ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (02/07/85)
>Japanese and Chinese write bottom to top (although modern times have seen >variations, such as top to bottom, particularly in commercial signs) due >to scrolls. Referring to `Chinese Calligraphy' (Chiang Yee, Harvard University Press), I can find NO example that runs bottom-to-top, and that's going back to approximately 2000 B.C., when the characters were etched into animal bones. Top-to-bottom, with columns arranged right-to-left is the classic way of writing Chinese characters; the left-to-right with rows running top-to bottom, European-style, is also common. ======================================================================== Recently I've become interested in Hebrew. Unfortunately, I've never seen anyone write Hebrew characters, so my letters are quite ugly. Are there any general rules for drawing the script? Do you usually start at the upper left or the upper right of a letter? Take, for instance, the word \b're:shiyth\. Would most people write its strokes in the order that I have guessed? 1 1 5 3 1 3 1 1 1 ######## ## #### ### ### # ### ######### ####### ########## ##### #### #### ### ## #### ########## ######### ########## ##### #### #### ### #### ##### ########## ######## ######### #### #### #### ### ##### #### ######### ######## 3 # #### ## ## ## ##### ## # ## # # # # # ####### 2 # # # # # # # # 4###### # # # # 2 # ## # # ###### # # # # # # # # ###### # # ## # 6 # ## ## ###### # # ## # #4 ### ### #### # 2 5###4 # ######### #### ### # #########3 #### # ######## #### ## # ########## #### # ######## #### # # ########## #### 2 2####### 5### 4 2 4######### Of course, I'm writing the letters from right to left! ======================================================================== Also, I have real problems with the pronunciation. To the best I can determine, Ancient Hebrew had the sound system below: CONSONANTS labial dental alveolar velar gut. glottal unvoiced p/ph t/th T k/kh q pey taw teyth kaph qowph voiced b/bh d/dh g/gh beyth daleth giymel u.affricates ts tsadhey u.fricatives s sh x h samekh shiyn xeyth hey v.fricatives z ? : zayin ?ayin :aleph l r leemedh reysh {The pairs _/_h seem to have been allophonic in Biblical times; I don't know about today. Also \shiyn\ can represent another `s' sound, about which I know little. ?ayin and :aleph are a wild guess in this chart..} VOWELS/SEMIVOWELS/DIPHTHONGS y w iy i u uw ow oo ee ey o e aa a ..and finally the the schwa (') with its 3 varieties (E A O) I'd be interested in knowing anything about these sounds either in ancient times or today, particularly ayin, aleph, heth, he, qoph and teth (?ayin, :aleph, xeyth, hey, qowph, teyth in the phonetic representation here). I've never seen a text that was clear on these points! -michael
segs@mhuxv.UUCP (slusky) (02/08/85)
<quote at end> Most people don't write Hebrew the way it's printed. There's a whole different script that's used for handwriting. There may be adult oriented books that show Hebrew script as opposed to printing, but the only book at my house that shows it is a children's book called the Alef-Bet Zoo published by K'tav in New York. Some of the script letters are very similar to their printed counterparts. Others are pretty much unrelated looking. All the script letters are one or two stroke symbols and it's pretty obvious from looking at them how to write them. As to the sounds, I'm familiar with the way Hebrew is pronounced, but I'm not familiar with your linguistic terminology, so maybe someone who understands you can answer that. Susan Slusky > Recently I've become interested in Hebrew. Unfortunately, I've never > seen anyone write Hebrew characters, so my letters are quite ugly. Are > there any general rules for drawing the script? Do you usually start > at the upper left or the upper right of a letter? Take, for instance, > the word \b're:shiyth\. Would most people write its strokes in the > order that I have guessed? > > 1 1 5 3 1 3 1 1 1 > ######## ## #### ### ### # ### ######### ####### > ########## ##### #### #### ### ## #### ########## ######### > ########## ##### #### #### ### #### ##### ########## ######## > ######### #### #### #### ### ##### #### ######### ######## > 3 # #### ## ## ## ##### ## # ## > # # # # # ####### 2 # # > # # # # # # 4###### # # > # # 2 # ## # # ###### # # > # # # # # # ###### # # > ## # 6 # ## ## ###### # # > ## # #4 ### ### #### # 2 > 5###4 # ######### #### ### # #########3 > #### # ######## #### ## # ########## > #### # ######## #### # # ########## > #### 2 2####### 5### 4 2 4######### > > > Of course, I'm writing the letters from right to left! > > ======================================================================== > > Also, I have real problems with the pronunciation. To the best I can > determine, Ancient Hebrew had the sound system below: > > > CONSONANTS > > labial dental alveolar velar gut. glottal > > unvoiced p/ph t/th T k/kh q > pey taw teyth kaph qowph > voiced b/bh d/dh g/gh > beyth daleth giymel > u.affricates ts > tsadhey > u.fricatives s sh x h > samekh shiyn xeyth hey > v.fricatives z ? : > zayin ?ayin :aleph > > l r > leemedh reysh > > {The pairs _/_h seem to have been allophonic in Biblical times; I don't know > about today. Also \shiyn\ can represent another `s' sound, about which I > know little. ?ayin and :aleph are a wild guess in this chart..} > > VOWELS/SEMIVOWELS/DIPHTHONGS > > y w > > iy i u uw > ow oo ee ey > o e > aa a > > ..and finally the the schwa (') with its 3 varieties (E A O) > > I'd be interested in knowing anything about these sounds either in ancient > times or today, particularly ayin, aleph, heth, he, qoph and teth (?ayin, > :aleph, xeyth, hey, qowph, teyth in the phonetic representation here). > > I've never seen a text that was clear on these points! > > -michael --
