|Title:||On the Hebrew vowel HOLAM
|Action:||For consideration by the UTC|
The proposer gratefully
acknowledges the help of Jony Rosenne in preparing this proposal.
The Hebrew point HOLAM combines in two different
ways with the Hebrew letter VAV. In
the first combination, known as Holam Male,
the VAV is not pronounced as a consonant, and HOLAM
and VAV together serve as the vowel associated with the
preceding consonant. In the second combination, known as Vav Haluma,
the HOLAM is the vowel of a
consonantal VAV. In
high quality typography Holam Male
is distinguished from Vav Haluma: Holam Male is written
with the HOLAM dot above the right side
or above the centre of VAV;
and Vav Haluma
is written with HOLAM above the top left
of VAV. The distinction is clear and significant in
some texts, dating from the 10th century CE to the present day. But in
less high quality typography Holam
Male and Vav Haluma
are not distinguished,
and usually both rendered with the HOLAM dot above the
centre of VAV. Holam
is very common in pointed Hebrew texts; Vav Haluma is much less common but
Note carefully that this is not
a proposal to encode a phonetic
distinction which is not made graphically. Rather, it is a proposal to
encode a graphical
distinction with a 1000 year history. This graphical distinction is
often, although not always, made in modern texts, and it must be made
when the phonetic distinction needs to be indicated unambiguously.
Unicode does not currently specify how to distinguish between Holam Male, Vav Haluma, and the undifferentiated combination. Several different ways have been used in existing texts, or recommended for use with Unicode Hebrew fonts. To avoid proliferation of ad hoc solutions, it is proposed here that the UTC specify encodings for the three cases.
Several options are outlined below. The
preferred option is to encode Holam
distinguished from Vav Haluma,
the sequence <VAV,
ZWJ, HOLAM>. This option is proposed
to the UTC.
There are two ways of indicating vowels in Hebrew script, which may
used either separately or in combination. The ancient system, which
does not fully distinguish the vowel sounds, is to insert the Hebrew
letters ALEF, HE,
VAV and YOD, which can therefore
function as vowels as well as consonants. When "silent", i.e. used to
these letters are known mothers of
reading (imot qeri'a or
ehevi in Hebrew, matres lectionis in Latin). In the
early mediaeval period several different systems of pointing were
introduced to specify the vowel sounds more precisely. Only one of
these systems, the Tiberian system, is in current use, and this is the
only one currently encoded in Unicode. (Proposals for the other systems
are currently being prepared.) This system is normally used for
the biblical and other ancient texts (although not for synagogue
scrolls, which are unpointed) and for some modern Hebrew texts. Most
modern Hebrew is unpointed, but makes good use of mothers of reading.
One of the Tiberian vowel points, U+05B9 HEBREW POINT HOLAM,
consists of a dot
written above the left side of a Hebrew base character. This
represents a long O sound pronounced after the base character. When
there is no associated mother of
reading, this way
of writing a long O sound is known as Holam
Haser, i.e. Defective Holam.
In old manuscripts, the dot is often positioned over the space
between the preceding and following base characters, and sometimes
above the right side of the following (to the left) base character. In
the regular position of the dot is above the left side of the preceding
In pointed Hebrew text the same vowel is often represented both by a
vowel point and by a mother of
reading. The latter has no vowel point of its own, because the
vowel is associated with the preceding consonant. The commonest mother of
reading for a long O sound is VAV. Therefore the
combination of HOLAM with a VAV mother of reading is common in
pointed texts. This
combination is known as Holam Male
(Male is pronounced as two
syllables, mah-leh), i.e. Full Holam.
The HOLAM dot is logically associated with the
preceding base character, the consonant for which it indicates the
vowel sound; the VAV
is redundant because the vowel is fully indicated by the HOLAM.
Thus the VAV may be considered silent, corresponding to
the general rule for pointed texts that a non-final base character with
no point is silent; an alternative analysis is that the VAV
and the HOLAM together indicate the vowel sound.
