forms of dagesh are also nikkudot (it's a dot, not a dim, Eli, right?).

Is it soup, yet?

I think it would make a great looking font.

All nikkud and dagesh have 3 similar graphic forms:

regular - as is
kal - hollow
chazal - outlined

Raphael, whaddya thnk? Very intuitive.

Congratulations Gohebrew, you are finaly starting to talk my language.
So now its to to Talk in Volt Terms.

I am going to open a new thread anf try keeping it around Fontlab And Volt.

Why not Fontographer?

Has anyone used Fontographer and gone there to Volt skipping FontLab?

I tried once and it generated an arror.

John H., what am doing wrong? Did Pyrus put a bug in to keep us using FontLab?

I uses FL5 & FG5 (the new vertion, its great fore some stuff)
Personaly i use Mainly Fontlab.

But that dos't matter.
Gohebrew: I'v creadet a new topic, you will see eventualy

So, your Fontographer .ttf worked in Volt?

>What does English Transliteration have to do with Hebrew, Modern Hebrew, or Spoken Hebrew??? We could find sewa, seva, schwa, shva, sheva etc etc.

It depends on your philosophy of transliteration. If you decide that the transliteration should reflect the correct Hebrew pronunciation of the word, then the transliteration will reflect the difference between the shva na and shva nach. Then issues of Hebrew, modern Hebrew, spoken Hebrew will affect decisions on transliteration.

For example in my newly published commentary on Pirke Avot I had to decide on how to transliterate the names of the Tannaim, for which there is no single standard transliteration. So for example אֶלְעָזָר I transliterate as Elazar, rather than as Eleazar. The latter is used more traditionally, and by the Encyclopedia Judaica. But it is confusing to English speakers, as the second "e" transliterates a shva nach, which is silent. And English speakers will first think of pronouncing the combination "ea" as the "ea" in "eat", which is totally misleading. So I transliterate as Elazar. I notice that the new Koren Siddur has made the same choice as I have, transliterating closer to spoken Hebrew.

These are non-issues for Hebrew speakers and readers, but for materials for English speakers they do make a difference.

Eli, Israel

You're welcome. I missed couple things (I'll add them later on)

Bill,

So do you have a chart of transliteration, telling the readers about your method?

> transliterating closer to spoken Hebrew.

Did you follow the Hebrew Academy?

OY VAY, the Hebrew Academy.
i heared they wanted to cancal the qmats and tsere alltugehter.

> I need a compact portable David, ie David in an iPod :)

Israel,

I'm working on iDavidHamuel

> i heared they wanted to cancal...

Eli,

Yes, there was an idea to cancel, but I don't know if this is a good idea.

David, what I say is "The Sages' names are pronounced following their pronunciation in Modern Hebrew, except for those with Greek names." And I use the underdot h for chet, kh for khaf.

As far as Hebrew pronunciation, it's just what my Hebrew teacher taught me, a very simple version. I don't think that there's anything complicated about the Sages' names, but I may be wrong. I don't claim to have a system of transliteration that is a model. That it's very close to what the Koren Siddur has done is reassuring.