Unless there's a kamats under the het, which I strongly doubt, I see no reason
for he-Hatam Sofer. It should be ha-Hatam, like la-hakham, etc.
And before you go changing all the he-hags, please note that there are 4
he-hags, 4 be-hags and 1 ke-hag in the Tanakh. It's the kamats that demands the
segol.
Barry
Barry Dov Walfish, Ph.D.
Judaica Specialist
University of Toronto Libraries
Toronto, ON M5S 1A5
Canada
________________________________________
From: owner-heb-n...@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu
[owner-heb-n...@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu] On Behalf Of
heb-naco@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu [heb-n...@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 12:06 AM
To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel
Subject: HEB-NACO digest 1376
HEB-NACO Digest 1376
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) he-hag no more
by "Joan C Biella" <j...@loc.gov>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:43:02 -0500
From: "Joan C Biella" <j...@loc.gov>
To: <heb-naco@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: he-hag no more
Message-ID: <4b4f3b86020000e600096...@ntgwgate.loc.gov>
Dear colleagues,
Recently in leafing idly through the new edition of Even-Shoshan I
noticed that one of my favorite off-the-wall Hebrew romanization
oddities exists no more. In the article on “hag [subscript dot under
the h]” we are no longer instructed to romanize the singular with the
definite article as “he-hag” (with segol and kamats). I counted six
uses of “ha-hag” (two patahs) in the article.
The LC database had 49 hits for “he-hag,” 29 for “ha-hag.”
I’ll get started fixing the 49.
In the grip of fear for other old favorites, I checked the articles
which cover “he-hasid,” “he-hakham,” “he-haver,” and
“he-‘arim.” I didn’t see any evidence that these need to
be changed. he-Hatam Sofer is also safe for the moment.
Joan
------------------------------
End of HEB-NACO Digest 1376
***************************