In the oldest manuscripts which use this pointing scheme, dating from
the 10th century CE, the dot
was positioned above the space between the preceding base character and
the VAV, but it has gradually shifted on to the
In modern high quality typography the dot is positioned above the VAV,
usually above its right edge or its centre. However, the HOLAM
dot is not shifted on to a following VAV when the VAV
is not silent but consonantal, except sometimes in rendering the divine
The difficulty arises because VAV can also be a consonant, and as such can be followed, like every other consonant, by Holam Haser (or by Holam Male, but this causes no special difficulty). Therefore the HOLAM dot can combine in two logically different ways with VAV. The combination of VAV with Holam Haser is known as Vav Haluma, and is pronounced VO (or in some traditions WO). A combination of VAV with HOLAM could be a Holam Male, where the VAV is silent and the letter VAV and the point HOLAM together represent the vowel; or it could be the letter VAV with a Holam Haser, where the VAV is a consonant and the HOLAM point is a vowel. There is no difference in pronunciation between Holam Male and Holam Haser.
In high quality typography, especially of the Hebrew Bible and other religious texts, of educational materials, and of poetry, a careful distinction is made between Holam Male and Vav Haluma: in Holam Male, the HOLAM dot is positioned above the right side of the VAV, or sometimes centred above the VAV; but in Vav Haluma, Holam Haser is rendered in its normal position above the left side of VAV. This seems to have been the original practice, as witnessed in manuscripts and printed editions from the 10th to 19th centuries CE. But, because VAV is a rather narrow letter, and because Vav Haluma is rare in modern Hebrew (in which long O is usually written as Holam Male), many modern typographers of general texts make no distinction, rendering both Holam Male and Vav Haluma by VAV with a HOLAM dot usually centred above it.
The distinction between Holam Male
and Vav Haluma is an
semantically significant one. This is especially true for religious
distinction is made in most Hebrew Bible editions, and in texts quoting
from the Bible. It is also important in educational materials and in
poetry, wherever the exact pronunciation must be marked unambiguously.
examples in Figures 1, 2 and 3 below, in which Holam Male and Vav Haluma are distinguished in six
Hebrew Bible editions and in two other works.
This distinction is not a rare one. Holam Male is very common in the
Hebrew Bible, occurring about 34,808 times or in about 13% of all
words. Vav Haluma is much
common, occurring about 421 times.
|Codex Leningradensis (1006-7)||Lisbon Bible (1492)||Rabbinic Bible (1524-5)|
|Ginsburg/BFBS edition (1908)||Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1976)||Stone edition of Tanach (1996)|
Figure 1: Holam Male (marked in red) and Vav
Haluma (marked in blue)
distinguished in ancient
and modern editions of the Hebrew Bible - these words are from Genesis
(If the colours are not visible: In each image, the third base character from the right, with the dot above its right side or its centre, is Holam Male; the third base character from the left, with the dot above its left side, is Vav Haluma.)
Figure 2: Holam Male (left, twice, red, from
p.529) and Vav Haluma
(right, blue, from p.528) contrasted
in Keil & Delitzsch Commentary
on the Old Testament,
vol.1, reprint by Hendrickson, 1996 (Hebrew words quoted in English
Figure 3: Holam Male (right Hebrew word, red) and Vav
Haluma (left word, blue)
in Langenscheidt's Pocket Hebrew
Figure 4: Comparison of positions of HOLAM
after HE and with VAV in Biblia
Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Left: regular Holam Male, from Joshua 10:3.
Centre: HOLAM dot
not shifted on to consonantal VAV, as this is not Holam Male, from Ezekiel 7:26.
Right: HOLAM dot shifted to Holam Male position on a
consonantal VAV in the divine name, although this is
not Holam Male, from Exodus
The Unicode Hebrew block is based on the Israeli national standard
SI 1311. This standard was originally designed for unpointed modern
Hebrew texts, although later extended to cover points (SI 1311.1) and
accents (SI 1311.2) (see http://qsm.co.il/Hebrew/stdisr.htm
for further details), but was not designed for full support of biblical
Hebrew. As a result there are some minor inadequacies in the Unicode
support for biblical Hebrew.
The most significant of these inadequacies, because it is the only
one which affects the vowel points rather than only the accents, is
that there is no support for the distinction between Holam Male and Vav Haluma. There is a single VAV
character and a single HOLAM character, and only one
way of combining these two, the sequence <VAV, HOLAM>,
which is apparently intended to be used for both Holam Male
and Vav Haluma. There is
thus no defined way of distinctively encoding either Holam Male or Vav Haluma.
