Not to be rude, but this “thread” is an elegant argument against Romanization. No user benefits (except for someone who is literate in English, fluent in both Hebrew and English, but also unable to read Hebrew letters). Since Hebrew is definitely a living language, the way spoken in actual use will differ from what linguists and librarians use. If someone can’t read Hebrew script, they aren’t look for Hebrew books, and if they can read Hebrew, they have no desire for Romanization (anymore than there is no desire for English written in Hebrew script). A basic principle in modern (RDA) descriptive cataloging is to describe a resource based on the resource, and to get away from metadata made up from catalogers that bears no resemblance to the resource. If Romanized Hebrew served a purpose the publishers would Romanize the title pages.
We really should consider minimizing Romanization. It isn’t “cataloging”. It isn’t helpful to users. And it is expensive in terms of time and resources. Aaron Kuperman, LC Law Cataloging Section. This is not an official communication from my employer
_______________________________________________ Heb-naco mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco
