Re: Verurah / Khamokha / Fele
Not meaning to arouse flames, but I think NOT observing begadkefat rules across word boundaries is one of those "careless slang" practices underlying much of ALA/LC Hebrew romanization--like not romanizing shewa na' in "lomdim" and the like. Except that this practice is so engrained that it isn't even mentioned in HCM. (Still observed for biblical quotations, though.) Well, we'll mention it in the 2nd edition. Joan >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/07/05 12:56 PM >>> At 11:29 AM 4/7/2005 -0400, you wrote: >I was a bit worried about how some libraries say "Mishnah verurah" instead >of "Mishnah berurah" >--that would entail quite a cleanup! But it seems "Mishnah verurah" is >not biblical. >Can anyone tell me what it does come from, and if "verurah" is in any >powerful sense "better" than "berurah"? > >Joan Sorry. I think I am responsible for romanizing the title Mishnah verurah. I was taught that the rule of dropping dagesh from bet, gimel, dalet, kaf, pe and tav after a vowel sound marked by alef he vav yod applies in proper Hebrew in all times and places, not solely in Biblical Hebrew. Is there some authoritative source that cancelled that spelling and pronunciation? I would expect that when our sages used phrases such as "halakhah verurah u-mishnah verurah" in Talmud Bavli Shabbat and in Midrash Eliyahu Zuta and in Yalkut Shimoni, even though they were widely scattered in time and location, all of them were using the dagesh-free form vet and none of them using the careless slang form bet, as in Mishnah Berurah. I must have missed the ruling that made this obsolete in all post-Biblical Hebrew. Clifford Miller
Re: Verurah / Khamokha / Fele
At 11:29 AM 4/7/2005 -0400, you wrote: I was a bit worried about how some libraries say "Mishnah verurah" instead of "Mishnah berurah" --that would entail quite a cleanup! But it seems "Mishnah verurah" is not biblical. Can anyone tell me what it does come from, and if "verurah" is in any powerful sense "better" than "berurah"? Joan Sorry. I think I am responsible for romanizing the title Mishnah verurah. I was taught that the rule of dropping dagesh from bet, gimel, dalet, kaf, pe and tav after a vowel sound marked by alef he vav yod applies in proper Hebrew in all times and places, not solely in Biblical Hebrew. Is there some authoritative source that cancelled that spelling and pronunciation? I would expect that when our sages used phrases such as "halakhah verurah u-mishnah verurah" in Talmud Bavli Shabbat and in Midrash Eliyahu Zuta and in Yalkut Shimoni, even though they were widely scattered in time and location, all of them were using the dagesh-free form vet and none of them using the careless slang form bet, as in Mishnah Berurah. I must have missed the ruling that made this obsolete in all post-Biblical Hebrew. Clifford Miller
Re: hotem/hotam tokhnit
Zephania 3:9 has "safah verurah" and Even-Shoshan has "ad she-hayetah mishnato berurah [Agnon); "leshonah beruah" [Burla]. Heidi At 11:29 AM 4/7/2005 -0400, you wrote: Paul M. points out that it DOES matter which form goes into the 245 and which goes into the 246, since some systems out there may not index the 246, and RLIN definitely uses the 245 for clustering records for the same book together. This being the case, I strongly recommend putting the biblical romanization in the 245 and the "common" romanization in a 246. I was a bit worried about how some libraries say "Mishnah verurah" instead of "Mishnah berurah"--that would entail quite a cleanup! But it seems "Mishnah verurah" is not biblical. Can anyone tell me what it does come from, and if "verurah" is in any powerful sense "better" than "berurah"? Joan >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/06/05 7:12 PM >>> Dear Group, Here's another one I came across today: Hotem tokhnit vs. Hotam tokhnit. 7 clusters in RLIN for the first, 5 for the second, some of them for the same title. Hotem tokhnit is taken from a verse in Ezekiel. In this case, it's clear which is the correct form. I guess we should still do a 246 for the variant, to aid the masses, n'est ce pas? Barry Heidi G. Lerner Hebraica/Judaica Cataloger Catalog Dept. Stanford Univ. Libraries Stanford, CA 94305-6004 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ph: 650-725-9953 fax:650-725-1120
Re: hotem/hotam tokhnit
Paul M. points out that it DOES matter which form goes into the 245 and which goes into the 246, since some systems out there may not index the 246, and RLIN definitely uses the 245 for clustering records for the same book together. This being the case, I strongly recommend putting the biblical romanization in the 245 and the "common" romanization in a 246. I was a bit worried about how some libraries say "Mishnah verurah" instead of "Mishnah berurah"--that would entail quite a cleanup! But it seems "Mishnah verurah" is not biblical. Can anyone tell me what it does come from, and if "verurah" is in any powerful sense "better" than "berurah"? Joan >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/06/05 7:12 PM >>> Dear Group, Here's another one I came across today: Hotem tokhnit vs. Hotam tokhnit. 7 clusters in RLIN for the first, 5 for the second, some of them for the same title. Hotem tokhnit is taken from a verse in Ezekiel. In this case, it's clear which is the correct form. I guess we should still do a 246 for the variant, to aid the masses, n'est ce pas? Barry