The alphabetic presentation form U+FB4B HEBREW LETTER VAV WITH HOLAM cannot be used for Holam Male distinct from Vav Haluma, because it is canonically equivalent to the sequence <VAV, HOLAM>, i.e. it has a canonical decomposition (which cannot be changed) to 05D5 05B9. It is included in Unicode for compatibility purposes.
Because there is a real need to
distinguish between Holam Male
and Vav Haluma, but there is
no standard way of doing so, various ad hoc solutions have been used by
text providers and by font developers. The Hebrew Bible text from
Mechon Mamre (at Genesis 4:13, http://www.mechon-mamre.org/c/ct/c0104.htm#13)
uses <VAV, HOLAM> for Holam Male and <VAV,
ZWJ, HOLAM> for Vav Haluma. The "alpha release"
text at http://whi.wts.edu/WHI/Members/klowery/eL/leningradCodex-alpha.zip
and the text at http://users.ntplx.net/~kimball/Tanach/Genesis.xml
use (again at Genesis 4:13) <HOLAM, VAV>
(actually <HOLAM, accent, VAV>
according to canonical ordering) for Holam
Male and <VAV, HOLAM> for Vav Haluma, and this is also the
encoding recommended in the documentation for the fonts SBL Hebrew and
Ezra SIL. There is however a larger body of existing data, including
pointed modern Hebrew and some biblical texts (e.g. the one at http://www.anastesontai.com/b-cantilee/en-cant.asp?A=1&listeB=4),
in which Holam Male and Vav Haluma are not distinguished
but are both encoded as <VAV, HOLAM>.
To avoid this inconsistency and potential confusion, it is proposed
the UTC should specify distinctive encodings for Holam Male and Vav Haluma, for use when these two
to be distinguished. Various options for these distinctive encodings
discussed below. It is noted that
although Option B2 below can technically be chosen without UTC
involvement, because it involves only a spelling rule, the other
options do require UTC approval as they involve either sequences with ZWJ
or ZWNJ or a new character.
There are various possible distinctive encodings for Holam Male and Vav Haluma. (Some of these are
already summarised in http://qaya.org/academic/hebrew/Issues-Hebrew-Unicode.html,
section 2.3 and appendix B.1.) All of these options are based on the
assumption that <VAV, HOLAM> will
continue to be a valid encoding for both Holam Male and Vav Haluma when there is no need to
distinguish them, as commonly in modern Hebrew text. It is desirable
that rendering and other processes will fall back to treating these two
as identical when no deliberate distinction is being made, e.g. when a
font is applied which does not have special features to support Holam Male and Vav Haluma distinctively, or for
a tailoring is applied to distinguish the two. (It is noted that
because in the current Default Unicode Collation Element Table (DUCET) VAV
and HOLAM have weights at different levels, for
practical purposes <VAV, HOLAM>
and <HOLAM, VAV> collate together,
and ZWJ and ZWNJ are ignored, except at
the binary level. Therefore with all of these options Holam Male and Vav Haluma collate together except
at the binary level.)
In most of the options (but not in Options A2, A3, C3 and C4) the
recommended encoding for Vav Haluma
is simply <VAV,
Although Vav Haluma is less
common than Holam Male, this
corresponds to the regular use of HOLAM with other
Hebrew consonants; this is the reason for using the specially marked
encoding for more common case.
Following this list of options and a summary of their advantages and
disadvantages, the preferred encoding
and proposal to the UTC is given.
These options are called "graphical structure solutions" because
they represent the dot in Holam Male
according to its graphical association with the VAV.
This option effectively takes Holam
Male as a variant of <VAV,
HOLAM> with "a more connected
rendering" (to quote from The
Unicode Standard, version 4.0, section 15.3, p.390). This more
connected rendering is indicated by inserting U+200D ZERO
WIDTH JOINER (ZWJ) between VAV and HOLAM.
This option was earlier rejected because ZWJ and ZWNJ
were not permitted between a base character and a combining character.
But this restriction was partially relaxed at the February 2004 UTC
meeting. This option depends on a small further relaxation of this
This encoding has the advantage that the fallback behaviour should be automatically as required. One disadvantage is that as a layout control character ZWJ is intended for making rendering distinctions which have no other semantic significance. However, there are already several defined uses of ZWJ and ZWNJ with Arabic and Indic scripts which do have other semantic significance. There are similar objections to any possible variant of this option using Variation Selectors.
