Re: Spaces between initials in the transliteration of Hebrew abbreviations?

[Joan C Biella]

This topic is cover in LC Rule Interpretation 1.0C.  I'll copy it below, though the 
spacing, etc., may not come clearly into your e-mail system.  Let me know if you have 
questions about particular parts of the RI, or about particular abbreviations.


b)  Initials, etc.  Record initials, initialisms, and acronyms without internal 
spaces, regardless of how they are presented in the source of information.  Apply this 
provision also whether these elements are presented with or without periods.

Pel battesimo di S.A.R. Ludovico *
KL Ianuarius habet dies xxxi
Monasterij B.M.V. campililioru[m]
J.J. Rousseau
New York ; W.W. Morrow, 1980

In some cases personal name initials may be presented in a source without periods.  
When they are known to be initials, insert a period after each letter.  In case of 
doubt, do not insert periods.

chief source:  by T S Eliot
transcription:  / by T.S. Eliot
but chief source:  Dr. X goes to the movies
transcription:  Dr. X goes to the movies

Treat an abbreviation consisting of more than a single letter as if it were a distinct 
word, separating it with a space from preceding and succeeding words or initials.

Ph. D.
Ad bibliothecam PP. Franciscan. in Anger
Mr. J.P. Morgan
Paratiyum camukamum / Ma. Pa. Periyacamit Turan
Charleston, W. Va. : [s.n.], 1980
/ by Wm. A. Brown

If two or more distinct initialisms (or sets of initials), acronyms, or abbreviations 
appear in juxtaposition, separate each from the other with a space.

M. J.P. Rabaut
(i.e., Monsieur J.P. Rabaut)
par R.F. s. d. C. Paris *
(i.e., par Roland Fréart, sieur de Chambray *)
U.S. G.P.O.
(i.e., United States Government Printing Office)


>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2/20/2004 1:41:30 PM >>>
Good afternoon,

Could someone please clarify the principle as to when spaces are used in the
transliteration of Hebrew abbreviations, (i.e., not acronyms).
For example, in the Hebrew Abbreviation Website, there are cases where there
are no spaces between letters of each word:

d.E.  divre Elohim hayim

h.m.  haser makom
On the other hand, there are abbreviations where spaces are maintained:
Yo. K. Yom Kipur
Or within one abbreviation, some initials have spaces between them while
others do not:
z. ts. ve-k.le-.l.l.h.h.  zekher tsadik ve-kadosh li-verakhah le-haye
ha-olam ha-ba

With thanks and Shabat Shalom,
L. Ts. C. or L.Ts.C.?
Leah Cohen

Re: a bunch of letters

[Joan C Biella]

"ha-Retsiyah" is a well-known acronym for Zevi Judah ben Abraham Isaac
ha-Levi Kook--but I guess not usually found in author position, so it
hasn't yet been added to his NAR.  What a great opportunity to add it! 
(We usually see it in books published by ha-Makhon 'al shem
ha-Retsiyah.)

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2/24/2004 4:14:04 PM >>>
folks:

a have a book here , Medaber bi-tsedakah, which looks to be bits of 
quotations from Tsevi Yehudah ha-Kohen Kuk.  the funny thing is that
the 
latter's name is given in the title as heh-resh-tsadi-yud-heh.  to my
eye, 
this looks like "hartsiyah" or maybe "ha-ratsiyah" or even
"ha-R.Ts.Y.H." 
or possibly none of the above.  i was wondering if one of you
knowlegable 
people out there in heb-naco county could shed some light on my
dilema.

many thanks

b

lccn 00311619

[Joan C Biella]

Sorry, friends--I can't remember which of you inquired about this
record, which (though created in 2000 and updated several times
subsequently) did not appear in OCLC.

We found an error in the LC record and corrected it, so you should be
able to see it in OCLC now.

title: Huke hayim saviv yerah ha-etanim
author: Wein, Berel

Joan

Re: Brazil

[Joan C Biella]

1.  On the analogy of "Polin," I would say "li-Brazil."
2.  Yes, definitely "va-hazarah."

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2/26/2004 11:06:04 AM >>>
I have in hand the book (in Hebrew) "From Safed to Brazil and back" - I

noticed that there are two Hebrew romanized forms on RLIN:

Mi-Tsefat li-Verazil uve-hazarah
and
Mi-Tsefat li-Brazil uve-hazarah

Which form is correct according to our rules? Isn't it the same case as

with Polin (be-Polin vs. be-Folin)
Isn't Brazil considered as a foreign name and be excluded from some 
grammatical rules?

and shouldn't it be  uva-hazarah  instead uve-hazarah ?

Yossi
(Nudnik from Ohio)

Re: Faruz Karsenti

[Joan C Biella]

This author exists in pre-MARC cataloging under the heading "Karsenti,
Faruz, d. 1846."  There's another author in the NAF who was established
as "Karsenti" from a roman source.  Considering these, I would not have
hesitated to romanize the surname "Karsenti."  I looked further into the
LC pre-MARC catalog and found six other authors established from roman
sources with the surname "Karsenty," and none with "Karsinti."  My usual
reaction, on finding that other catalogers have chosen the less obvious
of two options, is to assume that yes, they know something I don't. 
This is called the "lectio difficilior," isn't it?  They wouldn't have
gone out of their way if there wasn't a reason for it.

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3/5/2004 4:59:18 PM >>>
Folks:

I'm trying to establish on Faruz .Karsen.ti, author of Sefer Gushpanka

de-malkha, and I'm a little confused.  His last name is spelled: 
kuf-resh-samekh-yud-nun-tet-yud, which to my eye looks a lot like 
.Karsin.ti, which is the form that I favor for the 1XX.  HOWEVER, ever

source I can find that mentions him (the 1968 Harvard card catalogue,
for 
instance) romanizes his name as .Karsen.ti.  The issue: do these people

know something I don't, or is this just the result of an older
romanization 
scheme?

many thanks

b

Re: Faruz Karsenti

[Joan C Biella]

If, for your author who signs himself "Vis," you have a non-standard romanization 
indicating "Vais", you put "Vais."  But it doesn't count if you have a non-standard 
romanization indicating "Vais" for some other author who signs himself "Vis."

In this case I couldn't determine that Mr. Karsenti was established in the old catalog 
from a non-standard romanization for him--in fact, he probably wasn't, because if he 
had been, they'd have said so.  His romanization was probably chosen on the basis of 
all the other authors called "Karsenti/y" in non-standard romanization.  But that was 
long enough ago that our current rules weren't in force.

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3/8/2004 9:59:10 AM >>>
I accept and agree with this ruling, but why then Vais (with one Yod) is 
romanized as Vis although we all know that the real name is pronounced as 
Vais or why not to transcribe it as Weiss or Weisz or other romanized form 
of the name as it appears in Reliable Sources (not on CNN)

Yossi

At 08:31 AM 3/8/2004, you wrote:
This author exists in pre-MARC cataloging under the heading "Karsenti,
Faruz, d. 1846."  There's another author in the NAF who was established
as "Karsenti" from a roman source.  Considering these, I would not have
hesitated to romanize the surname "Karsenti."  I looked further into the
LC pre-MARC catalog and found six other authors established from roman
sources with the surname "Karsenty," and none with "Karsinti."  My usual
reaction, on finding that other catalogers have chosen the less obvious
of two options, is to assume that yes, they know something I don't.
This is called the "lectio difficilior," isn't it?  They wouldn't have
gone out of their way if there wasn't a reason for it.

Joan



-
Joseph (Yossi) Galron-Goldschläger
Head of the Hebraica & Jewish Studies  Library
The Ohio State University Libraries, 324 Main Library,
1858 Neil Ave. Mall, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
E-Mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Tel.: (614) 292-3362,  Fax: (614)292-1918
URL:  http://www.lib.ohio-state.edu/jdc/jdc.html 

Re: Ke-minhag Italyani

[Joan C Biella]

Selihot (Italy) sounds okay to me, on the understanding that there is actually 
something unique about this collection of Selihot that warrants a unique uniform title.
Yes, you may create a NAR.  We often don't create them for 130s unless it is necessary 
to trace references.
When you say, is this the same as such-and-such, do you mean, will this NAR look like 
the NAR for such-and-such?  Yes, it will.

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3/8/2004 12:59:29 PM >>>
I have a prayer book:

Sefer Tahanunim u-selihot : le-lele ashmorot ke-minhag Italyani (Venice, 1760)

Should the Uniform-title (130) be: Selihot (Italy)
Should I create a record in the authority file?
Is this one the same as: LCCN 2001-419429 (there is no authority record for 
Selihot (North Africa) ) but there one for Selihot (Yemen) 






-
Joseph (Yossi) Galron-Goldschläger
Head of the Hebraica & Jewish Studies  Library
The Ohio State University Libraries, 324 Main Library,
1858 Neil Ave. Mall, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
E-Mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Tel.: (614) 292-3362,  Fax: (614)292-1918
URL:  http://www.lib.ohio-state.edu/jdc/jdc.html 

re: Selihot (Italy)

[Joan C Biella]

Bernie had some trouble sending the message below, so I'm resending it
for him.  If you get it twice, I apologize!  --Joan

-Original Message-
From: Rabenstein, Bernie 
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 1:43 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: Ke-minhag Italyani


Be careful--Minhag Italyani is identical with Minhag Roma. So you have
to
choose one or the other and make a cross reference from the one not
chosen
BR

Re: Ke-minhag Italyani

[Joan C Biella]

I would say no.  There's a reason the others have areas in their qualifiers, not 
rites, although this is not my area of expertise and if anyone else would like to 
explain what that reason is, I'd be grateful!  --Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3/8/2004 2:12:59 PM >>>
Would we want to use the qualifier "(Roman rite)"  although this does not 
follow the models for other compendia of Selihot.
Heidi
At 01:28 PM 3/8/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>Selihot (Italy) sounds okay to me, on the understanding that there is 
>actually something unique about this collection of Selihot that warrants a 
>unique uniform title.
>Yes, you may create a NAR.  We often don't create them for 130s unless it 
>is necessary to trace references.
>When you say, is this the same as such-and-such, do you mean, will this 
>NAR look like the NAR for such-and-such?  Yes, it will.
>
>Joan
>
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3/8/2004 12:59:29 PM >>>
>I have a prayer book:
>
>Sefer Tahanunim u-selihot : le-lele ashmorot ke-minhag Italyani (Venice, 1760)
>
>Should the Uniform-title (130) be: Selihot (Italy)
>Should I create a record in the authority file?
>Is this one the same as: LCCN 2001-419429 (there is no authority record for
>Selihot (North Africa) ) but there one for Selihot (Yemen) LoC>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-
>Joseph (Yossi) Galron-Goldschläger
>Head of the Hebraica & Jewish Studies  Library
>The Ohio State University Libraries, 324 Main Library,
>1858 Neil Ave. Mall, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
>E-Mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>Tel.: (614) 292-3362,  Fax: (614)292-1918
>URL:  http://www.lib.ohio-state.edu/jdc/jdc.html 

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 

calling all RLIN members

[Joan C Biella]

Those of you who input records with Hebrew script directly into RLIN: 
LC is beginning to get ready for the change to RLIN21 coming this
summer, and I would very much like to consult with folks from other
libraries who will be making the same change.  LC will be a (or the?)
beta tester for the new version of RLIN, and we'd like to keep in touch
with others who will need to use the system.

Please reply to me directly at [EMAIL PROTECTED] if you are interested in
hearing more or participating in a dialog with us about the upcoming
changes.

