Welcome to Typophile
Please Sign in.
I see this thread is Leading somwhere else,
not my road
Ey TAXI, TAXI, Pssssssssssssssssst Pssssssssssssst
E-l lo akh
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
>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?
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".
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.
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
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.
>> 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.
>> 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?
Can you define for me a 'tnua ketana'?
A 'tnua ketana' is in contradistinction to a 'tnua gedola'?
Please then define a 'tnua gedola'?
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).
Please explain what are 'HATAYOT'?
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.
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).
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?
>> 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!!!
>> 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.
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.
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.