There are no known existing implementations of this option. However,
it would be simple to support in fonts.
This option, as well as Options B1 and B2, implies that undifferentiated VAV with HOLAM will be rendered like Vav Haluma, not like Holam Male. In fact it seems that many typesetters who do not generally distinguish Vav Haluma from Holam Male render the HOLAM dot above VAV further to the right than the HOLAM dot indicating Holam Haser when used with other letters, for example with YOD whose upper part is usually the same as that of VAV. This suggests that if in a particular text these typesetters did need to distinguish Vav Haluma from Holam Male, the glyph they would use for Vav Haluma would not be the one which they used for undifferentiated VAV with HOLAM.
Another disadvantage of this option is that each Holam Male consists of three
Unicode characters, including ZWJ which takes three
bytes in UTF-8. This increases the size of the encoded Hebrew Bible,
relative to Options A2 and B1 (in which Holam Male consists of two
characters), by 34,000 characters and more than 100,000
UTF-8 bytes, i.e. around 2% of its total length.
This option differs from
Option A1 in that the
sequence <VAV, HOLAM> is used for Holam Male, rather than for Vav Haluma. The proposed sequence
for Vav Haluma uses U+200C
NON-JOINER (ZWNJ), because Vav
Haluma is a less
connected rendering than Holam Male.
This option has the advantage
that the longer and more complex sequence is used for the less common Vav Haluma, but the disadvantage
that consonantal VAV is treated differently from all
other Hebrew consonants in how it combines with Holam Haser. The fallback behaviour
of this option should be as required.
This sequence was rejected earlier for the same theoretical
reasons as Option A1, but for the same reasons it can now be
This option implies that undifferentiated VAV with HOLAM will be rendered like Holam Male, not like Vav Haluma. It may therefore represent more closely than Options A1, B1 or B2 the practice of typesetters who do not normally distinguish Vav Haluma from Holam Male but may have to for certain special texts.The encoding already used by Mechon Mamre is similar to this option except that ZWNJ is replaced by ZWJ. This encoding is apparently supported by existing some fonts and rendering engines, but this support may be largely accidental, because the ZWJ unintentionally breaks a rule to position HOLAM centrally over VAV. The long term encoding of text should not be determined in this way by unintended features of current implementations.
This option differs from Options A1 and A2 in that explicit
sequences with ZWJ or ZWNJ are used to distinguish both Holam Male and Vav Haluma from the
undifferentiated VAV with HOLAM. This
allows typesetters to make a three-way distinction, distinguishing
undifferentiated VAV with HOLAM both
from Holam Male and from Vav Haluma. It is uncertain whether
this is ever necessary. Again, the fallback behaviour of this option
should be as required. Otherwise, this option seems to have the
disadvantages of both Options A1 and A2.
These options are called "logical structure solutions" because they
represent the dot in Holam Male
according to its logical association with the preceding base character.
In all of these solutions Vav Haluma
and undifferentiated VAV with HOLAM are
represented as <VAV, HOLAM>.
In this option Holam Male
is distinguished from Vav Haluma
in that HOLAM is encoded before VAV.
This appears to be a breach of the Unicode rule that combining
characters must follow their associated base characters. But it is not
really a breach of the rule, because the HOLAM
in Holam Male can be
logically associated with the preceding base character, for which it is
the associated vowel, and the VAV is a separate silent
letter. On this analysis Holam Male
analogous to Hiriq Male, i.e.
followed by silent YOD, in which the HIRIQ
is written below the preceding base character; also to the sequence of HOLAM
with silent ALEF, which is encoded unambiguously in
this order although the HOLAM is often rendered above
the top right side of the ALEF.
With this encoding, the HOLAM is for Unicode purposes linked with the preceding base character in a combining character sequence. The HOLAM will often become separated from the VAV by an accent character, because within a combining character sequence accents are sorted after vowel points in canonical ordering and also in the specific orderings recommended for certain fonts.
The fallback behaviour of this encoding, with a font which has not
been set up to work with it, is not ideal but still legible: the Holam Male will be broken up, with
the HOLAM being rendered above the left side of the
preceding base character.
Some existing texts use this encoding, and it is supported in
such as SBL Hebrew and Ezra SIL, with Microsoft Windows only. However,
this implementation proved to be very complex, and may be beyond the
capabilities of other rendering systems.
