PDA

View Full Version : Missing accent?



David Kummerow
06-23-2004, 08:24 PM
Hi,

Could it be that אֲ*ֽ֭דַבְּרָה in Job 7:11 in BW is missing the meteg accent? Can people read this? I think you might have to have a recent version of Uniscribe installed to do so. The text itself may be found here:

http://users.ntplx.net/~kimball/Tanach/Tanach.xml

BTW, this word is discussed in the SBL Hebrew font manual. I also can't figure out how to type this series of letters and accents with the BW font. Perhaps it can only be done with a unicode font?

Anyone know?

David.

Joe Fleener
06-24-2004, 05:57 AM
This may be over my head...I compared what BW displays with th printed BHS and a facsimile of the Leningrad Codex and I do not see the accents as displayed on http://users.ntplx.net/~kimball/Tanach/Job.xml#Job.7:11

I am not sure where those are coming from...

I anyone knows more about this, I would be very interested in learning.

dgwatkinson
06-24-2004, 08:31 AM
Dear Joe,
A hint that may help sending Hebrew and Greek text by Email, use rich text format, then we can read your message.
Regards David.

Joe Fleener
06-24-2004, 11:34 AM
The emails you receive are not sent by the individual who posts to the forum, but they are generated by the forum and sent to everyone who subscribes to that tread.

If you are not seeing the Greek and Hebrew font displayed on your screen when viewing the forum pages, then your BibleWorks fonts must not be installed. You can reinstall them via the Windows Control Panel.

However, with that said, I know of some people who have still had problems with Internet Explorer.

Anyway, Rich Text will not help here, nor Unicode, etc.

David Kummerow
06-24-2004, 07:31 PM
Hi Joe,

My printed 5th edition of BHS shows the meteg accent as on the website. Perhaps it's been updated in editions?

If the accent does appear, can it then be written with the BW font?

David.



This may be over my head...I compared what BW displays with th printed BHS and a facsimile of the Leningrad Codex and I do not see the accents as displayed on http://users.ntplx.net/~kimball/Tanach/Job.xml#Job.7:11

I am not sure where those are coming from...

I anyone knows more about this, I would be very interested in learning.

Joe Fleener
06-24-2004, 07:43 PM
Hi Joe,

My printed 5th edition of BHS shows the meteg accent as on the website. Perhaps it's been updated in editions?

If the accent does appear, can it then be written with the BW font?

David.
Hi David,

What version of BW do you have? (6.0)

If so (I think this is the same or at least real close in 5.0):

1. Go to tools - font maps (BTW I think the name of this menu option ought to be changed to be consitent with the button on the tool bar :))

2. Choose Hebrew from the drop down list.

3. Click on Keymap Tables.

I looked all though the key map and I don't see what you need there. If you do let me know.

If not, send a message to support@bibleworks.com with a link to this thread to make sure the see that this is needed.

David Kummerow
06-24-2004, 08:10 PM
Yes, Joe, I have v.6. Perhaps the problem is that to represent this you would need a whole new combined character in a non-unicode font. Perhaps it's just been decided to leave it out.

Don't know: I'll give support an email.

Regards,

david.

SkipB
06-25-2004, 09:35 PM
You can type
hr'B.d;a](
can be typed by the sequence (a]d;B.r'h
the trick is typing the metheg on the left parenthesis first
Skip

David Kummerow
06-26-2004, 01:38 AM
Hi Skip,

Please note carefully the difference betweeen
אֲ*ֽ֭ד


and da]( Note how the positioning of the meteg is incorrect (cf BHS) and also it fails to encode the dehi accent entirely (at least I can't seem to get it when I type the sequence (a]d;B.r'h

Thanks,

David.