Thank you!
Joan

Re: Yakhin, i think

[Joan C Biella]

Just one question--what is "kkof"?  Is it standard romanization "k" or
standard romanization "k-with-subscript-dot"?  --Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3/9/2004 3:16:45 PM >>>
Folks:

Another odd one (at least for me).  The work is, "Mind the gap" a
Hebrew 
work with an English title put out by Bank Yisrael.  the name in
question 
is spelled yud-kkof-yud-nun sofit.  Looks a lot like Yakhin, and a
stroll 
through the naf supports this BUT I would very much appreciate it if
one of 
you would be kind enough to check a phone book for me.  the full name:
yosi 
yud-kkof-yud-nun sofit.  bank yisrael is in jerusalem.

many thanks

b

Re: e-mail addresses as sources for romanization

[Joan C Biella]

I don't think this question can be answered except on a case-by-case
basis.  What does the particular e-mail address look like?  If it gives
a full name, like, say, [EMAIL PROTECTED], I'm not sure it wouldn't
be acceptable in a prominent source.

As for the provisional vs. full question, this really comes up very
seldom except when (a) a name is being established from a translation;
(b) the forename is given as just Alef or 'Ayin with no information as
to what it stands for; c) in the case of rare names that can be read two
ways, like Yig'al/Yiga'el.  I'm not sure how the presence or absence of
an e-mail address could affect it, unless it resolves a (b) or (c)-type 
question (thus rendering the heading fully established).  What did you
have in mind?

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3/10/2004 1:01:07 PM >>>
i have a very specific question about citing romanized forms of names
that 
appear as e-mail addresses in either the primary or secondary sources. 
is 
this kosher?  while on the one hand, i think that this is perfectly 
acceptable for a x-ref,  but on the other, i can definetley see the
down 
side to this, and its because this latter set of arguments that i'm
asking.

so:
1) should a non-roman name be romanized (as a x-ref only) per an e-mail

address?
2) would this influence the status of the record; i.e., provisional vs.
full?
3)  how much credit should be given e-mail address romanizations?

b

Fwd: Re: prominent e-mail addresses

[Joan C Biella]

I asked CPSO about this and here is the discouraging reply (plus my
query).  But still I think they can be helpful in cases like the one
Yossi cited--to justify a romanization--and maybe in others.  --Joan


No, I don't think I can quite swallow a name in an email address to
justify a non-roman script heading when there is a Hebrew script form on
the chief source. (Email addresses don't always really convey a person's
preferred form--mine certainly doesn't!)
--Diane

>>> Joan C Biella 3/11/2004 4:12:59 PM >>>
According to LCRI 22.3C, a prominent roman-script form of name in a
Hebrew or Yiddish book can be used as a heading.  Do you think a name in
an e-mail address qualifies?  For example, would an e-mail address of
the form [EMAIL PROTECTED] justify creating a heading "Lovins,
Daniel"?  Or how about [EMAIL PROTECTED] that justify a
heading "Biella, J."?  (I'm assuming that these forms would be
compatible with the Hebrew-script forms of name on the chief sources.)

Thank you for your thoughts about this.

Joan 

Re: FW: more on hagadot

[Joan C Biella]

These are difficult questions that no one is confident about.  I'm
swamped with work this month, but will try to come up with some brief
answers soon.  --Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3/12/2004 9:33:10 AM >>>
Does anyone anywhere have any thoughts about hagadot and uniform
titles???

-Original Message-
From: Cohen Leah 
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 11:55 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Subject: more on hagadot


Shalom,

You have been extremely helpful to me in the subject analysis of
hagadot and
now, I have a few questions on determining uniform title of hagadot:


I am cataloguing A survivors' Haggadah and the original upon which it
is
based Passover seder service : Deutsches Theatre Restaurant.

There is an LC record (from a cooperating library) for the former book
with
the uniform title Haggadah (Sheynzon) although there is no LC authority
for
this title.


According to AACR2 25.22A, the name of and editor is only used to
modify a
variant text. An example given is Haggadah (Reform, Guggenheim).

However,  I did find an LC authority for Haggadah (Silberman).
Could someone please clarify when to add the name of an editor to
Haggadah
in a uniform title?
I should also mention that this hagadah, published in Munich, 1946,  is
a
telling of the Exodus story through  Nazi oppression and Zionist
aspiration
although some tradition excerpts remain. How would that affect the
uniform
title?
Finally, would one apply Rule 25.22 : If the item being catalogued
...[is] a
special text  of a liturgical work, add in parentheses (in this order
of
preference)
1. name of special rite ... 
2. name of place 
Since no. 1 is not applicable, should the uniform title be Haggadah.
Germany?
Thank you very much,

Leah Cohen

Re: Hebrew and Gregorian dates

[Joan C Biella]

The basic question here is easy to answer.  If a book has a Hebrew publication date 
which spans two Gregorian years, and the cataloger finds evidence (usually in the form 
of named months) in the book that indicates the later Gregorian year, then the date is 
recorded as the later year (537 [1777]).

If there are no named months, or only months belonging to the earlier Gregorian year, 
then the date (in the absence of other evidence) has to be recorded as "537 [1776 or 
1777]."

(The only two situations I can think of that can cause a date to be recorded as "537 
[1776]" (or more likely a more recent date such as "762 [2001]") occur if (1) an early 
month is named WITH the year in the source from which the publication date is taken, 
or (2) if there is a statement in the book something like "Nidpas 2001."  A book can 
be published before it's printed, but it can't be printed before it's published.)

There's no need to add a note justifying the choice of earlier or later year.  The 
assumption is that you give a single Gregorian year because you have evidence for it.

As for the question about reprints.  If the cataloger of the reprint didn't see or 
didn't have access to the evidence you found in the original text, he/she will record 
a date that doesn't match yours.  You'll have to live with this, unless you want to 
notify that cataloger each time you discover such a discrepancy.  As you've done in 
this case.  And then the cataloger may not do anything about it.  And that's the way 
it goes.

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3/12/2004 10:28:01 AM >>>
I have a problem or a dilemma I am struggling with for a while:

I am working now on some 17, 18 and 19 century books that all the years I 
was afraid to touch, but now with the Bibliography of the Hebrew Book 
1473-1960 - all those books are much easier to deal with.
The problem I encounter is about the Hebrew date, or better said the 
Gregorian date for those books.
For example: I just added to our collection Solomon ben Abraham Algazi's 
book "Lehem setarim". The date on the t.p. is 537. We would usually record 
it in the 260 field as: 537 [1776 or 1777]. But looking a little deeper 
beyond the t.p. (and with the Bib. of the Heb. Book it is much easier) we 
find that the Haskamot were signed in Menahem-Av 537 [i.e. July-August 
1777] so that the possibility that the book was published in 1776 is very 
unlikely, and the 260 should be: 537 [1777] .
My question is: shouldn't we put a note in the bib. record explaining that 
the date of publication recorded in the 260 field is based on the date of 
the Haskamot, and not just from the t.p.?
The problem is also with later reprints: for example: Lehem setarim was 
reprinted in 1988? in Bene Berak  (LCCN 96-826908). In the bib. record for 
the reprint is the note:  Originally published: Strasburg : J. Lorenzii, 
537 [1776 or 1777]. and the 008 field has 1776 as the original date of 
publication although it is actually 1777.

Any thoughts about this issue (or am I just too picky)

Yossi



-
Joseph (Yossi) Galron-Goldschläger
Head of the Hebraica & Jewish Studies  Library
The Ohio State University Libraries, 324 Main Library,
1858 Neil Ave. Mall, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
E-Mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Tel.: (614) 292-3362,  Fax: (614)292-1918
URL:  http://www.lib.ohio-state.edu/jdc/jdc.html 

Re: Hebrew and Gregorian dates

[Joan C Biella]

Ha--I forgot about that possibility, since our acquisitions department
no longer date stamps the books, so we don't know when they arrived! 
But of course you are right.  --Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3/12/2004 10:55:11 AM >>>
If we receive a "current" book before January (or can verify that it
was sent
before January), I think that we can also choose the earlier Gregorian
year.

Rachel

Re: Hebrew and Gregorian dates

[Joan C Biella]

A censor's date before the publication date would not affect the 260$c.  I would think 
that one after the publication date would function like a printing date and result in 
260$cs like

"537 [1777]" if the censor's date was the later of the two possible Gregorian years

or

"537 [1776 or 1777, i.e. 1779]" if the censor's date was later than either of the two 
possible Gregorian years (cf. rule 1.4F2)

What do other people think about this?
Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3/12/2004 10:38:19 AM >>>
A related issue I came into contact with was the date of the censor in 
Russian etc. books. The t.p. would have, say, 1879 and the censor's date 
was either earlier or even a year or more later. What does one do here? 
I have usually put the date from the t.p. in the 260 and added a note 
with the censor's date.

Marcia

Yossi Galron wrote:

> I have a problem or a dilemma I am struggling with for a while:
> 
> I am working now on some 17, 18 and 19 century books that all the years 
> I was afraid to touch, but now with the Bibliography of the Hebrew Book 
> 1473-1960 - all those books are much easier to deal with.
> The problem I encounter is about the Hebrew date, or better said the 
> Gregorian date for those books.
> For example: I just added to our collection Solomon ben Abraham Algazi's 
> book "Lehem setarim". The date on the t.p. is 537. We would usually 
> record it in the 260 field as: 537 [1776 or 1777]. But looking a little 
> deeper beyond the t.p. (and with the Bib. of the Heb. Book it is much 
> easier) we find that the Haskamot were signed in Menahem-Av 537 [i.e. 
> July-August 1777] so that the possibility that the book was published in 
> 1776 is very unlikely, and the 260 should be: 537 [1777]  changes also the year we put in the call number and in the 008 field>.
> My question is: shouldn't we put a note in the bib. record explaining 
> that the date of publication recorded in the 260 field is based on the 
> date of the Haskamot, and not just from the t.p.?
> The problem is also with later reprints: for example: Lehem setarim was 
> reprinted in 1988? in Bene Berak  (LCCN 96-826908). In the bib. record 
> for the reprint is the note:  Originally published: Strasburg : J. 
> Lorenzii, 537 [1776 or 1777]. and the 008 field has 1776 as the original 
> date of publication although it is actually 1777.
> 
> Any thoughts about this issue (or am I just too picky)
> 
> Yossi
> 
> 
> 
> - 
> 
> Joseph (Yossi) Galron-Goldschläger
> Head of the Hebraica & Jewish Studies  Library
> The Ohio State University Libraries, 324 Main Library,
> 1858 Neil Ave. Mall, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
> E-Mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Tel.: (614) 292-3362,  Fax: (614)292-1918
> URL:  http://www.lib.ohio-state.edu/jdc/jdc.html 
> 
> 

-- 
Marcia Goldberg
Hebrew/Yiddish Cataloger
2200 McKeldin Library
University of Maryland Libraries
College Park, Maryland 20742
Voice: (301) 405-9350
Fax: (301) 314-9971
**NOTE NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Mikhlelet Bet Berl

[Joan C Biella]

Rule 24.13 Type 6, no?  A body of which the name contains the entire name of the 
higher body, like "American Legion Auxiliary" > "American Legion. Auxiliary."

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3/19/2004 9:52:32 AM >>>

Could someone explain why the heading for Mikhlelet Bet Berl is:  Bet Berl. 
$b Mikhlalah and not Mikhlelet Bet Berl
(As far as I remember this is AACR1)

Yossi


-
Joseph (Yossi) Galron-Goldschläger
Head of the Hebraica & Jewish Studies  Library
The Ohio State University Libraries, 324 Main Library,
1858 Neil Ave. Mall, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
E-Mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Tel.: (614) 292-3362,  Fax: (614)292-1918
URL:  http://www.lib.ohio-state.edu/jdc/jdc.html 

Re: Mikhlelet Bet Berl

[Joan C Biella]

If you're aware of a name-change that has not yet been recorded in the NAF, by all 
means please do the necessary authority work to resolve the problem!  It's appropriate 
to do this if you have a new work for which you need the revised heading.

