Re: How about a typology for input methods

Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
>
>
>>Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Hebrew has moved a bit away from the prototypical abjad, first by
>>>adopting matres from Aramaic, and later by occasionally using a vowel
>>>point from the sacred script used only for Tanakh. That doesn't suddenly
>>>make it stop being an abjad; it makes it a less prototypical abjad.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I don't know that the vowel-points were of "the sacred script used only
>>for Tanakh." Certainly the vowel-points were invented to codify and
>>record the vowels so that the Tanakh reading could be recorded, but the
>>points were a more general invention, fit for any use of Hebrew. There
>>are old grammars, conjugations of words not necessarily in the Tanakh,
>>etc, all dealing with and using the points. It's sort of like saying
>>that the Latin alphabet "borrowed" moveable-type printing, which was
>>originally used only for printing the Bible.
>>
>>
>
>Texts other than Tanakh are not pointed (unless they're children's
>editions). Have you looked in the Mishnah, the Qabbalistic texts, etc.?
>Rabbinic correspondence from the past millennium?
>
>

But that simply is not TRUE. That's why I wrote to correct you. It is
NOT the case that texts other than the Tanakh are not pointed. Have YOU
looked at recent editions of the Mishnah? I can scan you a
fully-pointed one. Have YOU looked at ANY prayer-book printed in the
last ~500 years? Even the non-Biblical prayers are fully pointed. Have
YOU so much as looked at the Hebrew translation of The Lord of the
Rings? Every poem (*poem*, mind you) in that book is completely
pointed, every dot and dash. Just like I said. Have YOU read ANY
Modern Hebrew poetry? Go get a book of (the recently deceased) Naomi
Shemer's poetry, or Yehuda Amichai, or go father back and look at Hayim
Nachman Bialik's. They're all pointed very very carefully.

>>And it isn't just "occasionally"; Hebrew poetry is and has been
>>regularly *completely* pointed, every dagesh (light and heavy), every
>>shewa, every patah and qamats. Hebrew prosodic analysis (among other
>>things) requires it.
>>
>>
>
>If piyyutim were pointed, they would be a lot less difficult to
>interpret. Also, I suspect, much less susceptible of multiple
>interpretation.
>
>

But they are pointed. Go get hold of any decent prayer-book: they're
pointed up down and backwards (and a good thing, too, because they'd be
almost unreadable otherwise: the words are pretty obscure). It's quite
possible that the pointing was added later and not by the original
authors, but that isn't the point.

~mark