This would be an additional backslash key. In a 102/105-key layout of this form, there would be an additional key to the right of the left shift key. On a left-to-right keyboard, this is written as the Unicode character U+0028, 'left parenthesis': (. This is true on Arabic keyboards as well. On a right-to-left keyboard, this is written as the Unicode character U+0029, 'right parenthesis': ). For instance, whether on a right-to-left or left-to-right keyboard, Shift-9 always produces a logical 'open parenthesis'. Key mappings follow the logical rather than the physical representation. This gets flipped again by the rendering engine's BiDi mirroring algorithm, resulting in the same visual representation as in Latin keyboards. One noteworthy feature is that in the standard layout, paired delimiters -– parentheses (), brackets, braces, and angle brackets (less/greater than) –- have the opposite logical representation from the standard in left-to-right languages. The latest revision, from 2013, mostly modified the location of the diacritics points. The layout is codified in SI-1452 by SII. Like the standard English keyboard layout, QWERTY, the Hebrew layout was derived from the order of letters on Hebrew typewriters. Standard Hebrew keyboards have a 101/104-key layout. The analysis also provides further support to the stem modification theory and shows that the formation of the instrument noun is based on internal changes on the verbal base form without separate reference to the consonantal root.A typewriter in the Hebrew layout, the Triumph Gabriele 25. The only changes that occur are affixation and changing the vowels of the base verb, and the formation in the participle templates preserves the prosodic structure of the base verb.

Morphologically, the formation of the participle form is also more transparent as it requires fewer changes between the verb and the IN. The more transparent the thematic relation between the verb and the IN is, the greater the chance for morphological change. The IN has to be agentive in order to be thematically transparent and undergo morphological change. Thematically, the participle IN corresponds to a thematic role that the verb assigns. Such a change targets both morphological and thematic transparency between the IN and the related verb. I contend that the transition to the participle templates can be predicted based on systematic criteria. Nonetheless, not all instrument nouns (INs) change their template. The change is always from one of the non-participle templates into a participle template and never the other way around. This paper examines morphological variation and change in the formation of instrument nouns in Hebrew.

Mikledet in hebrew