Re: Second invention of the alphabet?

At 19:13 -0400 2004-05-27, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>Does he claim the name of <t> is <dof>?

No, but apparently he feels that the final -s is voiced to -z.

> > Sorry, Peter, that's a dodge. Just because they are obligatory
>> doesn't mean they aren't the points QAMATS and PATAH.
>
>They were, historically. In Yiddish, they aren't.

Of course they are. We shall agree to disagree.

> > >I still don't know what "SIN DOT in SIN" is.
>>
>> Shin with a dot indicating it is [s] not [S].
>
>A dot inside a shin is a dagesh, indicating a lengthened shin, not a
>sin.

It is a dot above the shin.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com