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3/19/2004 10:26:39 AM >>>
As far as I know whole Bet Berl is Mikhlelet Bet Berl. I believe that Bet 
Berl changed it's name from Bet Berl to Mikhlelet Bet Berl in the 1980s 
when the Israeli government allowed the creation of private Colleges in 
Israel (with government support) above the Big Eight (Heb. Uni., TAU, 
Haifa, BGU, Bar-Ilan, Technion, Weizmann, and Open Univ.)

For history of Bet Berl, 
see:  http://www.beitberl.ac.il/engDataPages/DataPagesPreview.asp?ID=1794 


Yossi


At 10:02 AM 3/19/2004, you wrote:
Rule 24.13 Type 6, no?  A body of which the name contains the entire name 
of the higher body, like "American Legion Auxiliary" > "American Legion. 
Auxiliary."

Joan

 >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3/19/2004 9:52:32 AM >>>

Could someone explain why the heading for Mikhlelet Bet Berl is:  Bet Berl.
$b Mikhlalah and not Mikhlelet Bet Berl
(As far as I remember this is AACR1)

Yossi


-
Joseph (Yossi) Galron-Goldschläger
Head of the Hebraica & Jewish Studies  Library
The Ohio State University Libraries, 324 Main Library,
1858 Neil Ave. Mall, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
E-Mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Tel.: (614) 292-3362,  Fax: (614)292-1918
URL:  http://www.lib.ohio-state.edu/jdc/jdc.html 

-
Joseph (Yossi) Galron-Goldschläger
Head of the Hebraica & Jewish Studies  Library
The Ohio State University Libraries, 324 Main Library,
1858 Neil Ave. Mall, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
E-Mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Tel.: (614) 292-3362,  Fax: (614)292-1918
URL:  http://www.lib.ohio-state.edu/jdc/jdc.html 

she-yihy.

[Joan C Biella]

Definitely!  --Joan

Re: Uriyah in a Yiddish context

[Joan C Biella]

"Uryoh" or "Uriyoh" sounds like Weinreich's "Whole Hebrew" to
me--essentially pure Hebrew with a Yiddish vowel thrown in here and
there (compare "Whole Hebrew" Avrohom and "Yiddish" Avrom).  If the form
you're dealing with is unvocalized and in a Yiddish context, I think
"Uryeh" is the desired transcription.  --Joan

>>> Robert Talbott (by way of Yossi Galron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 4/13/2004 4:40:10 PM >>>
Folks:

I'm trying to add a Yiddish-style cross-reference to the NAR, 
"Katzenelenbogen, Uriah, $d 1885-1980." An entry for, "Uriyah," does
not 
appear on the approved list of Hebrew and Aramaic names in Yiddish
contexts 
and there is a discrepancy between the nikud and the vocalization 
recommended by Beider (there is no reference in Weinreich).  Beider 
suggests "Urye" [which would come into the LC romanization scheme as 
"Uryeh"], but the yud in vocalized forms has a kamets under it
["Uryoh"; 
other variants are also possible].  Personally, I favor, "Uryeh,"  but
it 
would give me considerable solace and comfort if a native/near-native 
expert would confirm that I am on the right track.

Thanks in advance.

Bob

Re: Test message to LC

[Joan C Biella]

I received it!  I received it!  --Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4/14/2004 11:23:32 AM >>>
I just got a notice from LC that the problem with Heb-NACO was solved. This 
is a test message.

Yossi



-
Joseph (Yossi) Galron-Goldschläger
Head of the Hebraica & Jewish Studies  Library
The Ohio State University Libraries, 324 Main Library,
1858 Neil Ave. Mall, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
E-Mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Tel.: (614) 292-3362,  Fax: (614)292-1918
URL:  http://www.lib.ohio-state.edu/jdc/jdc.html 

Re: Camp David in Hebrew

[Joan C Biella]

dalet-yod-yod-vav-yod-dalet has to be "Daivid."  As far as I can tell,
LC has been consistent about this, and it's what I recommend for
everyone!  As for whether the first word should be "Kamp" or "Kemp," I
don't know--certainly it would never have occurred to me to put anything
but "Kamp."  Other opinions out there?

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4/16/2004 10:21:11 AM >>>

We got recently a book on the 2000 Camp David negotiations

It looks to me that there is a problem  transcribing the name of Camp
David 
into Hebrew:
The Hebrew form is:  Kof-mem-peh  Dalet-yod-yod-vav-yod-dalet

The form I found in OCLC and LC for an earlier book (LCCN 81-121612) is

Kamp Daivid
some did it as Kamp Deivid  or Kemp Devid

Shouldn't it be Kemp Daivid ? (I agree that the sound should be
Devid - 
but because of the two Yod after the Dalet we have to transcribe it as
Daivid)

Yossi

Re: Camp David in Hebrew

[Joan C Biella]

Unfortunately the word is not in Even Shoshan.  So, all you native
speakers out there--do you agree with Yossi that it should be "Kemp,"
not "Kamp"?  We'll go with the majority.

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4/19/2004 10:17:51 AM >>>

Even in Hebrew you pronounce it as Kemp  (Kuf with a Tsere and not with
a 
Patah)

[The main problem is that the title of the books begin with "K?mp 
Daivid"  and it effects the search]

Yossi

At 08:24 AM 4/19/2004, you wrote:
dalet-yod-yod-vav-yod-dalet has to be "Daivid."  As far as I can tell,
LC has been consistent about this, and it's what I recommend for
everyone!  As for whether the first word should be "Kamp" or "Kemp," I
don't know--certainly it would never have occurred to me to put
anything
but "Kamp."  Other opinions out there?

Joan

Re: Camp David in Hebrew

[Joan C Biella]

I think there'll always be some mystery about how English "Camp" became
interpreted in Hebrew and Yiddish as "Kemp"--these two forms sound very
different to me.  But apparently there is no doubt that "Kemp" is what
people say.  So I propose adopting "Kemp Daivid" as the "correct" form,
and advise that, when it occurs in 245$a, a 246 with "Kamp" be included
in the record.  I'll put "Kemp Daivid" into the NAR, but I think the
variant belongs in the bib records.

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4/19/2004 1:32:15 PM >>>
Would it be appropriate to add two 410's to the NAR for Camp David 
(n94077274) for both Kemp Daivid and Kamp Daivid (even though Kamp
would be 
a variant of a variant)?

Caroline

--On Monday, April 19, 2004 8:32 AM -0700 "Heidi G. Lerner" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Dear Group,
> For what it is worth, Chabad types offer an "ayin" in their
orthography
> for "Kemp". I did a search in Google for "Kuf,ayin,mem,peh" and came
up
> with several hits for "Kemp Daivid" and also "Kemp Gan Israel."
Heidi
>
> At 10:49 AM 4/19/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>> Unfortunately the word is not in Even Shoshan.  So, all you native
>> speakers out there--do you agree with Yossi that it should be
"Kemp,"
>> not "Kamp"?  We'll go with the majority.
>>
>> Joan
>>
>> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4/19/2004 10:17:51 AM >>>
>>
>> Even in Hebrew you pronounce it as Kemp  (Kuf with a Tsere and not
with
>> a
>> Patah)
>>
>> [The main problem is that the title of the books begin with "K?mp
>> Daivid"  and it effects the search]
>>
>> Yossi
>>
>> At 08:24 AM 4/19/2004, you wrote:
>> dalet-yod-yod-vav-yod-dalet has to be "Daivid."  As far as I can
tell,
>> LC has been consistent about this, and it's what I recommend for
>> everyone!  As for whether the first word should be "Kamp" or "Kemp,"
I
>> don't know--certainly it would never have occurred to me to put
>> anything
>> but "Kamp."  Other opinions out there?
>>
>> Joan
>
> 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



Caroline R. Miller
Head, Monographic Cataloging and Authority Sections
UCLA Library Cataloging Center
Young Research Library
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Transcription of "Tet,resh,kuf,vov" (Heidi)

[Joan C Biella]

If there's no help anywhere about the vocalization of a surname, we have to use 
"cataloger judgment" in deciding what references will be helpful.  

One source of ideas for vocalization is the authority file itself.  I tried the 4 
possibilities suggested by Yossi (Tarko, Trako, Tarku, Traku) and found only Tarko.  I 
added Roger's suggestions and found some Turkos and Turkus.

I then reasoned with myself:  "If my name were Turko or Turku and I were spelling it 
in Hebrew, wouldn't I probably spell it tet-VAV-resh-kuf-vav?"  And I answered myself, 
"Yes I would."

I would therefore choose "Tarko" as the spelling for the heading.

I would then make references that derive naturally from this spelling by the change 
(or move) of a single letter, namely Trako and Tarku.  I wouldn't make "Traku," 
"Turko" or "Turko"--let alone "Truko," "Torku," or a whole lot of others--because of 
my earlier judgements or because they involve two changes and are therefore variants 
of variants.

I wouldn't make "Terko" because, frankly, I don't like it!  It doesn't sound like a 
reasonable surname to me.  

And it is the sum of decisions and wildly emotional reactions like these that we call 
"cataloger judgment."  Another cataloger who wants to expand the horizons of the NAF 
can add other references that seem reasonable to him/her.

Joan

P.S. I once heard a discussion between two Arabic catalogers about how to vocalize an 
unfamiliar surname not unlike this one.  The first cataloger said, "When in doubt, use 
fathah [the short a vowel]."  The other one said, "No--when in doubt use dammah [the 
short u vowel]."  Well, in general I like the first idea better.  This is a matter of 
Sprachgefuhl, I guess.  Or is it just because A is nearer the beginning of the 
alphabet?

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4/19/2004 5:52:25 PM >>>
How about Terko? Turko? Senior catalogers, please enlight the young (as a 
professional) and old (by age)cataloger that I aspiring to become...

- r.
(Roger Kohn)

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4/16/2004 5:46:19 PM >>>
I would create a provisional record under one of the following with cross 
references:Tarko, Trako, Traku, and Tarku

I checked the Haifa phone directory, as well as the Tel-Aviv and Jerusalem 
and could find him.

Yossi


At 12:10 PM 4/16/2004, you wrote:
Dear group,
How would I transcribe the following surname:

"Tet,resh,kuf,vov"

Thanks, Heidi

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

-
Joseph (Yossi) Galron-Goldschläger
Head of the Hebraica & Jewish Studies  Library
The Ohio State University Libraries, 324 Main Library,
1858 Neil Ave. Mall, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
E-Mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Tel.: (614) 292-3362,  Fax: (614)292-1918
URL:  http://www.lib.ohio-state.edu/jdc/jdc.html 

Re: form of name

[Joan C Biella]

>From the way Heidi describes the position of "Steiner" on the t.p.
verso, it seems there's no special reason to believe that this is meant
to be the author's name rather than, say, the name of his family, and I
would reject it as a candidate for the heading.  I'd mention it in the
670 as a justification for romanizing the surname as "Shtainer" rather
than "Shtiner," but I wouldn't refer from it. 

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5/6/2004 4:35:52 PM >>>
Heidi:

I don't think the heading should be simply "Steiner"
just because that's all that appears on the verso.

I think you could use "Steiner" only as the basis for
how you should vocalize the surname in the romanized
Hebrew.  (You don't say how the Hebrew is spelled, but
if there's only one yod, without "Steiner" you would
have to romanize it as "Shtiner.")  Maybe the only
place that "Steiner" would go on the record would be
in a note (670?).

