Jump to content

Make cholem vowel distinguishable from letter "sin" in Hebrew


TYA
 Share

Recommended Posts

Please make the cholem vowel distinguishable from letter sin in Hebrew (see attached).

post-35231-0-37046800-1562602331_thumb.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the same, if I'm correct that there is a dagesh hidden behind the aleph in this word.  (But if I'm wrong, let a Hebrew teacher correct me here).

post-35231-0-25681800-1562609725_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the dagesh forte does not appear in the gutteral letters

 

cf:  Ethelyn Simon, Irene Resnikoff, and Linda Motzkin, The First Hebrew Primer: The Adult Beginner’s Path to Biblical Hebrew, 3d; Accordance electronic ed. (Berkeley: EKS Publishing Co., 2005), 21.https://accordance.bible/link/read/First_Hebrew_Primer#465

 

 

 

If the letter 'sin' is not final and has no following vowel, a holem is implied as the dot of the holem coalesces with the dot on the sin - but this depends on the font used - certain fonts will distinguish the two 'dots'

Edited by mbcvida
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the dagesh forte does not appear in the gutteral letters

 

Great, thanks so much.

 

If the letter 'sin' is not final and has no following vowel, a holem is implied as the dot of the holem coalesces with the dot on the sin

 

Not so sure I understand what you are saying here.

 

The word וְהַשֹּׂרֵף ("the one who burns") in Num 19:8 is tagged as Qal participle masculine singular.  So also is the word הַשֹּׁפֵט (the judge) in Deu 17:12, but the latter has the letter shin instead of sin, so the cholem is clearly visible.  What is the difference between shin and sin, except where the dot sits above it?

 

If the cholem exists for the shin in Deu 17:12, then why not for the sin in Num 19:8?  So, are you saying that the sin in Num 19:8 does have a cholem behind it, and it just isn't visible because of the dot.  Or are you saying that there isn'tcholem behind it, and there doesn't need to be?

 

I see no reason why the dot above the sin would "coalesce," except if the scribes who came up with the nikkudot made an initial rule about this.

Edited by TYA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The letters sin and shin are distinguished from one another by the placement of a 'dot' over the left side of the letter (sin) or the right side of the letter (shin). Since the sin has the 'dot' on the left side, when a holem is the vowel immediately following the sin, there will often be  the "dot" of the holem, as well as the dot identifying the sin, thus showing two dots. But at other times the "dot" of the holem and the dot of the shin, appear as one dot. The BHS is not consistent in its usage. For instance:

 

Lev 16.28 - one 'dot' serving as the identifier of the letter sin and vowel holem.

2 Kings 17.31 - two 'dots' one for the vowel holem and one for the identifier of the letter sin.

 

If the letter 'sin' only has the one dot, and there does not appear to be a vowel following, the 'dot' of the 'sin' is also the holem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lev 16.28 - one 'dot' serving as the identifier of the letter sin and vowel holem.

2 Kings 17.31 - two 'dots' one for the vowel holem and one for the identifier of the letter sin.

 

It actually seems that the words in question in both of these verses have two dots--not just one (see attached).

 

If so, then my request is still that Accordance separate the regular sin dot from the cholem vowel. These two verses mentioned by Dick both show evidence that one dot is occluding the other (and yet that both are indeed present at the same time).  It would be nice if there was a way to separate them a little bit.

post-35231-0-27916000-1562655028_thumb.jpg

Edited by TYA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could be wrong but I don't think the print versions or the Len. codex is consistent in separation either.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

In the HMT-W4, both verses have a melded cholem+seen-dot, in the BHS, both print and Accordance, there is the difference that is pointed out. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

For purposes of comparison, here's what the 3 element Unicode sequence of shin, sin dot, holam looks like in MS Word, in Windows 10, in 3 of the most popular fonts for pointed Hebrew, and 2 general-purpose fonts, not particularly known for their support of pointed Hebrew. All 5 fonts show the sin dot distinctly from the holam dot. Almost every font takes a different strategy in where the two dots are placed, relative to the base character (shin), but they all "agree" that the two dots should be placed distinctly.

image.png.0896b8dba1aca176980914a4fd4ee4c0.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael Carasik noted in his video course on Biblical Hebrew for The Great Courses that some fonts will only show a single dot when a shin has a cholem, and sometimes that merged dot will be slightly larger than normal as an indicator. But even if not, you can still recognize what's going on because there's no other vowel. So this isn't specific to Accordance. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

The Accordance font, when used outside of Accordance, suffers not only from the "coincident collision" of the original post (sin dot coinciding with cholam [chaser]), but also from a somewhat complementary problem, where the cholam [chaser] dot of a lamed collides completely (i.e. coincides) with a shin.

 

Here's a screen shot in Microsoft Word:

image.png.b2d99f8e5390709eedd619617075c239.png

And here's a screen shot in Accordance, where somehow the rendering ("shaping") is smarter:

image.png.c4bb237f1e89d86064a690302fedbb5b.png

(Reference is Jeremiah 52:31).

 

Perhaps the Accordance font isn't really supposed to be used outside of Accordance?

 

I.e. maybe it is just provided as a nicety for Accordance users, but with no goal of having it behave as well as it does within Accordance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Small correction to my previous post:

 

When used outside of Accordance, the Accordance font does not suffer from the original post's issue (sin dot coinciding with cholam [chaser] dot). For example:

image.png.b1e4395e929346863c8802940cc7091a.png

But it does suffer from this issue when used inside Accordance. For example:

image.png.acc896498a987a0e672a8f2d1ea5f96f.png

(Reference is Numbers 19:8.)

 

So the two issues are complementary not only in that one affects sin and the other shin, but also in that the sin one only occurs inside Accordance, and the shin one only occurs outside Accordance!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note that it is not just with respect to shin with shin dot that the combination of lamed with a cholam [chaser] dot causes problems by "invading" the next letter's "above" region. Outside of accordance, consider:

image.png.a659d27cb93b96c7682b44a96b739dbc.png

from 1 Kings 12:15 and the same word with a qadma accent instead of a zaqef qatan accent (1 Kings 11:29):

image.png.6ac1242cb83cd9bf7f66860385f2a0be.png

Inside Accordance, the problem is avoided by a rather unconventional placement of the cholam [chaser] dot before the ascender of the lamed, as can be seen here:

image.png.4288d81388b0e69e47c22d3f7b1ab189.png

image.png.5ed9b6e5c8858862f48395568e2eb953.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...