Re: Second invention of the alphabet?

John Cowan wrote:

>
> Peter T. Daniels scripsit:
>
> > Does he claim the name of <t> is <dof>?
>
> Why would he? Its name is "sof".

Because the supposed /z/ at the end of "veiz" is historically a <t>,
taf.

> > > 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.
>
> That might work for "a" and "o", but it doesn't account for the use
> of yod with hiriq, which is used if and only if it would be ambiguous
> to omit it, just as with lightly pointed Hebrew text.

Can you cite a grammar (Weinreich, Katz, Birnbaum) to that effect? The
spellings of the palatal glide and the high front vowel are complicated
but regular.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...