Also, unless you know that your author is the same
person as the person in the White Pages, I don't think
you would be justified in making "Steiner, Chaim" a
4xx.

Please anybody correct me if I'm wrong.
Thank you.

-Stanley Nachamie
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 1-212-316-0033
 Authority Control Librarian (currently on leave)
 City University of New York
 Minyanim Coordinator
 AJL NYC Convention 2004




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs  
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover 

Re: form of name

[Joan C Biella]

I think we have to know the context of the "Steiner" on the t.p. verso. 
Is it in an "author-like" position?  Or a "publisher-like" one?  Or
what?

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5/6/2004 3:29:55 PM >>>
Dear Group,
I have on my title page the author's name in Hebrew
Sh.tainer, .Hayim Me'ir

I have on the t.p. verso in romanization just the author's surname
"Steiner".

I have from the whitepages "Steiner, Chaim".

Would I construct my heading as:

Steiner

with the following references:

Steiner, Chaim
Sh.tainer, .Hayim Me'ir

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks, Heidi

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: She'elat Ya'avets/She'ilat Ya'vets/She'ilat Ya'bets?

[Joan C Biella]

We're talking at cross purposes here.  She'ilah is not a misspelling of
she'elah, but a different word.  Alcalay, for example, translates
"she'ilah" as "borrowing; asking (a question); greeting, salutation."

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4/29/2004 6:09:51 PM >>>
Joan wrote:
> I have nothing valuable to say about
> She'elat/She'ilat, though I think Barry's conjecture
> that the yod is there for a purpose is crucial.

I think this is somewhere in Hebraica Cataloging, but
I don't have that in front of me right now:
If somebody mistakenly spells a word like "rishon,"
resh-alef-yod-shin-vav-nun, we still are supposed to
romanize it as "rishon," and not something like,
"re'ishon."

-Stanley Nachamie
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Authority Control Librarian (currently on leave)
 City University of New York
 Minyanim Coordinator
 AJL NYC Covention 2004







__
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs  
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover 

Re: She'elat Ya'avets/She'ilat Ya'vets/She'ilat Ya'bets?

[Joan C Biella]

I have nothing valuable to say about She'elat/She'ilat, though I think
Barry's conjecture that the yod is there for a purpose is crucial.

As for Ya'bets, this name is in Even-Shoshan's list of personal names
and is vocalized with sheva under the 'ayin and a dagesh in the bet. 
This settles the question for those who follow LC.

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4/29/2004 2:08:46 AM >>>
Dear Learned Colleagues,

Here's a puzzler. R. Jacob Emden wrote a book of responsa called
She'elat
(She'ilat?; there is a yod after the alef) Y.A.B.Ts.

The Eureka catalogue seems to be about evenly split between two forms:
She'elat Ya'avets and She'ilat Ya'vets.

Re She'elat/She'ilat, do we read the word differently because of the
yod, or
ignore it and read it as she'elat as if the yod weren't there? I'm not
sure.
But, why put the yod there if she'elat were the intended reading. It is
not
ambiguous without the yod.

Re YABTs, this is obviously an acronym for Ya'akov ben Tsevi, but if
this is
so, why the v and not b. Furthermore, there is a name Ya'bets in I
Chronicles 4:9-10. Furthermore, in the 1884 Lemberg edition that I am
cataloguing, Ya'bets is spelt as a single word without quotation marks
between the last two letters, indicating that it was meant to be
pronounced
as the name in Chronicles.

Incidentally, there are many other books of Emden's in the catalogue
which
use Ya'bets (Zohore Ya'bets, Toldot Yab'ets, etc.) and there are many
other
books of responsa which use She'ilat. So, mah nishtanah ha-sefer
ha-zeh?

Seems to me the correct romanization of the title should be She'ilat
Ya'bets. What say you?


Barry Walfish

Re: Agenda, R&S Cataloging Committee meeting, June 2004

[Joan C Biella]

Paul can speak for himself about this issue, but I'm pretty sure
*Hebraica Cataloging* will not be made machine-readable until it has
already undergone considerable updating.  Ways and means to achieve this
updating might not be easy to find.

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4/29/2004 2:37:20 PM >>>

Will Maher's Hebraica Cataloging be available in the web version of 
Cataloger's Desktop?  I didn't see it in the beta version.  If it is 
available in the production version then maybe it could be updated on a

regular basis without too much fuss.  Or, even better, maybe it could
be 
made freely available through the Hebraica Funnel website or the PCC 
website?

Re: publisher, issuing body

[Joan C Biella]

I don't see how the honoree could be considered the publisher.  If a
yeshiva is mentioned, you might consider using that (in brackets, if
it's not mentioned in publisher position).

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5/17/2004 4:58:18 PM >>>
Dear Group,
I sometimes catalog booklets from the haredi community that are
published 
in honor of a Bar Mitsva, wedding, etc. Very often they offer no
indication 
of an author, publisher or issuing body. Would I use the honorees in
some 
way? I have been often putting this sort of information in a 500 note.
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks, Heidi

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: Psalms af Yidish

[Joan C Biella]

If Weinberg says "Tilim," "Tilim" it has to be.  A 246 from "Tehilim oyf Yidish" could 
be made, but I'm not sure we would make it at LC, as it would be a "mix 'n' match" 
romanization, neither pure Hebrew nor pure Yiddish.

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6/8/2004 4:00:18 PM >>>
I can only guess at the official LC stance, but I would romanize it "Tilim" 
af Yidish, and compensate accordingly with added entries if deemed necesary.

With the usual caveats,

B

At 02:59 PM 6/8/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>How would LC transliterate the Hebrew Tehilim oyf Yiddish?
>According to Weinreich it should be Tilim. Would it be Thilim according to LC?
>
>Yossi
>
>
>-
>Joseph (Yossi) Galron-Goldschläger
>Head of the Hebraica & Jewish Studies  Library
>The Ohio State University Libraries, 324 Main Library,
>1858 Neil Ave. Mall, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
>E-Mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>Tel.: (614) 292-3362,  Fax: (614)292-1918
>URL:  http://www.lib.ohio-state.edu/jdc/jdc.html 
>
>

Re: Psalms af Yidish

[Joan C Biella]

I'm afraid that "for the most part" implies huge spoonfuls of salt.  As the example of 
"mayses" shows, consonants can disappear or metamorphose as well as vowels.  
Representing final heh is just the last stronghold of reversibility.  --Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6/9/2004 10:47:36 AM >>>
It appears that I am in the minority but I  would have expected that we 
would need to transcribe "Tehilim" in a Yiddish as "Thilim" (although I 
admit it looks funny) if we invoke the guidelines on p. 22 of Hebraica 
cataloging under Hebrew words in Yiddish:
"... for this Weinreich's ... is followed. This applies to the most part to 
vowels, not to consonants." This statement is a bit ambiguous. We are 
transcribing final "hehs" in both Yiddish and Ladino although that is a 
slightly different situation.
I will of course adhere to the final decision that is agreed upon and make 
any changes that are necessary in my own catalog.
Heidi
At 09:13 AM 6/9/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>If Weinberg says "Tilim," "Tilim" it has to be.  A 246 from "Tehilim oyf 
>Yidish" could be made, but I'm not sure we would make it at LC, as it 
>would be a "mix 'n' match" romanization, neither pure Hebrew nor pure Yiddish.
>
>Joan
>
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6/8/2004 4:00:18 PM >>>
>I can only guess at the official LC stance, but I would romanize it "Tilim"
>af Yidish, and compensate accordingly with added entries if deemed necesary.
>
>With the usual caveats,
>
>B
>
>At 02:59 PM 6/8/2004 -0400, you wrote:
> >How would LC transliterate the Hebrew Tehilim oyf Yiddish?
> >According to Weinreich it should be Tilim. Would it be Thilim according 
> to LC?
> >
> >Yossi
> >
> >
> >- 
> 
> >Joseph (Yossi) Galron-Goldschläger
> >Head of the Hebraica & Jewish Studies  Library
> >The Ohio State University Libraries, 324 Main Library,
> >1858 Neil Ave. Mall, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
> >E-Mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> >Tel.: (614) 292-3362,  Fax: (614)292-1918
> >URL:  http://www.lib.ohio-state.edu/jdc/jdc.html 
> >
> >

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: Psalms af Yidish

[Joan C Biella]

As for "why Skharyeh not Zkharyeh"--that's because Beider, our authority for Hebrew 
names, uses an S.  And Weinberg is similarly our authority for Hebrew words like 
"mayses" and "tilim."

By the way, I'm the wrong person to ask for an ARGUMENT in favor of these practices.  
But they are the practices requested by a majority of responding catalogers.

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6/9/2004 11:06:51 AM >>>
I agree with Heidi - I also think that it should be Thilim  (with  a silent 
He ) - the same as we romanize names that end with 
an He (Devorah -> Dvoyreh (and not Dvoyre); Zekharyah -> Skhareyh (and not 
Skharye) ), etc.



At 10:47 AM 6/9/2004, you wrote:
It appears that I am in the minority but I  would have expected that we 
would need to transcribe "Tehilim" in a Yiddish as "Thilim" (although I 
admit it looks funny) if we invoke the guidelines on p. 22 of Hebraica 
cataloging under Hebrew words in Yiddish:
"... for this Weinreich's ... is followed. This applies to the most part to 
vowels, not to consonants." This statement is a bit ambiguous. We are 
transcribing final "hehs" in both Yiddish and Ladino although that is a 
slightly different situation.
I will of course adhere to the final decision that is agreed upon and make 
any changes that are necessary in my own catalog.
Heidi
At 09:13 AM 6/9/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>If Weinberg says "Tilim," "Tilim" it has to be.  A 246 from "Tehilim oyf 
>Yidish" could be made, but I'm not sure we would make it at LC, as it 
>would be a "mix 'n' match" romanization, neither pure Hebrew nor pure Yiddish.
>
>Joan
>
>
>At 02:59 PM 6/8/2004 -0400, you wrote:
> >How would LC transliterate the Hebrew Tehilim oyf Yiddish?
> >According to Weinreich it should be Tilim. Would it be Thilim according 
> to LC?
> >
> >Yossi

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

-
Joseph (Yossi) Galron-Goldschläger
Head of the Hebraica & Jewish Studies  Library
The Ohio State University Libraries, 324 Main Library,
1858 Neil Ave. Mall, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
E-Mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Tel.: (614) 292-3362,  Fax: (614)292-1918
URL:  http://www.lib.ohio-state.edu/jdc/jdc.html 

Re: Psalms af Yidish

[Joan C Biella]

a) I don't recommend going with "Thilim."
b) Miagkii znak would not be required, since "th" does not function as
a digraph in Yiddish, and therefore does not need to be distinguished
from t + h.  ("Sh" does function as a digraph in Yiddish, and does have
to be distinguished from s + h.)

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6/10/2004 9:35:43 AM >>>
Just wondering.

If we decide to go with "thilim", should we then (following Maher, p. 
14)  place the miagkii znak between the 't' and the 'h', since these
are 
"two letters representing two distinct consonants when the combination

might otherwise be read as a digraph"? This would prevent people from 
pronouncing the "th" as in the word "theology".