You can type
hr'B.d;a](
can be typed by the sequence (a]d;B.r'h
the trick is typing the metheg on the left parenthesis first
Skip

SkipB
06-26-2004, 04:41 PM
I suspect we are seeing very different things. When I look at the web site or your post, I see the metheg in the middle of an extra space? Kind of
like:
hr"B.d: **a*]‚ yPiÓ
I don't have any printed version at home here that looks like this.
But after reading the manual for SBL fonts, Uniscribe apparently can place the metheg between the schwea and the pathaq all properly placed under the aleph. This is a very hard sequence to reproduce in Biblworks. When I try I end up with extra space (kind of the way I see your posts):
hr"B.d; :a)>‚ yPiÓ.
Bibleworks doesn't seem to have a left shifted pathaq so you end up with too much space between the aleph and daleth. Actually I thought your original post was a spacing problem akin to this.
I don't have any suggestions.

SkipB
06-26-2004, 05:34 PM
I just installed the SBL Unicode font. I now see the proper form of hateph pataq but dechi is on the wrong side and the zero ligature place marker shows up. It essentially looks like example B on page 7 of the manual.
Skip

David Kummerow
06-27-2004, 01:08 AM
Hi Skip,

The font rendering problem you are encountering is due to an older version of uniscribe, which is the unicode script processor.

The file itself is usp10.dll found in windows\system32 directory. This file needs to be updated. I don't know what version uniscribe is up to now; mine says it's version 1.471.4030.0, and with this version I have found no problems so far.

I think the file ships with the operating system or with Office. I can't see it for download from the Microsoft site for whatever reason unfortunately.

Sincerely,

David.

David Kummerow
06-27-2004, 01:19 AM
Skip,

I just had another thought. You could be missing typing the zero width joiner key. To get the sequence as in Job 7:11, with the SBL font I type aleph, hatep-patah, zero width joiner, meteg, and then dehi. The keystrokes on the SIL keyboard are: shift-. alt-ctrl-shift-a alt-ctrl-shift-m alt-ctrl-1 alt-ctrl-6

Perhaps this helps.

David.

paterdr
03-21-2005, 10:40 AM
Hello, David, Joe, Skip and others.

First of all at Job 7:11 in WTT, hr"B.d:a]‚ ("I will speak" or "that I may speak") is missing the meteg, While it is very definitely there in both Leningrad and Aleppo. In WTT, many of the metegs, including this one, are missing. This is not the fault of BW, but is the way the Westminster db is delivered to BW. How does this compare with the facsimiles and common printed versions?

Here is an inventory:

B19a Facsimile places the meteg is between the two components of the composite sheva hatef-patah).

BHS (5th ed. 1997) reproduces B19a by placing the meteg between the two half-vowel parts. (I didn't check earlier editions.)

Biblia Hebraica Leningradensis (Dotan 1973, 2001) also reproduces B19a by placing the meteg between the two half-vowel parts.

The Aleppo Codex places meteg to the right of the two components of the hatef-patah, directly to the left of the (slightly elevated) accent. To see this, go to http://www.aleppocodex.org/aleppocodex.html and look up Job 7:11. The text in question is on the left hand page, first column 12th line. There is a "cool" magnifier so you can check the pointing in detail.

The Crown of Jerusalem (Keter Yeruselayim) - which is based on the Aleppo codex - includes the meteg, of course, BUT places it not to the right of the vowel, as in the codex but to the LEFT of it.

It seems clear that where the meteg is placed seems not so much an issue as it's inclusion at all.

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

How to type this meteg in BW?

In BW there is no way I know of to get the meteg between the sheva and qametz parts of the half vowel, as in B19a and the BHS, as the vowel parts are joined in one font character. Trying to put it to the right, with the "*" key looks squished and confused. Therefore, I'd settle for the Keter arrangement, putting the meteg to the left of the vowel with the "(" key

Thus hr"B.d:a](‚ is typed with hr"B.d:a](‚

Does this help?

Dan Pater

David Kummerow
03-22-2005, 05:21 PM
Thanks Dan for your reply.

This issue with Job 7:11 prompted me to finally persist in getting unicode up and running on my system. As a result, I now no longer type anything using the BW font, but instead use the SBL one.

But BW is making a move to unicode in the next version, so all may be fixed. I guess the point you make though is whether the data which BW relies on encodes the metheg.

Now this site here

http://www.cvkimball.com/Tanach/Tanach.xml

which provides the Tanach in unicode does have the metheg in place. So when BW moves to unicode, all will be fixed I assume.

Regards,
David.