HEBREW HE-WITH-ADNY-INSIDE

[Mark E. Shoulson]

On 4/20/24 21:22, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode wrote:
> (I have never seen this usage in an instance of the Tetragrammaton 
> that is meant to be pronounced ELOHIM.  I don't know if it's done or 
> how.)

OK, so I have found an example of it.  It was handled precisely the same 
as normal, or at least one of the normal handlings: YOD-HATAF-SEGOL, 
HE-HOLAM, VAV-HIRIQ, HE(-WITH-ADNY-INSIDE), with usual disputation as to 
where exactly the HOLAM went.  So I guess it's just handled normally.  
(Another place in the same prayer-book (I think) did without the special 
final HE, but also went without it in a "normal" name in the same 
paragraph.  I guess they aren't 100% consistent.)

Vocalization of the Tetragrammaton is not so perfectly unchanging as one 
might think, even without the cabbalistic pointings with repeated 
vowels.  Usually, it's SHEVA-HOLAM-QAMATS.  But if it's preceded by 
certain grammatical prefixes, the ALEF in "adonay" becomes silent (not a 
glottal stop anymore, it's as if it isn't there.  A similar thing 
happens in Arabic with the name of Allah, I believe, and also with the 
article.)  And then, because "adonay" would no longer have a vowel under 
the ALEF, there is similarly no SHEVA in the Tetragrammaton spelling.  
When it's pronounced "elohim", I often see HATAF-SEGOL-HOLAM-HIRIQ, but 
the more classical spelling I believe is SHEVA-HOLAM-HIRIQ, which makes 
sense because of reasons, but probably people want to be as clear as 
possible about this unusual case.  That initial SHEVA or HATAF-SEGOL 
also drops out in the same circumstances for similar reasons.

The strange cabbalistic pointing in Sefardi prayer books seems to be 
*usually* four copies of the same vowel (and counting וּ as a vowel, 
making for the eight-letter Tetragrammaton), but there seem to be some 
places where it isn't the same vowel, nor is it the "normal" pointing as 
described above.  I think the link below describes examples.

Think I should write this up as a proposal?  Throw it at the wall and 
see what sticks?

~mark

>
> On 4/20/24 14:18, Simon Montagu via Unicode wrote:
>> Is there any use case for this glyph except as the last letter of the 
>> Tetragrammaton? Does it make sense to encode it separately rather 
>> than the whole combination HEBREW TETRAGRAMMATON WITH ADNY INSIDE THE 
>> HE?
>>
>> On 18/04/2024 04:20, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode wrote:
>>> Wow, not a peep about this?  Surely a group this opinionated would 
>>> have something to say.  I guess I should propose this, since it's in 
>>> use? Probably would have a compatibility equivalence to just plain 
>>> HEBREW LETTER HE.
>>>
>>> ~mark
>>>
>>> On 4/1/24 17:39, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode wrote:
>>>> Looking waaaay back to my opus (with Michael Everson) of 1998, 
>>>> http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n1740/n1740.htm, I call to 
>>>> attention one particular case mentioned there: the case where the 
>>>> second HEBREW LETTER HE of the Tetragrammaton is made very wide and 
>>>> another Holy Name (Adonay, ALEF-DALET-NUN-YOD) is printed in 
>>>> smaller letters inside it. As mentioned last century, this is even 
>>>> now (well, then) commonly met with, especially in Sephardic prayer 
>>>> books.
>>>>
>>>> I mention it because I've found a bunch of professional Hebrew 
>>>> fonts which have a glyph for this special character. Take a look at 
>>>> any one of many (but not all) of the offerings of the Samtype 
>>>> Foundry at https://www.myfonts.com/collections/samtype-foundry and 
>>>> you'll see what I mean.  Sometimes it's visible in the sample 
>>>> image, sometimes it isn't even though it's in the font.  They seem 
>>>> to be placing the glyph at codepoint U+FB50, which is ARABIC LETTER 
>>>> ALEF WASLA ISOLATED FORM, probably because it's the next character 
>>>> after the extended Hebrew code-block that ends at U+FB4F HEBREW 
>>>> LIGATURE ALEF LAMED and because, being in an Arabic codeblock, it 
>>>> has RTL directionality (while the PUA I think has LTR 
>>>> directionality, which is most inconvenient.)
>>>>
>>>> So it seems that this really is a thing being used by typefounders 
>>>> even now.  Probably should be encoded, yes?  My rationale from 1998 
>>>> of encoding the Tetragrammaton as a glyph in itself was apparently 
>>>> not accepted, though after a later paper, 
>>>> https://unicode.org/L2/L2015/15092-hebew-nomina-sacra.pdf and some 
>>>> discussion, the YOD TRIANGLE U+05EF was encoded. Perhaps this 
>>>> should be too?  I guess as a variant of HE perhaps?  (the name in 
>>>> the subject-header is not meant as a serious proposal for the 
>>>> glyph-name, though this letter is actually serious, despite the date.)
>>>>
>>>> ~mark
>>>