Eli, to create a Hebrew grammar font, to use later in Volt, I would create a set of 22 extra glyphs. There are ten nikkud, and a dagesh.

So, if add two more for every one that is there now, 11 + 22 = 33.

They do not need Unicode values. Rather, they can simply be alternative glyphs for each nikkud Unicode value, and the dagesh Unicode value.

If they are placed in the FontLab file in the existing place of a font imported into Volt, adjustments to the total number of glyphs need not be made to the project in Volt, or to the FontLab file.

If they are placed in the FontLab file in the new locations of a font not yet imported into Volt, adjustments to the total number of glyphs need to be made to the project in Volt, and to the FontLab file.

I suggest that the new graphic forms of the nikkud and dagesh symbols be intuitive. Their new form should be similar to their old forms. A kal version should be simply a hollowed version of the nikkud and dagesh; a chazak version should be simply an outlined version of the nikkud and dagesh.

In the case of the already familiar kamatz katan, it should remain the same in its Unicode value location, but have the above appearance in the other locations in the font.

Similarly, I created and placed in my fonts, graphic symbols for the shvah-na: a small floating asterisk used by Lubavitch/Kehos; a small floating rafe-like used by ArtScroll and others; I added the enboldened shva, used by many Sephardim; and the circled asterisk, used by Shai LiMorah publishers.

But this is only for publishing purposes. But the shvah-na should have the above cited appearance in the other locations in the font.

I believe we do not need to create anything more in the FontLab files.

Generate a .ttf font, to use and edit in Volt.

I don't fully understand, can you show me a sample od your added glyphes??

I have 2 main reasons not to use indication of sheva over the letter.

1. Not a native symbol (people reconize the rafe for other use).
2. with taamy mikra it makes things much more complicated.

A glyph replacing the already type sheva i thing is a better approach.

1. Are you gowing to do automatic Dagesh kal and Hazaq ???
1. are you going to do automatic qamats qatan???

I will post the 22 added glyphs soon.

In the shvah-nach and shvah-na will appear as a regular shvah. Each however will be hollowed for shvah-na, or outlined for shah-nach.

The other graphic symbols are only for printing purposes, as these publishers, Kehot, ArtScroll, Shai L'Morah, and others, are used to seeing these images. However, for Hebrew grammar purposes, the other images are to be used.

About automating text with taamei mikra, this is addressed alreay in the furtive patach.

About automating everything, the answer is yes.

At first everything. Later, some fonts will have them not automated by simply creating subsets of the Volt program.

do you have your 22 glyphes allready designed, or you are about to design them???

Samples

the black sample will work
The third can work
but the second one is problematic in print

The original Nikkud design for the Hadasa/Henri/Friedlander font was created by John Hudson - as you see, the Hebrew grammar graphic symbols are adaptations of the originals.

I think that the middle graphic symbols need the white space between the nikkud and the out line to be increased, in order to be legible at smaller sizes.

On That i agree.
I did't see the graphics dor dagesh kal and hazaq

Eli, if the space is increased, and center part decreased, I think it should work.

For the hollow forms, I created them in Fontographer very easily, by going to the fourth Element menu from the left, to the fourth entry, Selection Info, and selecting Contour and Fill Properties, and turning off Fill, and clicking Stroke Outline with a 2 setting for the ems.

I could create them as filled outlines by redrawing them.

For the outlined forms, I simply copy and pasted them upon themselves. Then, I picked the Element menu again, and the ninth entry Expand Stroke, and set the Pen Width to 40. Perhaps, it should be 60 or even higher.

Dagesh kal and hazaq would be similar. Look at the English symbol's chart. It would be the same thing but smaller.

Doo we have the meteg's rules defined in Chomsky's book, Bill?

Lesson One
=======

First, each nikkud and dagesh must be defined as a Glyph Group by itself.

Second, each kal etc. nikkud and dagesh must be defined as a Glyph Group by itself, and each chazak etc. nikkud and dagesh must be defined as a Glyph Group by itself.

Another dagesh symbol is required to represent a mappik. I suggest this is a dagesh outlined with two circles. It must be defined as a Glyph Group by itself, too.

Volt processes earlier GPOS look-ups, and afterwards Volt processes later GPOS look-ups. So, the sequence or order of the GPOS look-ups is important. The order of the Glyph Groups is not important.

You should call me for clearifyng some issues;
But I donw' see the logice in your grouping;

your basic groups should be

Excuse me, Eli, for not calling. I've been more out than in today.

Yes, the Glyph Group definitions are incorrect.

I can not address this now, as I will be busy for the next few weeks.

Ok, So lets start from the begining.
what are the ingredients that we will need at the font level?
Israel, You are talking about 3 sets od glyphes
1. the normal sheva,qamats,dagesh.
2. shva-nach,qamats qatan, dagesh kal
3. sheva na, qamats qatan, dagesh hazak.