Daniel




At 01:19 PM 6/9/2004 -0700, Zachary Baker wrote:
>"If Wein[reich] says 'Tilim,' 'Tilim' it has to be."  The Yiddishist
in me 
>certainly prefers the "tilim" romanization, though I imagine I could
live 
>with "thilim" if that is how the matter gets adjudicated (a choice
would I 
>have?).  But if "'Tilim' it has to be," then what is the justification
for 
>including the silent "he" at the end of "milhomeh," "mayseh,"
"hokhmeh," 
>etc.?  You won't find that letter in Weinreich's transcriptions of
these 
>and analogous words.
>
>Zachary Baker

Daniel Lovins
Hebraica Catalog Librarian and Team Leader
Sterling Memorial Library
Yale University
PO Box 208240
New Haven, CT 06520
tel: 203/432-1707
fax: 203/432-7231  

Weinberg/reich

[Joan C Biella]

P.S. I apologize for confusing Weinberg and Weinreich.  I'll try not to
do THAT again.  Weinberg is not any sort of romanization authority, as
we've discussed before.  --Joan

Re: Webifying Hebraica Cataloging

[Joan C Biella]

When I click on the link, I get only the title page and table of
contents--am I doing something wrong?  How to see the rest?

But it looks good.  Re diacritics and Hebrew script, I recommend
changing the font to something like Arial Unicode MS, which will change
the "look" but enable funny characters. 

Forward to a lively discussion of the issues and a much-expanded HCM!

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6/24/2004 12:17:54 PM >>>
As I mentioned in the Cataloging Committee meeting on Sunday, I had
begun to
convert Hebraica Cataloging to HTML about a year ago.
I didn't get very far in the effort, having only converted the title
page/table of contents, preliminaries, chapters 1&5 (the two shortest
chapters), and the appendix.
You can see what I've done so far at:

http://www.library.yale.edu/cataloging/hebraicateam/Hebraica%20Cataloging/

I tried to remain as visually faithful to the printed version of the
work as
possible, which--in my opinion--causes there to be too much negative
space.
Note that highlighted sections and words are areas that needed either
diacritics or some other thing and that I had planned to come back to
at a
later time.
Comments?
 
Steven
 

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 Steven Jay Bernstein
 Hebraic Catalog Librarian
 Yale University Library
 130 Wall St.
 P.O. Box 208240
 New Haven, CT 06520-8240
 United States of America
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 PHONE: (203) 432-7414
 FAX:   (203) 432-7231
 E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 

 

Proposed Ladino romanization table

[Joan C Biella]

The following is a message from the Cataloging Policy and Support Office
of the Library of Congress:


PROPOSED ROMANIZATION TABLE FOR LADINO

A proposed romanization table for Ladino appeared in Cataloging Service
Bulletin, no. 104 (Spring 2004). Unfortunately, the draft included many
errors. A corrected version is posted at this location. 

http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/ladino.html 

Please send comments on this draft table by August 31, 2004 to the CPSO
email account: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 


Joan Biella
Library of Congress

Re: Proposed Ladino romanization table

[Joan C Biella]

Sent to Hasafran at the same time--you've probably seen it by now.

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/25/04 7:25 PM >>>
Joan,
Thanks for getting the word out about this positive development.  I
think you should post to Hasafran, as well.
Lenore  

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6/25/2004 8:48:40 AM >>>
The following is a message from the Cataloging Policy and Support
Office
of the Library of Congress:


PROPOSED ROMANIZATION TABLE FOR LADINO

A proposed romanization table for Ladino appeared in Cataloging
Service
Bulletin, no. 104 (Spring 2004). Unfortunately, the draft included
many
errors. A corrected version is posted at this location. 

http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/ladino.html 

Please send comments on this draft table by August 31, 2004 to the
CPSO
email account: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 


Joan Biella
Library of Congress

Re: Koyen or Kohen in Yiddish

[Joan C Biella]

Are you dealing with the singular or the plural?  When a dictionary
gives a choice (as with the plural, here) we pretty much always say to
go with the first form listed.

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6/30/2004 3:07:11 PM >>>
Dear Group,
Is Kohen in a Yiddish context transcribed for those of us adhering to 
ALA/LC transliteration rules:
a) Koyen
b) Kohen

Weinrich offers two possibilities for the plural: koyenim/kehanim.
Which 
should I use.
Thanks,
Heidi

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: Koyen or Kohen in Yiddish

[Joan C Biella]

We haven't really agreed on a standardized way to treat such things, but
Hakoyen or haKoyen would occur to me.  What do people think?

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 7/1/2004 11:23:34 AM >>>
wouldn't the hebrew article in "ha-kohen" be treated as part of the
word 
proper in a yiddish context?  wienreich doesn't have an entry for it in
the 
heh's, but even so, my vote would be for "Hakoyen."

b

At 02:20 PM 6/30/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>I have the plural in the title and the single in a name.
>I guess that I will use "koyenim" since that appears first in
Weinrich. 
>But the author's name is "Mortkhe ha-Kohen Rozenberg". Should I
transcribe 
>it instead as Mortkhe ha-Koyen Rozenberg?
>Heidi
>At 05:18 PM 6/30/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>>Are you dealing with the singular or the plural?  When a dictionary
>>gives a choice (as with the plural, here) we pretty much always say
to
>>go with the first form listed.
>>
>>Joan
>>
>> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6/30/2004 3:07:11 PM >>>
>>Dear Group,
>>Is Kohen in a Yiddish context transcribed for those of us adhering
to
>>ALA/LC transliteration rules:
>>a) Koyen
>>b) Kohen
>>
>>Weinrich offers two possibilities for the plural: koyenim/kehanim.
>>Which
>>should I use.
>>Thanks,
>>Heidi
>>
>>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
>
>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
>

earthshattering forename news!

[Joan C Biella]

I never thought this day would come, but here it is.

Yossi has faxed me a page from the c2003 edition of Even-Shoshan's
dictionary, and the forename gimel-yod-alef is there, and it's vocalized
as

*
Gai
*

There is no hirek under the yod!!

LC will not undertake a general cleanup of older records with "Gayi,"
but along with NACO libraries we will correct them on an as-encountered
basis.

Wonders will never cease.

Joan

P.S. Yossi, did you look up "hehedir"?

yet more earthshattering news!

[Joan C Biella]

Yossi looked up he-he-dalet-yod-resh in the c2003 Even-Shoshan, and it
is vocalized as

*
hehedir
*

with hatef segol under the 2nd he!!  An unambiguous reading!

And, what's more, what we always used to insist on anyway!

What a day this has been.  And it's only 9:48.

Joan

Re: bet heh vav

[Joan C Biella]

And the gimel would be for "ga'on," then?  --Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 7/14/2004 1:38:01 PM >>>
Hi Bob - in Ashkeanzi's Otsar rashe tevot, I found
"be-.ezer ha-tsur vi-yeshuato"

which I suppose would be b. h. .v.

I don't know if that is right or not.
Heidi
At 09:51 AM 7/14/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>folks:
>
>i'm working on an nar for one Avraham Broin.  the source presents his
name 
>as : Avraham b. la-a.a. [bet-heh-vav-geresh] R. Mosheh Broin ...
>
>bet-heh-vav-geresh is a new one to me, and i didn't see it on the 
>Princeton page.  please help.
>
>b
>

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: bet heh vav

[Joan C Biella]

Sorry about that geresh/gimel thing.  It doesn't really matter, though,
if our conjectured interpretation of an initialism is "right" or not,
because there's no way (that I can think of) to be sure.  We choose what
seems right, and if another library can offer proof that some other
interpretation was "meant," let them stand up and tell us.

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 7/14/2004 3:07:06 PM >>>
well, it's a geresh, not a gimel.  i suppose bhv, with proper full
stops, 
spacing, and diacritics would do but i suspect it's not right.

here's to better weather

b
At 01:59 PM 7/14/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>And the gimel would be for "ga'on," then?  --Joan
>
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 7/14/2004 1:38:01 PM >>>
>Hi Bob - in Ashkeanzi's Otsar rashe tevot, I found
>"be-.ezer ha-tsur vi-yeshuato"
>
>which I suppose would be b. h. .v.
>
>I don't know if that is right or not.
>Heidi
>At 09:51 AM 7/14/2004 -0700, you wrote:
> >folks:
> >
> >i'm working on an nar for one Avraham Broin.  the source presents
his
>name
> >as : Avraham b. la-a.a. [bet-heh-vav-geresh] R. Mosheh Broin ...
> >
> >bet-heh-vav-geresh is a new one to me, and i didn't see it on the
> >Princeton page.  please help.
> >
> >b
> >
>
>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: Question about proposal to treat "Kuntres, etc." like "Sefer"

[Joan C Biella]

As Steve points out, the application of Chapter 25 of AACR2 on uniform
titles is OPTIONAL in its entirety.  Any library is free under AACR2 to
implement it or not.  The Library of Congress policy is to implement it.

The question before AJL catalogers is not whether uniform titles should
be made both for works with titles beginning with "Sefer" and those with
titles beginning with "Kuntres" (etc.), but whether "Sefer" and
"Kuntres" titles should be treated differently.  LC and a number of
other libraries which follow LC practice closely HAVE been treating them
differently--making uniform titles for those with "Sefer" but not for
those with the other introductory words.  We are proposing that this
different treatment should stop.

Steve's practice need not and should not be affected by this decision.

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/16/04 3:04 PM >>>
A quick question...

On p.45 of Hebraica Cataloging, Paul Maher states that in those works
beginning with the word "Sefer" where "Sefer" is separable, a uniform
title (either 130 or 240 is used without the word "Sefer".  Has this
been the general practice among us to create uniform titles in such
cases?  I have never done this (unless the work warrants a uniform title
for some other reason).  Instead, I have created added entries (246:30
fields) containing the portion of the title without the word "Sefer". 
My reasoning for not creating a uniform title is based on AACR2 25.1A.
  The need to use uniform titles varies from one catalogue to another
and varies within one catalogue.  Base the decision whether to use a
uniform title in a particular instance on one or more of the following,
as appropriate:
1.. how well the work is known
2.. how many manifestations the work are involved
3.. whether another work with the same title proper has been
identified (see 25.5B)
4.. whether the main entry is under title (see 21.1C)
5.. whether the work was originally in another language
6.. the extent to which the catalogue is used for research purposes.
Generally, books that begin with the word "Sefer" 1) are not all that
well known; 2) do not have many manifestations; 3) do not have many
"twin" titles; 4) have author main entries; and 5) are not translations.
 The only other justification for creating a uniform title in this case
would have to do with the extent to which the catalogue is used for
research purposes.  I imagine that when our catalogs were in card
format, having uniform titles that dropped the "Sefer" were probably
important so that both forms would index (since an additional card may
not have been produced for the varying form of title), and thereby aid
in research.  However, now that our catalogs are in machine readable
format the varying form of title field is generally indexed and as a
result both forms are indexed without needing to create a uniform title.
 Basically, MARC dissolves the need for creating a uniform title without
the word "Sefer".

Is my understanding and application of this rule accurate?  If so, what
is Paul Maher's reasoning for stating that a uniform title is used? (For
the purposes of creating card indexes, I imagine.)  Am I alone in not
creating uniform titles in this case or do others also not create them?

Re: mem-dalet-nun sofit

[Joan C Biella]

I have no suggestions to offer regarding the romanization, but remember that if Ms. 
Frenkel is now using the surname Frenkel-X, we're dealing with a change of heading, 
not just a new reference for the old heading (which will become a reference coded with 
$wnne).

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8/11/2004 4:23:48 PM >>>
folks:

i have an added entry to an existing nar (Frenkel, Rachel).  It looks like 
Ms. Frenkel got married, and went with the hyphenated option.  sadly, the 
added surname has a vocaliztion that is beyond me.  i would like some input 
from those of you in the know.

the entry on the book (Semaòhot òkeòtanot shel yom òhulin) is: Ra.hel 
Fren.kel-[mem-dalet-nun sofit].  I think the likeliest romanization would 
be Medan, but the chances are good that another romanization is 
likely.  for what it's worth, she teaches at Mikhlelet Leòvinsòki le-òhinukh.

thanks in advance.

b

Re: Itsik?