albert@harvard.ARPA (David Albert) (02/08/85)
> Recently I've become interested in Hebrew. Unfortunately, I've never > seen anyone write Hebrew characters, so my letters are quite ugly. Are > there any general rules for drawing the script? Do you usually start > at the upper left or the upper right of a letter? Take, for instance, > the word \b're:shiyth\. Would most people write its strokes in the > order that I have guessed? The letters you used were the "printing" letters as opposed to the "handwriting" letters; the two alphabets are distinct, and, at least in Israel, the printing alphabet is handwritten only by children in the first grade, after which, with virtually no exceptions, everyone uses the handwriting alphabet. Although it is hard to formulate a general handwriting rule because the letters are each so different, semicircular parts of the letters are generally drawn in a clockwise motion. Thus, for instance, the letter 'shin', which when handwritten looks very much like the letter 'e', is written in the reverse manner from the way one usually writes an 'e' in English. -- "...sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." David Albert ihnp4!ut-sally!harvard!albert (albert@harvard.ARPA)
jlg@lanl.ARPA (02/08/85)
> >Japanese and Chinese write bottom to top (although modern times have seen > >variations, such as top to bottom, particularly in commercial signs) due > >to scrolls. > > Referring to `Chinese Calligraphy' (Chiang Yee, Harvard University Press), > I can find NO example that runs bottom-to-top, and that's going back to > approximately 2000 B.C., when the characters were etched into animal bones. There's a good reason for writing from top to bottom if you're using ink - your hand doesn't rest on characters that you've already completed (but may still be wet). If you write left to right and are left-handed you may rest your hand above the current line, but left-handers are comparatively rare. J. Giles By the way, I just posted this note to net.rec.photo: > > ----------------------------- > > Believe it or not, Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (Merriam-Webster, > > 1983) lists "lens also lense". I was amazed. I still wince when I see the > > less-standard form. > > It was probably always spelled 'lense'. Daniel Webster himself probably > introduced the 'lens' spelling as part of his spelling reform campaign. > A way of testing this is to ask our British readers which spelling they > use most - the british remain mostly immune to Websterisms. So, what about it? Is this one of Webster's changes? I don't know where to look to find out.
smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (02/12/85)
One other point -- the printed Hebrew letters are designed to be painted rather than written. A good way to produce many of the letters is to place a piece of chalk vertically against a blackboard. Down-strokes will be fairly narrow, horizontal strokes quite thick, etc.
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (02/15/85)
>> > Believe it or not, Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (Merriam-Webste >r, >> > 1983) lists "lens also lense". I was amazed. I still wince when I see the >> > less-standard form. >> >> It was probably always spelled 'lense'. Daniel Webster himself probably >> introduced the 'lens' spelling as part of his spelling reform campaign. >> A way of testing this is to ask our British readers which spelling they >> use most - the british remain mostly immune to Websterisms. > > >So, what about it? Is this one of Webster's changes? I don't know where >to look to find out. The Oxford English Dictionary (compact Edition) gives only "lens", from the Latin "lens" a lentil, from the similarity of shape. There IS a word "lense", meaning to make or become lean, to macerate. Perhaps Webster put an "e" on for the benefit of American readers:-) -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt
schwadro@aecom.UUCP (02/15/85)
I'd comment on your pronunciations, if I knew whose traditions you were
commenting.Each of the 12 tribes had there own pronunciation, and during
the interveaning years the language has digressed from that. Many
different minhagim (traditions) exist as to what "correct" pronunciaton.
For example:
the kamatz is oo as in boot to galitzian descent
uh as in but to ashkenazik tradition,
and is pronounced as 'ah' (hot) by s'phardim.
the tsadi is ts to ashkenazim
but an emphatic s/z to a person with teimani roots.
etc....
Hope to be of assistance.
May you never develope a moebius mind,
michab
berger@aecom