We will need more than that.
first, a hataf qamats is always qatan, so we need another hatafqamats qatan.
second, in general the shevas of the hatafim are NA, so we need another set of hatafim that have sheva na'a attachet to them.

Now will need another set of this glyphes
Sheva NACH, Sheva-NA, Qamats, Qamats Qatan, Dagesh Kal and Dagesh Hazaq
This set of glyphes we need for later use in volt not as mark glyphs but SIMPLE or BASE GLYPHES.

The reason for this is, because i can't sub a mark with mark (shva nach to Na) with PROCESS MARKS = NONE
In cases i want to check words without mark sequence in the context section.
So First i sub the diacritics to their equivlent BASE GLYPHES then in the next lookup I sub the shva na to nach as base glypes
and finally switch them back NA-BASE to NA-MARK and NACH-BASE to NACH-MARK

Until here is every thing clear???

> We will need more than that.
first, a hataf qamats is always qatan, so we need another hatafqamats qatan.

Shai L'Morah publishers of Jerusalem (Rabbi Yehuda Winefeld Shlita) already documented this in the entire Tanach etc. according to the Minchat Shai.

Prof. Dotan was surprised, as he never saw this distinction before. Do all views accept this, David?

> second, in general the shevas of the hatafim are NA, so we need another set of hatafim that have sheva na'a attachet to them.

Eli, what are hatifim?

Now why is this important????
building a project like this will take you to the limits of VOLT's Code block.
it is very important to know how to optimize your project with the least amounts of anchers, kerns, lookups and lines of context.

most projects in other languages can be a bit dirty, they may become complex but do not reach volts limits (not realy Volt's foult but OT)

specially when using context as dictionary.

Word that are built around PAALA פעלה, have a pattern of
qamatsshevaqamats+he
in these cases you will never know if the qamats is qatan and the sheva is nach, or the qamats is gadol and the sheva is na.
unless i have a mapik at the last He or BACHLAM Letters before but plain you can never know.

So.....
We build a dictionary for known cases
Chochma
Orma
Hogla
hozka

and so on and so on.
doing this with PROCESS MARKS=ALL will jam the intier project

> Now will need another set of this glyphes
Sheva NACH, Sheva-NA, Qamats, Qamats Qatan, Dagesh Kal and Dagesh Hazaq
This set of glyphes we need for later use in volt not as mark glyphs but SIMPLE or BASE GLYPHES.

I think they should be standard in Unicode. If they are there, all Jewish publishers will use them in their prayerbooks and Hebrew language primers, plus the Orthodox publishers will start featuring them in their books of Psalms and Pirkei Avot etc., and the secular publishers will feature them in their books of poetry.

HATAF QAMATS, HATAF PATAH, HATAF SEGOL
(caps lock on >> SHFT 1,2,3)

> Now why is this important????
building a project like this will take you to the limits of VOLT's Code block.

In discussing this with John Hedson, I don't think so.

Raphael's experience was because of poorly written code.

What we speaking about: a dozen or two extra glyphs - the same in GPOS look-ups?

If the code is written well and tight, there should be no problem.

Israel, you don't think so???? you make me laugh!!!! you have no idea what we are talking about... do you????

We are talking about hundrets of lookups & thousands of lines of context!!!!

Well, try checking all the cases with PROCESS MARKS=ALL
meaning you have to check each word with all of the conditions of NIKKUD + TAAMIM And also Dageshim in the middle and on shin the also shindot or sindot.

Israel, trust me your project wont compile before you know it.
oh, And israel... how do you know if the code of Ariye Marzel was clean or dirty???
do you have any idea of the requirements and demands of this particular project????

It makes no difference if you spoke with hudson or not, if you'r not clear on what you'r doing and how, trust me, your project will fail to compile.

Now lets talk abut DAGESHIM.
There are two ways to go about it.
1. using a preset of dagesh kal and a preset of dagesh hazak which ar positioned at the font level.
2. positioning Dagesh kal and Hazaq with volt.

Approach 2 was my approach, because this way the user has full control over the posioning via Indesigns Diacritic Postioning.
But this approach will damnd much more code at the VOLT level.
It also allows me to use a Dagesh hazaq axactly the same as the normal dagesh, for those who don't want the dagesh distinguish but do want the sheva na and qamats qatan
but i still need to know what is dagesh kal and what is hazaq...

using approach 1, might be better for you. it makes coding life much simpler healtier and happier.

After we make this desitions will talk further.

I am clear very much. I am listening very carefully to you and David, more than you think.

I know that Volt can handle this complex a tast, as I ran it through more complex "programs". Processing time is longer to handle very tenious look-ups. Who cares? It's a couple extra seconds on a slow laptop.

> We are talking about hundrets of lookups & thousands of lines of context!!!!

I know. A mean less than two dozen more.

If the 'program' is only nikkud etc and not taamei mikra, it's very short. Can it run with the taamei mikra too?

Israel, Its not a matter of computer resources, it's a matter of OT's phisical limitation of code block.

VOLT will give you an unknown compilation error.
as long Volt compiles the project, do as many of lookups you want.

my project supports perfect placment nikud and taamim and abjustments when needed.
(I test the font on the intier TANACH fo DIBUKIM) + all the sheva na-nach functions.
If you wish to know more about my project
here is a link to the tutorial movie of the fonts functions

http://vimeo.com/3945578

> Now lets talk abut

We need 3 sets of nikkud and dagesh. The two are alternate versions of one.

One OT font via GSUB substitutes or exchanges the basic set of nikkud and dagest into the two alternative sets, either the second or the third.

Except as you did, all shvah-nas are used only to replace the standard shvah.

Then through later GSUB again, but afterwards, the shvah-nas are replaced selectively with shvah-nachs.

Not many GSUBs, I think two or three, and a few Glyph Groups.

I need to know what causes the kal or chazak state of the dageshes and each nikkud.

> Israel, Its not a matter of computer resources, it's a matter of OT's phisical limitation of code block.

John said that there is no upwards limit.

so he says, if i add 3 more lines of context, my project will not compile, no matter what context i put in. i hav to give up one function for another to work.

Ask Ariye Marzel and see what he has to say about it...
the fact that jhon hudson never had problems compiling his projects, does not mean that there are no limits to OT lookups.

I built the project twice, the first time i learned volts limits, the built it again working around these limitations.

so....
you can either learn from my experiance or try it out your self.

ישר כחך על סרטך

From a design point of view, I liked very much one of the early fonts you designed, which had many qualities similar to Friendlaender's Hadasa.

> Prof. Dotan was surprised, as he never saw this distinction before.
> Do all views accept this, David?

Israel,

Accept what -- the distinction (graphic distinction?) ?

I toled him earlier in this discution that all HATAF-QAMATS are allways Qatan, so Israel ansawred that Prof.Dotan never heared of such thing, so he is asking your opinion if all HATAF-QAMATS are really Qatan.

Now lets examin some of the basic rules of sheva na and nach.
A sheva na continues a sound and a sheva nach stops the sound.

1. A sheva under the first letter of a word will allways be NA
This sheva is instead of Segol so it sounds Like E
also logical it would be imposible to stop a sound right at the begining of a word.

2. A sheva under a letter with a dagesh (any dagesh) Will be a sheva na.

3. Two letters rhe same like bet bet or lamed lamed the sheva under the first letter of the same will be a NA.

4. two shevas one after the other the first will be nach, the second na.
But if the two shevas are at the last two letters of the word then they both are NACH.

5. A sheva after a Tenua Qetana Is NACH after Tenua Gedola Is NA.
here is where we have to know if a qamats is tnua gedola or qetana or in other words Qamats rachav Or Qamats Qatan.

here mainly is where a Meteg comes in misuse.
Text use a meteg instead of a mafsiq so meteg is used also for this and also for mileeil and milera.
A qamats with a meteg should be rahav and the coming sheva a NA
with out a meteg the qamats is qatan and the following sheva is nach.
but this is not a ruling rule.

all this about the qamats qatan is very much in general
we will examin qamats qatan more in depth later

there are more rules with taamim
like uf i have a sheva with a taam maamid so even if before i have a tenua gedola the sheva is nach.

whan i say misuse of meteg i mean this
There is a taam called SOF PASUK, there is no Sof pasuk in unicode only meteg.
this meteg is used also in text with nikud and withaout taamim.
the use of the meteg is generaly used For grammer, for mileail and milera and for taamim also not only sof pasuk, shmuel riarchi uses it in is own ways.

but lets just say that the main use of meteg is for grammer.

Now here is what i am saying why you can't have the font insert metagim in text automaticly.
in alot of cases i am depending on metagim to distinguish between qamats gadol and sheva na & qamats qatan and sheva nach.

So as i said before, forget automatic insertion of metagim in text, and dageshim in BEGED KEFET for that matter. anyways a font should not insert unexisting charachters.

Oh, BTW, regarding meteg.
in my font i allow a hidden meteg by pressing SHFT+7 (&) to have cases functioning as if there was a meteg but hidden (just a 0 spaced character like Null)

gohebrew: sorry but you are wrong. There was nothing wrong with the code. It is a known (by Microsoft) limitation in VOLT. You just can't compile it. There is no plans to make it possible to do.

Please don't blame bad programming.

Raphael,

2 experts in Volt say the opposite.
You claim not true, based upon an unreferenced Microsoft document. Please cite it.

My own experience confirms the former opinions. Length is not the cause of errors; poor written code is.

Your claim is like my suggestion that a document shows Koren was more than inspired when he made his famous design. You did not accept it on hearsay, but wanted to see tangible proof.

Please bring tangible proof.

===

What is your view about the new graphic forms for Hebrew grammar symbols?