[Joan C Biella]

I would think "Itsek."  Any other opinions?  --Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8/12/2004 10:50:32 AM >>>
Dear Group,
Would "alef,yud,tsadi,kuf" in a Hebrew context be transcribed as:
Itsik
Itsek
Itsak

Thanks, Heidi

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 

another "name that surname"

[Joan C Biella]

What to do with mem-yod-yod-alef as a surname?  (Cf. "Misped gadol
ve-khaved me'od," originally pub. 1811.)

No doubt the same phenomenon as in place names like "Bilgoraya" (or
however one should romanize it), ending in two yods and an alef.

I seem to remember Zachary saying that the "y-y-a" in such names does
not actually produce an extra syllable (Bilgoraya as opposed to
Bilgorai), so should this surname be "Mai"?  Or maybe "May," as a subtle
indication that two yods are present?

Any thoughts?
Joan

Re: help with acronym

[Joan C Biella]

Looks like "me-rabo[tenu] ha-k[edoshim]" to me.  --Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8/12/2004 2:26:54 PM >>>
Dear Group,
I am cataloging a book in two parts. The second part is entitled
"Mikhteve 
kodesh".  The statement of responsibility has 
"Mem,resh,bet,vov,heh,gershayim,kuf" mi-Gur, z.y. a.a. How would I 
transcribe: "Mem,resh,bet,vov,heh,gershayim,kuf". I was thinking maybe

"me-rav. .veha-.k." but that is just a guess.
The 1st work is a note to: Abraham Mordecai Alter  of Gur (d. 1948)
from 
Yaakov Yitshak, mi-.Vlotslave.k.
Thanks, Heidi

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: name

[Joan C Biella]

"Itinigi" must mean "person from Itinig = Etting[en]," so I'd romanize
it "Etinigi."  --Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8/19/2004 12:11:18 PM >>>
Rachel,
According to the Bibliography of the Hebrew Book (a.k.a. Mif'al 
ha-bibliyografyah ha-Ivrit)) it is:

Itinigi  (alef-yod-tet-yod-nun-yod-gimel-yod)


The heading in the record is:  Etingen, Eliyahu ben Avraham 
ha-Levi   (Alef-tet-yod-nun-gimel-nun)

The authority record has also:  Ettingen, Elijah ben Abraham Halevi 
[in rom.]

Born in Vienna, and died in Vengrov [Wegrow], Poland in shenat 408
[1648]

The source cited in the authority record is:  Kehilat Vengrov : sefer 
zikaron (Tel-Aviv, 1961)

Hope this helps,

Yossi



At 10:24 19/08/2004, you wrote:
Does anyone have the 2003 Brooklyn reprint or the 1645 Lublin original
of 
Sefer Berit ha-Levi?
I have difficulties in part of the author's name [diacritics omitted]:
Eliyahu ha-Levi ... ben ... Avraham ha-Levi, zatsal, followed by what
looks 
like: alef-vav [or yod?]-tet-yod-nun-vav [or yod?]-gimel [or nun?]-yod,

followed by : r.m. ve-a.b.d. di-k.k. Vengrovi.  Should that part of the

name be O.tinogi / E.tinigi?
The RLIN records refer to him as Ettinger, Elija and and Ettingen,
Elijah. 
The first form is mentioned in Enc. Jud. v. 5  col. 783.

Thanks,

Rachel

Re: Haggadot, siddurim, etc. with instructions

[Joan C Biella]

If the text of the Haggadah is in Hebrew, it classes as a Hebrew
Haggadah.  The instructions are not part of the liturgical text proper,
so they don't interfere with the classification.  Making the 041
heb$ajrb looks fine to me.

LC would say, in the 546, something like "Text in Hebrew; rubrics in
Judeo-Arabic."  Cf., for example, lccn 91827784.

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/26/04 5:59 PM >>>
Heb-NACOers,

We have a Haggadah with text in Hebrew without translation.  However,
there 
are instructions (along the lines of "lift the glass of wine and
say...") 
in Judeo-Arabic.  Would it class in BM674.6.A3 (Hebrew only)?  Would it
go 
into the translation number (BM674.649.J...)?

I usually use a 546 with something like:  "Vocalized Hebrew text with 
instructions in Judeo-Arabic."  If I put "Vocalized Hebrew and 
Judeo-Arabic" it sounds like it includes a translation when it really 
doesn't.  How about the 041?  All I can think of is "heb $a jrb" for
this 
case.

Thanks for your help.

Caroline

Caroline R. Miller
Head, Monographic Cataloging and Authority Sections
UCLA Library Cataloging Center
Young Research Library
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: help with romanization

[Joan C Biella]

Looks like "Rai" to me.  --Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9/21/2004 3:43:39 PM >>>
Dear group,
I have a surname of a painter "Resh,yud,yud".
His romanized form on the piece appears as "Ray."
How would I transcribe it in systematic romanization.
Thanks, Heidi

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: *Tenth* of Av? (Karaite fast day)--SACO proposals

[Joan C Biella]

You are right, there are now SACO funnels as well as NACO ones, and the
Hebraica Funnel is beginning to explore expansion.  But perhaps Yale is
already an acknowledged provider of subject heading proposals.

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/14/2004 2:27:11 PM >>>
Daniel Lovins wrote:
> I think I'll go ahead and submit both as SACO
> proposals.

Maybe I'm misinformed, but I thought I heard a while
back that LC is no longer allowing just anyone to
submit SACO proposals; now prospective SACO
contributors must undergo special training like that
required of prospective NACO contributors.

Or did that change not take place yet?

Again, sorry if I'm misinformed.

-Stanley Nachamie
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Authority Control Librarian (currently on leave)
 City University of New Yorik 

Re: name

[Joan C Biella]

This name is being established by another library--isn't it just about
to come out of the Funnel, Heidi?  There's a "Zacharish" in one of our
old Tel Aviv phonebooks, and I believe the form chosen is "Zakharish."

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/28/04 5:35 PM >>>
I would go with Zakrish although I could not find the name in any
Israeli 
(English) phone directory.

Yossi


At 03:04 PM 9/28/2004, you wrote:
Any suggestion how to romanize the name (family) zayin-kaf-resh-yod-shin
? 
he is from Bene Berak

Thanks,

Rachel

Re: RLIN21 - right-to-left in 260, diacritics filing

[Joan C Biella]

Yes, I'm afraid all of us RLIN users are only too aware of the problems
with bidirectionality and Unicode in RLIN21.  The Library of Congress
has been politely nudging (= squawking at) RLG for months about these
difficulties, and Joan Aliprand has advised us that she is working on
solutions.

Unfortunately, the solutions she has in mind can ONLY be implemented by
RLG.  There is NO way we in Cataloging Land can truly "correct" the
present faults in display from our end.  There are some apparent fixes
we could use--like inputting the period before the date in the nonroman
260$c--but though these may produce a pleasing appearance NOW, they will
not display properly when the record migrates from RLIN21 to other
systems.

As for the relationship between diacritic input and non-filing
indicators--the solution LC has chosen, which I believe is consistent
with MARC, is to match the non-filing indicators to Unicode requirements
even though LC has not yet implemented Unicode in its own database.  In
other words, if a title begins with "he-Hasid [subscript dot under H]"
or the like, we now set the nonfiling indicator at 3, not at 4 as we
used to do.

As for publishing Joan A.'s paper, I see no harm in it (subject to her
approval, of course), but if it's the same talk she gave at AJL last
June, there's not much in it directly related to Hebrew, is there?

Rest assured that if LC hears anything concrete about solving the
problems you are facing, Silke, we'll be ready to discuss and publicize
as much as seems helpful!  I've given up holding my breath for the
solutions, but I'm still very eager for them.  LC has been keeping all
its Hebrew and Arabic script records in SAVE mode, but as the number of
RLIN21 records increases that solution becomes more and more cumbersome.
 We may soon have to start allowing them to enter our database in all
their dishevelment, to be corrected later.

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9/30/2004 9:52:35 AM >>>
Dear colleagues,

I started working in RLIN21 and discovered that there are numerous 
changes due to Unicode, as well as bugs.

*A*
Recording dates in Arabic numerals in square brackets after the Hebrew

date (in the Hebrew 260 field) is one of the bugs. The brackets get 
allocated wrongly and flip. Even if manages to toggle and to write the

sequence of Hebrew letters, square brackets and Arabic numerals
correctly, 
everything flips around again after saving.

I have corresponded with RLG and I understand that there are numerous 
novelties and problems. My guess is that I am not alone and that others
are 
experiencing the same problems.

As a remedy for the bracket-problem, RLG suggested that I use the old
RTFW 
interface until record migration in RLIN21 has taken place. Or, 
alternatively, work in SAVE mode and revise records at a later stage. 
But of course I prefer to continue working in RLIN21, and, of course, I
am 
not keen to revise my records at a later stage.

Has anybody found a way around this problem?

***

*B*
An important change in RLIN21 is the filing of diacritics. In Unicode,
they 
now have to be written *after* the letter they relate to, and this
greatly 
affects the filing order and the calculating of non-filing indicators!

Joan Aliprand from RLG sent me the copy of a lecture she held for AJL 
entitled "The use of Unicode in MARC21 records", which relates to 
Hebrew Unicode issues, and the filing issues especially. 

My suggestion: could we publish this lecture (pending 
J.P.'s permission, of course) on the Heb Naco FAQ? 
[Not everyone on this list needs to reinvent the wheel and waste time
with 
trial-and-error on RLIN21, as I did.]

Any comments appreciated,

Silke Schaeper

Hebraica cataloguer 
Bodleian Library - Department of Oriental Collections
Broad Street, Oxford OX1 3BG
Tel   01865-277 031   Fax  01865-277 029
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Re: help with romanization

[Joan C Biella]

I can't find this phrase in the O.T. concordance, so as far as I'm
concerned, anything goes!  Just make 246s with the possibilities you
don't choose.  --Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/6/2004 5:12:39 PM >>>
How about No.ham Tsiyon ?

Yossi


At 04:26 PM 10/6/2004, you wrote:
Dear group,
I have a title:
Sefer "Nun,het,mem,sofi" Tsiyon:
Would this be:
Sefer Ni.hem Tsiyon
or
Sefer Na.hem Tsiyon

Thanks, Heidi

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: help with name

[Joan C Biella]

If there's a reasonable equivalent in Beider, I think we should use it. 
Do we need to create a web-list of Yiddish names NOT derived from Hebrew
or Aramaic, or significantly modified from Hebrew/Aramaic originals? 
--Joan 

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/21/2004 11:10:46 AM >>>
Dear group,
What is the correct way to transcribe the following name in a Hebrew
context:
"Yud,vov,zayin,peh,alef".
I have seen:
Yozefa
Yuzpa

How about Yozpe? (Beider, p. 458)

I could not find it in Even-Shoshan unless I was looking incorrectly.

Thanks, Heidi


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: Title of book

[Joan C Biella]

If the two words on Rita's t.p. are spelled the same way (alef, yud,
resh, vav, peh, yud, mem sofit), I believe they should be romanized the
same way--not one as "Eropiyim" and the other as "Eropim."  Yossi's
suggestion to romanize both as "Eropim" seems reasonable to me. 
Interpreting the spelling as "Eropiyim" would be barely possible in the
Bible (if the Bible mentioned Europeans!), but seems unlikely to me in
modern Hebrew usage.  
Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/22/2004 10:59:29 AM >>>
Dear Rita,
I wonder if it should be romanized as
"Eropiyim .ve-Eropim". "Eropiyim would be the plural for "European"
used as 
an adjective. I have seen evidence that "European" as a noun can be
spelled 
"alef,yud,resh,vov,peh,alef,yud". This, in the plural would be
romanized as 
Erope'im. However, as per below, it does not seem to appear on the
title 
page that you have.
What do others think?