The complicating factor is the rule that Holam Male is not formed, and so HOLAM
is not shifted on to a following VAV, if the VAV
is consonantal and followed by a vowel, except in the divine
name. This rule, which is illustrated in Figure 4 above, is complex and
not entirely conditioned by the immediate glyph or character
environment. In most cases it is possible in principle, although rather
complex, to determine within the font which VAVs are
silent and so may form Holam Male;
the rule is that if VAV is followed by any Hebrew point
or accent it is not silent. But there are two cases where this is not
possible. Firstly, a VAV followed by Holam Male or by Vav Shruqa (i.e. VAV
with DAGESH acting as a vowel; but this combination may
also be consonantal) is consonantal and so cannot form Holam Male, but any attempt to
distinguish these cases within a font is potentially recursive and well
beyond the capabilities of existing rendering systems. (This situation
does not occur in the Hebrew Bible, but it can do in modern Hebrew.)
Secondly, in at least one major edition of the Hebrew Bible, when the
divine name is written with HOLAM (which is in a small
minority of cases) the HOLAM dot is positioned over the
VAV as in Holam Male
although the VAV is consonantal and carries another
vowel point and usually an accent; this case can be distinguished from
a similar word in which the HOLAM is not positioned as
in Holam Male only from the
remote context, in a way which is clearly outside the scope of any
rendering system - see the centre and right hand images in Figure 4.
Since it is beyond the reasonable scope of a rendering system to determine in every case whether Holam Male should be formed or not, there is a need to define more specific encodings at least for certain marginal cases. Thus, for example, formation of Holam Male could be inhibited by the sequence <ZWJ, HOLAM, VAV>, which would indicate Holam Haser followed by consonantal VAV; but this formation could be promoted by the sequence <ZWNJ, HOLAM, VAV>, which would indicate the rendering of the divine name as in the right hand image in Figure 4. The implication of this is that Option B1 does not in fact have the simplicity which it appears to have at first sight.
This option differs from Option B1 in that HOLAM is
preceded by ZWNJ to separate it from the preceding
combining character sequence. Again, this is a sequence which was
rejected earlier for the same theoretical
reasons as Option A1, but for the same reasons it can now be
considered acceptable. The HOLAM is technically and
logically combined with the preceding base character as in Option B1,
but the intervening ZWNJ can be understood as
indicating that it should not be combined graphically.
With this proposal, any accents and other combining characters which
are graphically as well as logically associated with the preceding base
character should be encoded before the ZWNJ. The ZWNJ,
which is in combining class 0, inhibits canonical reordering, and so
these other combining characters will never be moved to between HOLAM
and VAV. The ZWNJ also explicitly
signals that the HOLAM is to be shifted to form Holam Male or as in the divine
name, and so distinguishes
this from the cases in which the HOLAM dot remains on
preceding base character before consonantal VAV. This
implies that it is significantly simpler to
implement Option B2 than Option B1.
This option has the same disadvantage as Options A1 and A3 that the
length of a text is significantly increased. Its fallback behaviour
should be the same as that of Option B1.
The common factor with these options is that a new Unicode character
is proposed. They have the common disadvantage that they have very poor
fallback behaviour when used with fonts which do not support the new
character. Some experts have commented that any of these solutions have
the effect of making existing uses of HOLAM illegal. In
fact the definitions could be carefully written so that existing uses
are not made illegal but only deprecated. Nevertheless, this effect on
existing texts is a significant argument against any of these new
In some ways the simplest option of all is to define a new Unicode
character HEBREW LETTER HOLAM MALE, which might have a
compatibility decomposition to <VAV, HOLAM>.
This would certainly be simple to implement, and would reduce the size
of the encoded text. But it would have no suitable fallback behaviour
with fonts which do not support this new character. This solution also
loses the essential identity of the HOLAM and the VAV
in Holam Male with HOLAM
and VAV in other contexts.
This is the first of three options based on defining a new second combining character for a variant of HOLAM. Thus one of the variants of HOLAM can be used for the dot in Holam Male, and the other variant can be used in Vav Haluma. These options are reasonably simple to implement. They have the small advantage over Option C1 that the identity of VAV, though not of HOLAM, is preserved.