Solid or filled-in forms for standard or existing forms of nikkud and dagesh
Hollow or unfilled forms for kal, or katan forms of nikkud and dagesh
Outlined with filled-in forms for chazak or gadol forms of nikkud and dagesh

Eli,

Prof. Dotan viewed Rabbi Winefeld of Shai L'Morah publisher's symbol for hataf-kamatz-katan, and remarked: "What's this?"

It was as if he agreed with you.

Apparently, Rabbi Winefeld sees a distinction that some hataf-kamatzes are like kamatz-katan, and some are not.

> 2. A sheva under a letter with a dagesh (any dagesh) Will be a sheva na.

This is a practical rule. A simple GPOS to write.

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

> 3. Two letters rhe same like bet bet or lamed lamed the sheva under the first letter of the same will be a NA.

ibid

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

> 5. A sheva after a Tenua Qetana Is NACH after Tenua Gedola Is NA.
here is where we have to know if a qamats is tnua gedola or qetana or in other words Qamats rachav Or Qamats Qatan.

SO, EVERY SHVAH AFTER A KAMATZ IS EITHER NA OR NACH, IF THE KAMATZ BEFORE IS EITHER Qamats rachav Or Qamats Qatan.

How do we now if it's either a Qamats rachav Or Qamats Qatan? If that kamatz is either a Tenua Qetana or a Tenua Gedola.

If Tenua Qetana, then it's a kamatz rachav, and the subsequent shvah is na,

or if Tenua Qetana, then it's a kamatz katan, and the subsequent shvah is nach.

Right?

First, I must digest this.

AFTERWARDS, I'LL GET INTO METEG.

AT STAGE ONE I WASN'T GONNA DO THE METEG.

Qamats qatan = Tenua Qetana the following sheva is nach.
Qamats Gadol = Tenua Gedola The following Sheva Id NA
So I need to write here alot about qamats qatan in depth.

for now i am waiting for questions you ,ight have or unclear issues u want clearfication
after i fill that we are on solid ground, W'll continue on.

re coding: I'm not sure how I can prove anything.

I'll tell you what. You go ahead and try and do it. If you succeed let me know and I'll say bad programming, if you fail, then you'll know. But the only two people in the world (to the best of my knowledge) that has tried to do it, haven't managed 100%. Now, it depends on the font. It would work with Hadasa because the font is very wide and there will be very few collisions, but with a font with very narrow widths, it's harder due to the sheer number of substitutions.

Regarding your ideas for hollow or outline nikud. I personally don't like this approach for 3 reasons:

Raphael,

My goal is to create a 2 different Hebrew grammar 'program's in Volt.

The 'program's are identical to each other, except thar one 'program' includes only GSUB look-ups which mark the shvah-na, and the kamatz-katan. This a general purpose 'program'; the results are Volt-generated fonts, in any design, intended to be used commercially by anyone; only the shvah-na, and the kamatz-katan, are displayed, and printed.

The second 'program' includes GSUB look-ups which mark every nikkud and dagesh. This NOT a general purpose 'program'; the results are Volt-generated fonts, in only certain designs, intended to be used educationally by achools (and perhaps publishers of educational books); every nikkud and dagesh, are displayed, and printed.

===

You write that there are two opposing factors why this may not work:

1. There are a large number of look-ups which will 'crash' the computer, as every nikkud and dagesh must be compiled for substitutions.

2. Except for Hadasa, Hebrew letters are too narrow to avoid collisions.

Which it?

It seems that these are two separate issues.

The latter factor seems to an issue which can be addesed in planned out design. Hence, it is not an issue.

The former factor is not substantiated by you, as you can not cite this MicroSoft document. Furthermore, my two Volt experts suggest that there is no upward limit to processing a Volt font in InDesign CS/x ME.

Now, you say, "let us see".

===

>> Regarding your ideas for hollow or outline nikud. I personally don't like this approach for 4 reasons:

1) it's not used in any other typeface
2) it will be impossible to print
3) it's not intuitive as to what on earth it means
4) It could be useful in a book on Hebrew grammar with the specific words printed at 24pt, but for general purpose use, I'm not even sure the point of it.

===

> 1) it's not used in any other typeface

This is why exactly that I am not introducing any new design. A hollow or not filled-in letter is the same design that a person is used to see. But now, it is merely hollow or not filled in.

> 2) it will be impossible to print

At small types, like 12 pt and below, this is true for desktop printers. At larger sizes, like 14 pt and larger, this is possible. Try and see for yourself. Highlight some text in InDesign, and apply the Swatches to it in white (paper) near the top of its pop-up window. Then, go to swatches and select the text outline, apply the .5 or .75 pt.. Then, go back to Swatches, and apply black to the text outline. Now print and see.

> 3) it's not intuitive as to what on earth it means

I disagree. Let us not argue just for argument's sake.

The design is exactly the same, but hollows for pronouncing or intending differently, or outlined for pronouncing or intending differently.