Heidi
At 10:38 AM 10/22/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>I am cataloging a work which is primarily in Hebrew issued by Tel-Aviv

>University's Merkaz le-heker ha-tefutsot a. sh. Goldshtain-Goren. The

>first four words of the added English title are "European Jews and
Jewish 
>Europeans." The first word of the Hebrew title is Yehudim; the 2nd
word is 
>spelled alef, yud, resh, vav, peh, yud, mem sofit; the third is the
same 
>as the second except that it starts with a vav; and the fourth word of
the 
>title is again Yehudim. Should the second and third words be Romanized
as:
>
>Eropim .ve-Eropim, or
>Eropiyim .ve-Eropiyim
>
>There is just one yud before the mem sofit.
>
>TIA, Shabbat Shalom,
>Rita

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 

reward and punishment

[Joan C Biella]

Is it

sakhar ve-'onesh
sekhar ve-'onesh
sakhar va-'onesh

or something even different?

The phrase "sekhar ve-'onesh" occurs several times in RLIN and in the
LC database, but I can't find such a construction in my reference books.
 Better to use "sakhar ve-'onesh"?

Joan

Re: reward and punishment

[Joan C Biella]

Thanks, everyone--the consensus in favor of "sakhar va-'onesh" certainly
wins the day.  --Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/29/2004 2:32:28 PM >>>
  Definitely not "sekhar" since that is the semikhut form.
Even-Shoshan (2000 ed.) gives "sakhar va-'onesh" (with a KAMATS under
the vav).
He quotes Ahad Ha-Am, 15 and Berdichevski, Sipurim 11.).
 Ruth

Quoting Joan C Biella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

| Is it
| 
| sakhar ve-'onesh
| sekhar ve-'onesh
| sakhar va-'onesh
| 
| or something even different?
| 
| The phrase "sekhar ve-'onesh" occurs several times in RLIN and in
the
| LC database, but I can't find such a construction in my reference
books.
|  Better to use "sakhar ve-'onesh"?
| 
| Joan
| 


-- 

Re: Deramah or Dramah?

[Joan C Biella]

As this word has a sheva in the first syllable according to both
Even-Shoshan and Alcalay, the proper LC romanization is "deramah."

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/15/2004 11:33:38 AM >>>

Am I correct to assume that Library of Congress decided on Deramah and
not 
Dramah for Hebrew romanization of Dalet-Resh-Mem-He ?

Yossi

Re: out of the office

[Joan C Biella]

Of course, in a day or so you won't be in the office.  Well, I won't be
either, from Dec. 24 through Jan. 9.  But we can start the year off
right with HCM.

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/15/2004 3:15:09 PM >>>
Dear funnel members,
I will be out of the office from Dec. 17-Jan. 2. I will be back at work

Jan. 3. Please do not send me any headings during that period.
Thanks,
Heidi

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 

Fantastic news!!

[Joan C Biella]

I have just received proof from Rachel Simon that the 2004 1-volume
edition of Even-Shoshan has that problematic masculine forename
vocalized as

Gai

instead of

Gayi!!

Along with the good news we received earlier about "Admor" and
"hehdir," this makes 2004 a banner year indeed for ALA/LC Hebrew
romanization.

Let's celebrate!
Joan

Re: Romanization

[Joan C Biella]

Yes, the Arabic letter in "Qadhdhafi" romanized as "dh" sounds like
English "th" as in "there."  --Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/25/04 6:56 PM >>>
Steven Bernstein asked:
> How are Hebrew letters that have been modified with
> a geresh so as to represent phonemes that are not
> present in the Hebrew language romanized?
> The examples I am thinking of are a gimel with a
> geresh that is meant to sound like 'j' in James and
> a tsadik with a geresh that is meant to sound
> like 'ch' in Charles.
> Should words such as these be romanized Gaims and
> Tsarls or Jaims and Charls.
 
See Hebraica Cataloging, p. 14:
Use an apostrophe for the geresh.
> G'imi [Jimmy]
> Z'ak. [Jacques]
> K.ad'afi [Qaddafi]
> Ts'urts'il {Churchill]

BTW, can someone explain to me what sound the "daled"
with the geresh is supposed to represent?  "Th" as in
"there"?

Shavua Tov.

-Stanley Nachamie
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ! Romanization

[Joan C Biella]

"Ei" is not allowed in ALA/LC Hebrew romanization.  It has to be either
"ai" (patah-yod or patah-yod-yod) or "e" (simple tsere or tsere-yod). 
--Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/27/04 4:07 PM >>>
Clifford Miller writes:
> The result is g' (when we mean j), as in G'eims

Is the "ei" allowed, or do we have to romanize it as
"G'ems"?

Thank you.

-Stanley Nachamie
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Gregorian date in Hebrew characters

[Joan C Biella]

Descriptive notes:

1) I can't think of a rule or RI that requires a note like the one
Heidi is proposing to justify the transcription of a date which is not
in any way problematic.  We seldom see Gregorian dates expressed in
Hebrew characters, which may make this one initially confusing, but not
ultimately so.

2) There is no reason to put such a date in brackets.  Brackets would
imply that the date is being supplied from some source other than the
title page, and it is not.

3) If the cataloger (Heidi) wants to call attention to the odd
formulation of the date, no particular form of words describing the
situation is required.

Joan 

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1/12/2005 5:46:26 PM >>>
Dear Heidi and dear group,
...
It is my understanding, that you need a 500 note to justify the date
you are giving in the 260. Whether the Hebrew characters, used by the
printer to give the date of printing, lead to a date valid in the Hebrew
calendar or the Gregorian calendar is theoretically not relevant here,
IMHO. So, one point of view might be that you don't need to put a 500
note at all, just put your date in brackets.

Your question itself indicates that you want draw the attention of the
future user of your bib record that the civil calendar was used, and not
the Jewish one. It is not every day that a Hebrew book, dated 1617, uses
the Gregorian calendar. So, I would agree that you should draw the
attention of the reader. I would construct my note as following:

"The date of publication given in Hebrew characters [on t.p. _ if
relevant_ ] is for the Gregorian calendar."

 Requesting again your indulgence,

- r.

Sources consulted: lccn 90209190, 90208626, 84129293
Dictionary for the term "chronogram"

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Roger Kohn
Cataloger, Hebraica Team
Library of Congress
LS/CAT/RCCD/HB (4384) 
LM 537
Washington, D.C. 20540-4384
(202) 707-3997
"Opinions expressed are those of the author, and are not official
statements by the Library of Congress."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 




>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/01/2005 15:11:17 >>>
Dear Group,
I would like some help constructing a note.
I have the Gregorian date "1617" in Hebrew characters 
"alef,tav,resh,yud,Zayin".
Would I say something like "title page for Ketuvim has date of
printing

"1617" in Hebrew characters."?
Thanks, Heidi


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: Name authority record

[Joan C Biella]

I'm sorry!  This query literally fell between the cracks--the crack
between my desk and my computer table.  Forgive me for the belated
reply.

I've made a link between the two headings, but am waiting for
information from CPSO about certain technical details (like, how to
handle the fact that one heading has a birthdate and the other
doesn't).

Thank you for pointing out the identity of these author(s).
Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/18/2004 1:29:41 PM >>>
My colleague, Rabbi Bezalel Majersdorf, and I have ascertained that W.

(William) Low, 1922- (arn# 01056870) and Ze'ev ben Nahum Lev, ha-Levi
(arn# 
04086053) are the same person. In LC's catalog, the book Berur Musagim
is 
ascribed to the former whereas Ma'arkhe Lev: 'Iyunim u-Verurim
be-Shimush 
Mikhshur ...  is ascribed to the latter. However, on p. 10 of Ma'arkhe
Lev, 
in the introduction, the author refers to his earlier work, Berur
Musagim. 
Professor Lev passed away in October 2004.

Shabbat Shalom,
Rita

language choice for corporate body headings

[Joan C Biella]

A common problem in Hebraica cataloging is the determination of the
authorized form of name for bodies located in the U.S. which publish in
Hebrew or Yiddish and provide both Hebrew/Yiddish and English names for
themselves in their publications. 

Rule 24.3A1 states:

a) If the name appears in different languages, use the form in
the official language of the body.

b) If there is more than one official language and one of these
is English, use the English form.

c) If the official language is not known, use the form in the
language used predominantly in items issued by the body.

RI 24.3A states: "If the name of a corporate body appears on its
publications in different languages, apply the following":

a) If one of these is in the official language of the body, use
it.

b) If the body has two or more official languages, one of which
is English, use the English form.

c) If the official language of the body is not known, use the
form in the official language of the country in which the body is
located if the country has a single official language.

The rule and RI agree on procedure unless the official language is not
known.  In such a case the rule says to choose the Hebrew/Yiddish name
(the one in the language of the items published by the body); the RI
says to choose the English name (the one in the official language of the
U.S., the country of publication).

LC's assumption currently is that the official language of a body is
the language in which it publishes.  Thus, if one of these publications
is in Hebrew or Yiddish, the Hebrew/Yiddish form of the name is
established, according to the a) sections of the rule and RI, regardless
of the presence of an English form of the name.

It would be possible to assume instead that the presence of an English
name for the body shows that English is also an official language; in
that case, the English form should be established, according to the b)
sections of the rule and RI.

Does the group have thoughts as to which assumption will provide more
satisfaction?

Re: [rlg-jewish-middle-east-studies] RLIN21 Bidirectionality Guidelines for Arabic- and Hebrew-Scrip

[Joan C Biella]

There's no "right" answer to the question "How do you formulate the
260$c in a nonroman parallel field?" because there are no universally or
even Anglo-Americanly accepted rules directing the formulation of
nonroman fields--at least in the descriptive part of the record.

Having said that, I can say that the Library of Congress uses exactly
the same string in both the roman 260$c and the nonroman one in a given
record.  If the roman string is "742 [1981 or 1982]," the nonroman also
has "742 [1981 or 1982]," these characters reading from left to right
just as in the roman field, with the word "or" in English in both.  LC
puts a period at the left of the string in the nonroman field because
the 260 always ends in a period in AACR2 if there is no other mark of
punctuation.  We do this in an attempt to follow AACR2 descriptions of
the 260$c as closely as possible in the nonroman field, even though
there are no rules that say we must.

Many other libraries in RLIN and no doubt elsewhere do not formulate
nonroman 260$cs this way.

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/25/05 1:58 PM >>>
Heb-NACOers,

Posted for my husband, Paul, who is at the University of Judaism.  I
don't 
have an answer for him because I'm at an OCLC library.  Can someone
help?

Thanks.

Caroline

 Forwarded Message 
Date: Friday, February 25, 2005 10:23 AM -0800
From: Paul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Caroline R. Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [rlg-jewish-middle-east-studies] RLIN21 Bidirectionality 
Guidelines for Arabic- and Hebrew-Script (fwd)

Hi Caroline,

Yes, I think I'm on the [rlg-jewish-middle-east-studies] list, but it
must be in digest form, since I didn't see this reply yet. I have an
additional cataloging question about the example. In the Roman field
it
shows the display

742 [1981 or 1982]

while the Hebrew field displays as

742[1981 or 1982].

Aside from the problem with spacing and the addition of the period
after
the square bracket I would expect the following in the Hebrew field:

[1982 or 1981] 742

since that is what I see most often in the records we copy.
(Unfortunately, many of our local dates are currently mangled, so the
above might actually display as [or 1982 1981] 247 no matter what it
looked like in RLIN.)

