> ...there is really no advantage to the end user whether you do a spell check or encode things in the font.
I humbly disagree.
First, it is possible to make the process automatic.
Second, automatic insertion by a font is much easier and much less time consuming that an add-on product.
If the data is preexisting, as much data already is, one would have to run it through the spell checker outside InDesign ME. For there is no add on as of yet for InDesign, although it could be written in a script. However, an smart OT font is the fastest, simplest, and best way to go.
> The spell check and auto-nikkud programs already exist.
Until the Unicode Consortium assisns a value to the shvana, no spell checker or auto nikkud program can do anything, even if somebody updated them. Which they won't because there's no money in shvana, kamatz katan, etc.
The advantage is to teach Jewish children, for publishers, and Christian Bible students, teachers, scholars etc. Maybe Hebrew poetry too.
> I was referring to the Chomsky article mentioned in these threads, not his book.
Where? Can you copy and paste it, or post the link, together with your comment.
I consulted the Eretz Chemdah organisation http://eretzhemdah.org/qna.asp?PageId=3 regarding discrepancies in different prayerbooks which mark the shva-na.
I received this reply (selection):There is a fundamental disagreement regarding specific Shva incidences ("Sheva Merachaif"). A few siddurim (including the classic Chabbad Siddur) mark Shva Na following the system of Rav Zalman Henna (who lived about 300 years ago). However, all of the recent literature with which I am familiar rejects his approach. Artscroll's markings reflect the accepted opinion.
Who was Rav Zalman Henna?
Prof. Dotan refered to a person named Bachur who Hebrew grammar views were adopted by Vilna Gaon. Who was Bachur?
I am pretty sure that Prof. Dotan said that in a situation that a shva follows after a kamatz, if the kamatz is katan then the shva is voiced ie. shva-na, but if the kamatz is gedol then the shva is unvoiced ie. shva-nach. See the sample above. In factm, I repeated the rule back to him to confirm that I got it right.
But Eretz Chemdah said the very opposite: After a Kamatz Katan, the Shva would be Nach.
I believe that a Shva Na cannot appear after a Kamatz Katan.
However, A Shva Nach can appear after a Kamatz Gadol.
Are they simply incorrect, or did I recall Prof. Dotan's words incorrectly, or are there two views?
> I received this reply
Based on their answer I think that you didn't/don't ask the right question. Did you talk to prof. Dotan, or emailed him -- since I think that you didn't/don't understand him.
Yemenite chumash (from Israel) -- see the sheva na:
chumash (from Israel) -- see the sheva na, comapre it to shay la'morah, for example:
Israel, I do think you got it reversed on the kamatz katan. Seow also has the example you got from Prof. Dotan. Seow has the feminine singular 'shamerah', she kept, with a kamatz gadol and shva na. The female singular imperative 'shomrah', keep! he has with a kamatz katan and shva nach. I'm assuming that Seow is just going with what is generally accepted.
Are you saying that Shay Lemorah has more than one chumash? One version (in a custom made font, with a shva-na as a small asterisk within a circle) which I have, and another one too (in FrankRuehl with an enlargened shva) which you have? Plus you have a Yeminite chumash from Israel (in Koren-bold).
I prefer the shva-na symbol above the letter, either as Kehot's floating asterisk, Shay Lemorah's asterisk within a circle (ArtScroll also uses a short vertical line (like the rafe taam - unicode 058F) (Unicode should assign another code for shva-na, as we see that it is not a shva-na http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafe) to the below the letter enlargened shva. It draws too much attention to itself, where as the above the letter is bother subtler but "does its job" to draw the users attention that this shva is different than a shva without this mark. Do you agree?
Thank you for pointing this out. I didn't keep notes. Here is a new graphic:
If you know of other Hebrew words like this, or even without a shva or shva-na, or komatz or komatz-katan, please notify me.
From Shay Lemorah, Gen. 1:1-3:
Notice how the shva-nas are unlike those in David's samples above. Here they are above the letters and have a circle with a small asterisk inside it. Also, they are not over the first letter that has a shva.
At this point in time, only the symbol for shva-na is custom-made. Later, even the typeface for the text becomes custom, too.
Are their differences in which letters get a shva-na?
In the second Shay Lemorah sample, only one shva-na symbol appears above the word, hay-y-ta, above the yud, which is the second word in Gen. 1:2.
> Are you saying that Shay Lemorah has more than one chumash?
No. I'm just saying that for some reason there's a problem with the "Insert image", so I didn't post more images (shay la'morah). The chumash with the font FR isn't shay la'morah.
> Are their differences in which letters get a shva-na?