> 4) It could be useful in a book on Hebrew grammar with the specific words printed at 24pt, but for general purpose use, I'm not even sure the point of it.

The Volt fonts intended for ue by everyone are not radically new. The shvah-na and kamatz-katan have been printed in books for over a 100 years, and used by anyone who prays during that time with those books.

There are over 100,000 religious children today who pray daily. Most don't have an inkling how to pronounce differently a shvah-nach and a shvah-na. Isn't it time for something to be done?

> There are over 100,000 religious children today who pray daily. Most don't have
> an inkling how to pronounce...

Israel,

What is the right pronunciation -- the name of God אֱלוֹהַּ ?

E-l lo ah
or
E-l lo ha - with emphasis on the last syllable, if the dagesh creates an indirect pronoun, as in "his G-d" (if the reference is to the Creator, or to any false god, then it would be "his god"

I never understood the first possibility, since John taught me about the furtive patach.

I think that I am a fine example of an am-haretz, no?

I see this thread is Leading somwhere else,
not my road

Ey TAXI, TAXI, Pssssssssssssssssst Pssssssssssssst

read:

E-l lo akh
or
E-l lo ha - with emphasis on the last syllable, if the dagesh creates an indirect pronoun, as in "his G-d" (if the reference is to the Creator, or to any false god, then it would be "his god"

I never understood the first possibility, since John taught me about the furtive patach.

I think that I am a fine example of an am-haretz, no?

Eli, you valued Rephoel's views on the new graphic symbols.

I would have Scott-Martin Kesofsky or Ari Davidow, with due respect to Rephael; they're just greater.

David must think I'm a religious child. :)

Eli, you said there were functions attributed to meteg which were not referring to the pure use of a meteg, as Unicode created a single meteg code, but it is used for other things and are attributed to meteg. Hence, you recommend that II should ignore using meteg altogether in the Automatic Hebrew Grammar Fonts.

this is what a was telling you all the way from the begining, also in different threads.
"FORGET Automatic Insertion OF METEGS in the font. it can't be done."

gohebrew: you implicitly asked my opinion on hollow letters. That is my opinion. You disagree. That's fine. Let's agree to disagree. It doesn't invalidate your opinion, it's just different from mine.

>"E-l lo ah
>or
>E-l lo ha - with emphasis on the last syllable, if the dagesh creates an indirect pronoun,
>as in "his G-d" (if the reference is to the Creator, or to any false god, then it would
> be "his god" "

The stress is actually on the LO and it's "ah" with a pronounced "h". There are 3 situation when the patach is pronounced before the letter, chet, mapik heh and ayin. So it's poteach, tapuach, mizbeach etc. eloah, yehoshua' (since us Ashkenazim don't pronounce the ayin this is a grammatical curiousity)

> There are over 100,000 religious children today who pray daily. Most don't have
> an inkling how to pronounce...

and many religious adults too!

I'm just curious. What is the market for this? Before working for Koren I was a commercial typesetter for many Jewish publishing houses in the States. People came to me for my expertise in certain in Hebrew/English typesetting. Whereas I had many requests for h dots, requests for the kamatz katan and shva na were far less. But when they were requested never were they so esoteric and I never had requests for dagesh chazak nor for the matter mileil (which is odd in my opinion). Further, I often typeset transliterated texts which was extremely interesting because it was clear to me that the publishers' Hebrew experts who did the transliteration didn't actually read Hebrew very well.

When I did have requests, if there was an extra cost to the font development, (even to the tune of a few hundred dollars), suddenly it wasn't very necessary.

I understand your mission with these fonts. The idea is great in principle. I doubt the ability to execute this, but putting this aside, what is the commercial point?

Eli,

Your comments, from those here, those there (about the Shlomo design - which are made without a taam, and chazal say: taam v'reiach etc. - we can not debate a matter of tastes and smells), or perhaps everywhere (sic to the Beatles) are like a comander in the army.

Reason with us. Educate us.

What are the rules of a meteg? When is a meteg a pure meteg, and not just a divider. Perhaps, we need 2 or 3 glyphs for what we call generically a meteg?

But to say: "It's no good, or it can't be done", you do not say anything. Only G-d is G-d".

Rephael,

About E-l-lo-ah, kah, ack...

Please explain what this has to do with the price of tea in China?

Again, I am not a grammarian, or a grammarian's son. I am an advanced OpenType professional. Plus I wash my wife's dishes.

But I ask questions (הביישן לא ילמד, if you don't ask, you don't learn), and I don't give up (יגעת ומצאת וכו, if you try, you will succeed).

Eli, I think it is doable. Because you failed doesn't mean that it is impossible. But I need to know its rules. למדינו רבינו

Look, isreal, I did not fail, because i never bothered with it.
But lets take a try.

A meteg can be used (besides SofPasuk) For mileeail and Milera or grammer issues.
the reason i did not bother with it is because I would assume that Meteg Like Other nikud are typed.

