Double Merkha

One sign is interpreted by Haïk-Vantoura as both a change in reciting note and an ornament. This is the thin edge of the wedge to obscure the clarity of the design and lead to all sorts of off the wall melismas. I think it is an unsupportable move on her part.

I have not interpreted the double merkha ֦ as anything except a typo for a galgal ֛ . It almost looks to me like a bug in my program! I recall thinking it was a typo for a merkha ֥  - but that's not what is in my rather obscurely written code from 10 years ago. The difference is a d following the c - rather than an f. I know better than to claim my program was is or will be bug free. Creation is not bug free either.

It affects the interpretation of only 14 verses: 1 Kings (twice) - 10:3, 20:29, 2 Chronicles (twice) - 9:2, 20:30, Exodus 5.15, Ezekiel 14.4, Ezra 7.25, Genesis 27.25, Habakkuk 1.3, Leviticus, 10.1, Nehemiah 3.38, Numbers (twice) 14:3, 32:42) and Zechariah 3.2.

Here is her explanation of her interpretation:

Archive version of The Music of the Bible Revealed  (SHV p278)

Well - maybe she's got a point. Though I would challenge anyone to sing the mode she has used for this example. The idea that it is a change in hand-signal is obscure to me.

If in these 14 instances, you want to compromise the design of the system, feel free to introduce a note above the change in reciting note - but be warned - it is a compromise and not a necessary one. My automated rendering is as follows:

Hab 1.3 interpreting the double merkha as a galgal 
Just move the d to f to interpret as a merkha