This article is within the scope of WikiProject Typography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Typography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The table showing the use of meteg in BHS fails in its purpose — it is unpointed. Since the table is lifted verbatim from the SIL page referenced in the table heading, you could have and should have copied over the twelve examples (they are .PNG files, not strings of text). (I also noticed that some of the methegs in the table are silluks.) — Solo Owl (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The article tells that metheg signifies “secondary stress or vowel length”. How does this work when metheg is attached to a shwa or hataf? Is it common in non-Biblical writing, such as prayer books? — Solo Owl (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure about schwas, but I can tell you that meteg is normally not used in non-Biblical writing to mark secondary stress or vowel length. Prayer books may use it to mark primary stress, as mentioned in the article. Mo-Al (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I am no expert, but I believe that printed Tanakhs differ widely in how methegs are combined with vowels and cantillation, especially in the cases represented here; this should be acknowledged under the table, even if it is redundant on the page. My JPL Tanakh (1999) differs in most of these cases, either omitting metheg or printing it to the left of the niqqud. Do these differences have any effect on how the text is to be read aloud? — Solo Owl (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Note that the table's title indicates that it is specifically applicable to the BHS. As per the text before the table, other editions are not consistent with it. Mo-Al (talk) 04:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)