For mileeil and milera, there are rules, but when in comes to the grammer it cant be done because it goes arround in circles.

Befor any
יך,נו,ני,יני,ינו,ים,הו the letter before allways gets a meteg.
וח,יח with a furtive patah the letter before gets a meteg
now this comes befor anything else.
unlike sheva being checked form the begining of the letter, metegs must be checked back and forth.

any segol befor a finalkaf (+qamats) the segol gets a meteg, a qamats before the finalkaf dows not get a meteg.
a sheva does not get a meteg because it acts mostly as a segol ans is sheva Na.

after a sheva nach the next letter should get a meteg.
normaly a word with 3 letters the first gets a meteg, 4 leter the second gets a meteg
not talking about the above conditions, an we also have to take in consideration Otiiot Mekashrot Like vav bet kaf lamed mem, if they exist in the letter and there are not from the root so the meteg goes one the third letter, the second not counting the Otiiot mekashrot.

Two segols one after the other the first gets a meteg (at a begining of a word).
qamats + qamats if on 3 letters the first gets meteg, if more the second gets the meteg.

these rules generaly work, some of them are absolute others are not.

then you have meteg that comes with a qamats gadol and dose not come with qamats qatan.

again, if text comes with meteg why insert them, if not then you will find your self going in circles trying to figur-out in a lot of cases if a qamats is gadol followed by a sheva NA, or maybe its a qamats Qatan followed by a Sheva Nach.

its possible also with text without teaamim and meteg to come to a high level of distinguish of qamats qatan and gadol, but all the cases Like PAALA you will never figure it out.

if you do, please let me know.

Hey, rephael, i allready hear you arguing :)

Oh, you also have to make sure the text does not have teamim because they take the place of meteg, and then you hav the issues of meteg on the EMET, like tehilim, where you hav a taam mukdam nikud and meteg.

the rule of sheva nach is only if its in the middle of the letter, but if the sheva nach is on one letter before tha last then the meteg goes one letter back.

the rule of sheva nach is only if the nach is because of a tnua ketana, not 2 shevas one after the other.

now can you makew sens of all this??? :)

Changing glyphes with typed ones is as far as i go, inserting new characters into text, i don't go there.

I can't really understand the point of doing meteg in the font anyways, if you wants to teach it, write a booke. if the font puts it in (even though i think its not very possible) then give them pre-typed text, what is the differnce if its pretyped, or the font inserts them?????

>> unlike sheva being checked form the begining of the letter, metegs must be checked back and forth.

what does it mean 'checked'?

Does the meteg have exceptions to its rules?
Are there rules to these exceptions?

no, it means that if i have that list of HATAYOT at the end of the letter, that is where the meteg goes.

if not, the all the rest start to apply

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

+++++++ = ????????

>>> if you do, please let me know.

only if you down a glass of zex an'nine-singer (96 proof alcohol) and live;
I'll down a glass too.

eli, i'm taking notes. or really you are. for later reference.

Did note understand the last comment

which?

about taam replace meteg?
[then are taggim the short-hand for taamim?]

or about the hatayot?

0r the ++++++++++?

Israel, we are chating here as if it was SKYPE. :)

Yeah, Eli, but there's a record forever. If I need to refer to your lessons next year, and you're in Hawaii, greasing your surf-board, I can just read and write code in Volt, while David just laughs.

Skype can't do that.

Eli,

>> Did note understand the last comment

Everything you said, I read carefully.

Even if my current understanding is lacking, I seek to absorb it all, and think.

Later, I reread. In the future I will understand it fully. Even now, I am thinking how best to code this in Volt.

I see it is doable, but seek to create and popularize different glyphs for the meteg.

I can do it now even without Unicode, but to create a standard and exchange data, we need Unicode values. I think they are shirking their mandate, and forget why they were created.

Unicode's mandate does not require them to take the initiative in researching and documenting all needs of all writing systems. They are an industrial standards consortium, and their mandate is to standardise character encodings. This means reviewing submitted proposals on a technical basis and either accepting, rejecting or requesting revisions to these and then, if accepted, publishing standard character properties for the proposed characters. But someone needs to make the proposals: that isn't Unicode's job.

John H.,

>> Unicode's mandate does not require them to take the initiative in researching and documenting ...

I have done the necessary researching and documenting for Hebrew. No additional researching and documenting is required to be done.

>> This means reviewing submitted proposals on a technical basis and either accepting, rejecting or requesting revisions to these and then, if accepted, publishing standard character properties for the proposed characters.

Can I see an example of an accepted proposal to model my proposal upon. Perhaps, the accepted proposal for the kamatz katan is such an example. Can this be obtained?

Eli,

Can you define for me a 'tnua ketana'?

A 'tnua ketana' is in contradistinction to a 'tnua gedola'?

Please then define a 'tnua gedola'?

Bill,

Does Prof. Chomsky's book on the Radak define these?