In this option, the new combining character is HEBREW POINT RIGHT HOLAM, and is to be used only in combination with VAV to form Holam Male. The existing HOLAM character is to be used only for Holam Haser, when combined with any Hebrew consonant. The fallback behaviour is good for Holam Haser but not for Holam Male.
In this option, the new combining character is HEBREW POINT HOLAM HASER, and is to be used for Holam Haser when combined with any Hebrew consonant. The existing HOLAM character is to be used only in combination with VAV to form Holam Male. The fallback behaviour is good for Holam Male but not for Holam Haser; this may be preferable to the fallback behaviour of Option C2 because Holam Male is commoner than Holam Haser in modern Hebrew.
In this option, the new combining character is HEBREW
POINT LEFT HOLAM, and is to be used only in combination with VAV
to form Vav Haluma. The
existing HOLAM character is to be used in combination
to form Holam Male, and for Holam Haser in combination with
consonants other than VAV. The fallback behaviour is
good except for the relatively rare Vav
Haluma, i.e. Holam Haser
with VAV. But this option introduces an entirely
distinction between Holam Haser
with VAV and Holam
Haser with other
consonants, which is justified neither by character semantics nor by
Holam Male = <VAV, ZWJ, HOLAM>
||Best fit to the graphical
structure of Hebrew script; best
within combining sequence and with
semantic significance; long sequence for a common character
Vav Haluma = <VAV, ZWNJ, HOLAM>
||Best fit to the graphical
structure of Hebrew script; best fallback behaviour; long sequence only
for a rare
||ZWNJ used within combining sequence and with semantic significance; arbitrary use of different sequence for Holam Haser in the context of VAV|
||Holam Male = <VAV, ZWJ, HOLAM> and Vav Haluma = <VAV, ZWNJ, HOLAM>||Excellent
||Best fit to the graphical
structure of Hebrew script; best
fallback behaviour; support for possible three-way HOLAM
||ZWJ and ZWNJ used within combining sequence and with semantic significance; long sequence for a common character; arbitrary use of different sequence for Holam Haser in the context of VAV|
Holam Male = <HOLAM, VAV>
||Best fit to the logical
structure of Hebrew script; existing
implementations and texts
||Most complex implementation;
difficulties with unusual
combinations e.g. the divine name
Holam Male = <ZWNJ, HOLAM, VAV>
||Best fit to the logical
structure of Hebrew script; implementation much easier than Option B1
||ZWNJ used within combining sequence, but with only graphical significance; long sequence for a common character|
character HOLAM MALE
|Holam Male illegible
||Bad fallback behaviour; unity
of VAV and HOLAM
||New character RIGHT HOLAM||Holam Male illegible
||Bad fallback behaviour; unity
of HOLAM lost
||New character HOLAM HASER||Holam Haser illegible
||Bad fallback behaviour; unity
of HOLAM lost
||New character LEFT HOLAM||Vav Haluma illegible
||Few characters affected by
bad fallback behaviour
||Unity of HOLAM
and of Holam Haser lost;
arbitrary use of
different character for Holam Haser
in the context of VAV
Assuming that the objections to sequences with ZWJ
or ZWNJ between base characters and combining
characters no longer apply, all of the options above can be considered.
Theoretically the neatest of these is Option A1. It is also easy to
implement in practice. The only significant objection to it is the
2% increase in the length of the text. But that objection should not be
given too much weight, given that storage is cheap and compression can
be used for transmission.
Options A2, A3 and B2 are considered to be acceptable alternatives
to Option A1. Option B1 is rejected because its apparent simplicity
masks serious complications. And all of the new character solutions are
rejected because of their incompatibility with existing fonts and
But the preferred option is Option A1. So this proposal is
that Holam Male should be
encoded, when it needs to be distinguished from Vav Haluma, as
the sequence <VAV,
ZWJ, HOLAM>; and that the sequence
<VAV, HOLAM> should be used always
for Vav Haluma, and for Holam Male when not distinguished
from Vav Haluma. Furthermore,
this option involves a sequence with ZWJ, and also
because it is desirable that the encoding be clearly standardised to
avoid confusion, it is proposed that the UTC specify this as the
correct encoding for Holam Male
when distinguished from Vav Haluma,
and that this
specification should be added to Section 8.1 of The Unicode Standard, perhaps after
the existing subsection Shin and Sin.