This is up to the printer. If they don't have alot of ink then -- 2. It is the second of two, in immediate succession + 4. It comes immediately after a long vowel. If they have a lot of ink then -- 3. It comes immediately after a strong dagesh. See Seow page 347.
>The chumash with the font FR isn’t Shay La’morah.
So, which Chumash is it?
Eretz Chemdah Org.: "A few siddurim (including the classic Chabbad Siddur) mark Shva Na following the system of Rav Zalman Henna (who lived about 300 years ago). However, all of the recent literature with which I am familiar rejects his approach. Artscroll's markings reflect the accepted opinion."
Who was Rav Zalman Henna? Apparently, Prof. Dotan never heard of him or his system. !!!
Regarding ArtScroll's markings, which are attributed (incorrectly) to Ibn Ezra and Vilna Gaon, Prof. Dotan said Vilna Gaon copied everything from a Rishon Early Authority called (something) Bachur (while implying it was his own). !!!
How is Minchat Shai's system (used in Shay Lemorah) different than Bachur's?
These are 3 sets of rules.
According to Prof. Dotan, I am attempting to define a new context-based set of rules. The 4th set.
First, Prof. Dotan said, based upon the 4 or 5 point system of grammatical rules, this is impossible. After I pointed out that even if two identically spelled words can be defined differently, because one has a kamatz-gadol, and the other has a kamatz-katan, then Prof. Dotan changed his tune. He then thought that it was possible, but depended upon "the nikkud, and not the letters".
Can you wait until next Wednesday? I ordered 4 tons of printers' ink on eBay. :)
> How is Minchat Shai’s system (used in Shay Lemorah) different than Bachur’s?
Minhat Shay by Norzi is more..... critical edition -- Masorah + MSS.
> Rishon Early Authority called (something) Bachur
His name: Eliahu ha-Levi (Levita); work by Levita -- Tuv Taam (1538), tea'amim and other grammar stuff.
> Who was Rav Zalman Henna? Apparently, Prof. Dotan never heard of him or his system. !!!
Ouch. I hope Prof. Dotan is not going to read that!
work by Zalman Hanau -- Shaare Zimrah (1718), tea'amim and other grammar stuff.
The reason I said that I concluded that Prof. Aron Dotan was unfamiliar Rav Zalman (Hanau) was unaware that Rav H.'s shva-na system was the basis of the editorial decisions used in the classic Chabad Nusach prayerbook, used by a quarter million Jews, was based upon Prof. D.'s shocking statement.
Prof. D. said explicitly that even when he was presented with many samples of shva-na decisions from this prayerbook (as I posted above), he labeled it, עם הארצות, "sheer ignorance". As you did, David.
Later, after I remarked that I was a Lubavitcher, he apologized for his harse statement. I told him that this was not necessay, as Lubavitcher think that "harse" only applies to the fact that the Jewish people has suffered too much in the far too long diaspora. He agreed.
You think that I forgot about my goal to define through one or two GSUB routines in Volt the automatic placement of shva-na from the appearance of a word segment containing a shva-nach, based upon the nikkud before it (and meteg).
Eventhough I am stuffed fll of latkes and have traces of sufganiot in my mustache, nevertheless I have not forgotten.
Rav Henna's more complicated system seems to be best suited to attain my goal. Rabbi Shmuel Rabin of Toronto, Canada, warned me that Rav Henna's system produces more shva-nas and has ore complex rules, but who cares, says I. Is there a shortage of printer's ink, or is their a limit to the number of pixels that can be turned on in an OpenType cmpliant program?
> Rav Henna’s more complicated system seems to be best suited to attain my goal. Rabbi Shmuel Rabin of Toronto, Canada, warned me that Rav Henna’s system produces more shva-nas and has ore complex rules,
The main question Israel -- did you read anything by Rabbi Hanau? why his system is complicated and "produces more shva-nas and has ore complex rules"?
No, I have not. Is anything published by him, or refers to his shitah.
The son-in-law of the near-by rabbi (a Av Beis Din and Dayan/Judge of a Rabbinic Court) showed in the R' Joseph Cairo's Code of Jewish Law, the commentary Magen Avraham expose on the applicable use of the shva-na, defining the rules for their contextual placement.
The additional views, of the Minchas Shai, Eliyahu Bachr, and R' Zalman Hanau (Henna) are based on grammatical issues of which they differ.
Hence, the advance OT fonts I propose will have automatic placement in any nikkid or nikkud/taam text based upon the MA's definition.
Then, the very same font design will also be available in 3 flavors; Minchas Shai, Eliyahu Bachur, and Zalman Henna.
Four versions of every font. They all share 98% of the same code.
Does this make sense?