Are you still brogess at me, because I didn't l'dan zchus to Mr Koren or Mr Narkis. Shulchan Orech limits the application of this, like every Torah rule. It even prohibits limud zchus in some contexts, believe it or not.

If you have any questions, ask either the Mechaber Rabbi Yosef Cairo, the Mishna Brura Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan, or the baal Shulchan Orech Harav Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liady (my lansman).

Eli,

Please explain what are 'HATAYOT'?

Eli,

How many different forms of meteg are there? Please describe each one, and cite an example word.

Israel, here is a good example of a successful proposal to encode a new Hebrew character in Unicode, in this case the HOLAM HASER FOR VAV character that is used to distinguish vav haluma from holam male. Notice in the preamble to this document that this is a revised proposal: the earlier one suggested a number of different options for handling this encoding, and the UTC came back and asked for the proposers to agree on and recommend a single solution. Notice also that this is a proposal jointly submitted by a number of people, which came about after a lot of discussion sort of like the current discussion on Typophile.

John H.,

Thank you for the proposal regarding the HOLAM HASER FOR VAV character. Of course, I intend to make my proposal for the shva-na.

The other Hebrew grammar glyphs will simply be two or three alternative glyphs for each existing Unicode values. However, data transfer will work better if an additional Unicode value will be granted for each Hebrew grammar glyph.

If the alternative glyphs are located at the reserved section, will they function from right-to-left?

Rephael, does Koren feature a shvah-na in its siddur? If so, which view do you follow? I assume you follow that which ArtScroll uses.

yes, the Koren siddur uses shva na, but not the same system as artscroll.

If not ArtScroll's (Rabbi Eliyahu Bachur), which system then, Chabad's (Rabbi Zalman Henna) or Shai L'Morah's (Minchat Shai)?

Who made the decision?

We did. We have inhouse Rabbinical experts on Hebrew grammar under the Halakhic decision of HaRav David Fuchs.

So, whose shitah did Rabbi Fuchs follow. The Minchat Shai?

If so, then we have a Tanach and a Siddur with shvah-nas according to the Minchat Shai.

I don't think it was the Minchat Shai. I think it was more complicated than that. We have a long document explaining the shita and a short 3-page explanation at the back of the new Israeli siddur which is forthcoming. The long document needs to be put on the web, but we've been a little busy (it needs editing).

Raphael,

Is the current unedited article a PDF that you can send me via email?

If it's not like ArtScroll or Minchat Shai, is it like the Chabad siddur? USA or Israel?

Is there a kamatz katan?

It is a Word file and I'd rather not send via e-mail. Yes we talk about the kamatz katan and no it's not like Chabad.

As typograph and I have tried to tell you, there are many many systems of nikud, all of which are correct (as long as they are consistent throughout a book).

However, in a siddur, you have to employ at least 3 different systems depending on the source of the text, so if the source is from Tanakh, then we employ a different system of shva na, and if it's from the Amoraim, a different system for mileil (meteg). That's why I don't understand how on earth it will help to encode the grammatical rules within a font because the typesetter probably won't be knowledgeable enough to know the source of the different texts and which stylistic set to apply for each sentence in the Siddur.

There are two Chabad siddurs.

(1) A newer one from Kehot Israel, based upon the Hebrew grammar rules of the Minchat Shai. This shitah is used by the Shai L'Morah publishers; most notably their Chumash. They added the shvah-nah, kamatz-katan, and hataf-kamatz-katan. No one did that before, not even Koren.

(2) The standard Chabad siddur from the USA. It features the shitah of Rabbi Zalman Henna.

I am only aware of 3 views, Rabbi Zalman Henna, the Minchat Shai, and that used by ArtScroll.

I don't think Typograph ever suggested that there are others.

It appears that the particular view is ignored. If this is the case, how can there be consistency?

Did you typeset it? Which model did you follow?

Regarding the use of shvah-na in the Tanach, I never saw this in the entire Nach. Shai L'Morah publishers only has this in the Haftorahs.

Where did you see the shvah-na in the Tanach?

Raphael,

>> However, in a siddur, you have to employ at least 3 different systems depending on the source of the text, so if the source is from Tanakh, then we employ a different system of shva na, and if it's from the Amoraim, a different system for mileil (meteg). That's why I don't understand how on earth it will help to encode the grammatical rules within a font because the typesetter probably won't be knowledgeable enough to know the source of the different texts and which stylistic set to apply for each sentence in the Siddur.

I think that you are, with all due respect, very mistaken here.

You are clearly a talented typesetter. But you not a grammarian, or even thinking logically. You know a pile of Hebrew grammar, but as they say, a little knowledge is dangerous, because you think you are a Hebrew grammar expert. But you aren't.

If Rabbi Zalman Henna has rules pertaining to shvah-na, kamatz-katan, and meteg, for example, why would I choose to adhere to the Minchat Shai's rules regarding kamatz-katan, and meteg, but adhere to Rabbi Zalman Henna regarding shvah-na?

But if Rabbi Zalman Henna only has rules regarding shvah-na, why would you think that I would fabricate rules regarding kamatz-katan, and meteg, attribute them to him, instead of following a different set of rules regarding kamatz-katan, and meteg?

Sometimes, I think that you don't understand what I want to do in this Volt-created OpenType font.

No, I'm not a grammarian, but I know enough to know that I don't know enough. You insist that you are right. I happen to know for a fact that you are wrong because I have a staff of grammarians that I manage and I know enough to know that what you want to do doesn't work because guess what, I wanted to do it too! okay, not in the font in VOLT like you do, but as software which amounts to the same thing.

I could get my grammarians to spend hours on this typographic forum explaining all this to you, or I could get them to work on their projects. I prefer the latter. I also know that they spend many years in Kollel and university studying this so I'm guessing that it might take some months to explain to you why you can't do what you insist you can do.

Here's the difference. I know my limitations and I hire staff that is more expert than me. Whether it's scripting the typesetting of the project that I'm doing now, or deciding whether the word יברכך should have a shva na or nach depending on context.

You on the other hand, want to master all knowledge. I am humbled by your approach to life, but I'm a salaried employee and I have to get sifrey kodesh to market!!!

Raphael,

>> No, I'm not a grammarian, but I know enough to know that I don't know enough.

This is great!

Chazal teach us that the sign of great knowledge is to realize that by comparison to the vast knowledge one hasn't yet acquired, one knows very little.

>> You insist that you are right.

Incorrect.

I consulted two world-class grammarians, retired Professor Aron Dotan, formerly of Tel Aviv University, and Rabbi Shmuel Rabin of Toroto, Canada. I asked them point blank: Is a contextual definition of the shvah-na etc. possible. They both answered 'yes'.

Plus, Typograph claims that he has done this in Volt already, and has posted a sample text using his Volt created font as proof.

So, who should I believe? World-class grammarians, and one who demonstrates that he has done it. Or your non-world-class grammarians?

---

>> the word יברכך should have a shva na or nach depending on context

This seems illogical. What do you mean by context?

As I understand it, a shvah-na is defined simply by the preceding nikkud etc., and not by its context in a sentence?

Do you mean context in a sentence? Or context in a word segment?

Context in a sentence sheds light on meaning. Context in a word sheds light on its grammar.

So, the Koren Siddur is not like ArtScroll, Minchat Shai, or Chabad, regarding the shvah-na, so then who did your grammarians follow? Your grammarians invented a fourth style?

> Plus, Typograph claims that he has done this in Volt already, and has posted a sample text using his Volt created font as proof.

he has stated that it is 99% perfect but it can't be 100%. Also he said that you can't put in metegs and he is quite correct of course.

But again, you said you can do it, so do it! Behatzlacha!

>This seems illogical. What do you mean by context?

If the word is in the context of Tanakh then it's shva nach, but if it's in modern Hebrew it's shva na. How does the font know where it comes from?

>So, the Koren Siddur is not like ArtScroll, Minchat Shai, or Chabad, regarding the shvah-na, so then who did your grammarians follow? Your grammarians invented a fourth style?

fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh?

I don't understand. You keep by this concept that there are 3 systems and that's it.

Let's talk when you understand a lot more.

Israel, as I wrote, I have only read the article by William Chomsky on the "shewa", not any book. It is more a critique of the systems derived from the Rabbis Kimhi than an exposition of them.

I am well aware that there are exceptions where lashon hara is permitted, such as for self defense against lashon hara, or to warn others who may be cheated. When I complained it was about statements that in my opinion don't even come close to being exceptions. There is also a rule against doing criticism that won't do any good, so I'm not going further.

Bill,

When I was a young yeshiva bachur, my teacher, the great Ger Tzedek from Auzzyland, Rabbi Shneur Zalman Gafni Shlita, commonly said:
"It's like water off a duck's back."

Like we Americans regard spilled milk.

For years, I asked myself, what does this mean?

"It's like water off a duck's back."

Then, I pictured it, "water off a duck's back." Oh, I get it.

Fruitless. It's passed already. Like we Americans regard spilled milk.

What was, was.

Regarding lashon hara, everything you say is correct, especially the last point, which few remember.

The sixth Lubavitcher Rebbe explains. "We say that words from the heart enter the heart. Hence, if we rebuke and fail, then the words were not said from the heart, or else the other person would have listened and changed. That means, every wrong-doing that this person does from now on is really your fault. For had the words of rebuke really came from your heart, then they would have been effective, ie. entered the person's heart.

>> he has stated that it is 99% perfect but it can't be 100%. Also he said that you can't put in metegs and he is quite correct of course.

Read his posts about the meteg. He did say what you are saying here.

He said that the meteg is confused for different symbols, which is why he chose to leave it out.

I seek to sort its rules out, and give each meteg role a different name and symbol. Hence, it can be done.