The Maher book says "The date portion of the bibliographic record is
treated as English in both the roman and the vernacular bibliographic
records."  Does that mean that even in the Hebrew line we should write

742 [1981 or 1982]


If you have time and are still part of Heb-Naco, maybe you could get
the
definitive answer. I have been dropped from the Heb-Naco list so I'm
left out of those discussions.

Thanks.

Paul

-Original Message-
From: "Caroline R. Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:40:13 -0800
Subject: Re: [rlg-jewish-middle-east-studies] RLIN21 Bidirectionality
Guidelines for Arabic- and Hebrew-Script (fwd)

> Paul,
>
> Are you on any of these lists?
>
> Caroline
>
>  Forwarded Message 
> Date: Friday, February 25, 2005 9:45 AM -0500
> From: Daniel Lovins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> Heb-Naco@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Subject: Re: [rlg-jewish-middle-east-studies] RLIN21
Bidirectionality
> Guidelines for Arabic- and Hebrew-Script
>
> Dear Karen,
>
> I was happy to receive your message and instructions about using the
> LRE
> control character in RLIN21. It seems pretty clear how it works: In
> order
> to get multiple-digit number strings that include punctuation to
> display
> correctly: (1) insert Unicode control character LRE immediately
> before
> multiple-digit string; and, if followed by additional right-to-left
> characters: (2) insert Unicode control character PDF immediately
> after end
> of left-to-right string.
>
> After taking a look at your example, I found myself with two
> questions:
>
> (1.) Does a Hebrew IME 'period' after a string of numbers count as a
> resumed left-to-right character, and therefore, when coming at the
> end of a
> Hebrew-script 260 field, need to be preceded by the PDF character?
>
> (2.) By following the "bidirectionality guidelines," we are supposed
> to be
> able to "ensure correct display of strings ..."; but in your
> screen-shot
> example, the Hebrew 260 field seems to have the period in the worng
> place
> (i.e., not after the Hebrew date "742"), and there appears to be a
> space
> missing between the "742" and the bracketed data to its right. Is
> this
> anything we need to worry about?
>
>
> Thanks for your help!
>
> Daniel
>
> At 07:09 PM 2/23/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> All RLIN21 Arabic- and Hebrew-script catalogers:
>
> Starting March 1, 2005 when cataloging Arabic- or Hebrew-script
> records in the migrated RLG Union Catalog, please follow these
> "bidirectionality guidelines" when entering left-to-right
> multiple-digit
> strings in an otherwise right-to-left field.
>
>

Re: Book's title

[Joan C Biella]

Aramaic scholars out there?  Under the verb repas, Pael "to shake,
shatter" Jastrow gives "merapsan igarai" (I think that's how you'd
vocalize it) from Kiddushin 63b.  Maybe someone on the list can look it
up?  He translates the phrase of which this is part as "These my
traditions are apt to shatter roofs (are hard to understand)." 

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/25/05 1:30 PM >>>
Once again, I have to admit my ignorance in public. How should one
Romanize
the following title (and what does it mean)?:

Sefer mem-resh-pe-samekh-yod-nun  alef-yod-gimel-resh-yod

(the book includes me'ot kushiyot 'atsumot ve-terutsim nifla'im me-et
gedole
ha-dor . [al ha-Torah])

 

Thanks,

 

Rachel

Re: u-fo'etit or u-poetit

[Joan C Biella]

Offhand the only words I can recall that ARE treated exceptionally in recent 
records are "bibliyografyah" ("u-bibliyografyah") and "Polin" ("be-Polin").  
Can anyone think of others?

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/23/05 9:00 AM >>>
Dear Heidi,

I'm looking at p. 19 in Maher's Guide, where he writes: "A few loan words 
are also treated as though exempt from the rules governing the 
aspiration/non-aspiration of b/v, k/kh, and p/f when preceeded by an open 
syllable." Since this applies only to exceptions, and, though the 
guidelines for exceptional treatment are not provided, I would have to 
assume, as a default position, that the word you asked about would follow 
the rule, not the exception, and thus be "u-fo'etit". Nothing in Maher's 
examples or in Even-Shoshan or Alcalay would suggest that romanization of 
this term would warrant the exceptional treatment.

Does that sound right?

Daniel





At 05:17 PM 3/22/2005, Heidi G. Lerner wrote:
>Dear group,
>Would "vov,peh,vov,alef,tet,yud,tav" be transcribed as "u-po'etit" or 
>"u-fo'etit". I am guessing "u-po'etit" but would like to hear from others.
>Thanks, Heidi
>
>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

Daniel Lovins
Hebraica Team Leader
Catalog Department
Sterling Memorial Library
Yale University
PO Box 208240
New Haven, CT 06520
tel: 203/432-1707
fax: 203/432-7231  

Re: u-fo'etit or u-poetit

[Joan C Biella]

This one is not an exception to the usual rule for Hebrew words.  --Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/23/05 11:57 AM >>>
I remember Mavet be-Furim.

Shoshanah

At 10:42 AM 3/23/2005, you wrote:
>Offhand the only words I can recall that ARE treated exceptionally in 
>recent records are "bibliyografyah" ("u-bibliyografyah") and "Polin" 
>("be-Polin").  Can anyone think of others?
>
>Joan
>
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/23/05 9:00 AM >>>
>Dear Heidi,
>
>I'm looking at p. 19 in Maher's Guide, where he writes: "A few loan words
>are also treated as though exempt from the rules governing the
>aspiration/non-aspiration of b/v, k/kh, and p/f when preceeded by an open
>syllable." Since this applies only to exceptions, and, though the
>guidelines for exceptional treatment are not provided, I would have to
>assume, as a default position, that the word you asked about would follow
>the rule, not the exception, and thus be "u-fo'etit". Nothing in Maher's
>examples or in Even-Shoshan or Alcalay would suggest that romanization of
>this term would warrant the exceptional treatment.
>
>Does that sound right?
>
>Daniel
>
>
>
>
>
>At 05:17 PM 3/22/2005, Heidi G. Lerner wrote:
> >Dear group,
> >Would "vov,peh,vov,alef,tet,yud,tav" be transcribed as "u-po'etit" or
> >"u-fo'etit". I am guessing "u-po'etit" but would like to hear from others.
> >Thanks, Heidi
> >
> >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
>
>Daniel Lovins
>Hebraica Team Leader
>Catalog Department
>Sterling Memorial Library
>Yale University
>PO Box 208240
>New Haven, CT 06520
>tel: 203/432-1707
>fax: 203/432-7231

Re: u-fo'etit or u-poetit

[Joan C Biella]

This sounds all right, but perhaps more trouble than it's worth.  Why not 
assume that a word is NOT an exception unless it is on a certain list (which we 
can maintain)--a list that so far, in my mind at least, consists only of 
"bibliyografyah" and "Polin."  Maybe we could extend it to "any foreign 
place-name": then we could have "u-Panamah" instead of "u-Fanamah," which is 
surely desirable.

Hmmm ... biyografyah?  I don't see relevant examples of this in the LC 
database, but maybe I haven't looked hard enough.

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/23/05 11:04 AM >>>
Dear Daniel,
I wonder if we should try and define what is meant by "exception". Perhaps 
we can suggest that if a foreign loan word appears in Even-Shoshan with a 
prefix, we would transcribe it as it appears. The example provided by Paul 
Maher as an exception is "u-frozah" which appears with a prefix in 
Even-Shoshan.
He then gives us "u-bibliyografyah", and while "bibliyografyah" does appear 
in Even-Shoshan, I do not think that there is an example is provided with a 
prefix.

What do others think?
Heidi

Re: u-fo'etit or u-poetit

[Joan C Biella]

LC practice in, like, the last thirty or forty years has almost always been to 
treat "po'emah" and its derivatives as "naturalized" Hebrew, like "prozah."  So 
I recommend "u-fo'etit."

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/22/05 5:17 PM >>>
Dear group,
Would "vov,peh,vov,alef,tet,yud,tav" be transcribed as "u-po'etit" or 
"u-fo'etit". I am guessing "u-po'etit" but would like to hear from others.
Thanks, Heidi

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: u-politit/ u-folitit

[Joan C Biella]

I am loath to institute a "practice"  REQUIRING everyone to check Even-Shoshan 
for treatment of doubtful words--for the simple reason that "doubtfulness 
thresholds" vary and not everyone will apply the practice to the same words.

Let's say instead that if anyone NOTICES this kind of exceptional treatment of 
an initial labial consonant in Even-Shoshan's usages, that person will notify 
Heb-NACO.

Words not proved by means of Even-Shoshan to be exceptions should continue to 
be treated as unexceptional.

Heidi, can you start an online list to keep track of these exceptions?

I'll work on fixing any LC "u-folitik..." that I can find.
Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/24/05 3:43 PM >>>
Even-Shoshan has "u-poli.ti.kah".

RLIN has 51 clusters with "u-foli.ti.kah"
and
78 clusters with "u-poli.ti.kah"

Should we establish a practice whereby we look first in Even-Shoshan? If 
Even-Shoshan provides us with an example of  one of these types of words, 
we transcribe it as it appears. If a foreign loan word beginning with b/v, 
k/kh, p/f  does not appear with a prefix in Even-Shoshan,perhaps we should 
develop some sort of guideline governing its transcription.

a new romanization opportunity?

[Joan C Biella]

I'm calling it an "opportunity" not a "problem," because isn't that how we're 
supposed to look at things that we might otherwise consider "problems"?

It's the construct plural of the word "munah."  LC has it 93 times as "munhe," 
and I believe it is even in the list of "words frequently misromanized" as 
such--put there mainly to discourage people from romanizing it "munahe."

But a sharpeyed person has detected a dagesh in the nun in both Even-Shoshan 
and Alcalay, and that means the sheva has to be a vocal one, right?  "Munehe"?

I'm afraid there may be a similar pr--er, opportunity with the construct plural 
of "musag."

Can anyone give me a good argument as to why we should continue to romanize 
these words as "munhe" and "musge"?

Thanks--
Joan

Re: a new romanization opportunity?

[Joan C Biella]

I have carefully reread the section of HCM (p. 17-18) dealing with schwa na' 
which is not romanized, and I don't think either of the types discussed fits 
the case of mun(e)he.

1) Schwas occurring between the 2nd and 3rd consonants of the plural forms of 
participles, nouns, etc. and other verb forms of the pa'al/kal, pi'el, and 
hitpa'el binyan.

Munah is a participle of the hof'al binyan, and the consonant with dagesh is 
the 1st of the root, not the 2nd or 3rd.  Since the actual 2nd consonant of the 
root, vav, doesn't appear at all you might THINK nun was the 2nd and het was 
the 3rd, if you didn't pay close attention, though.  (Let's face it, this is a 
weird form!)

2) Schwas occurring between the 2nd and 3rd consonants of certain plural nouns 
in the construct state where the schwa is also the result of vowel reduction.

Well, we're dealing with a plural noun in the construct state, and the schwa is 
the result of vowel reduction (kamets in munah > schwa in mun(e)he), but again 
the schwa doesn't occur between the 2nd and 3rd consonants of the root--unless 
you stretch a point, as I suggest above. 

I suppose that generations of catalogers have said "munhe" and "musge" by 
analogy with one or the other of these rules, though.

My questions:

1) Shall we let sleeping dogs lie and go on saying "munhe" and "musge"?
2) Shall we start saying "munehe" and "musege"?
3) Shall we point out these forms in the new edition of HCM?

Re 3), I'm reluctant to do so, and also reluctant to create a list of "words 
not romanized according to our rules," which is the sort of thing that can get 
way out of hand.  

How do you all feel?
Joan

>>> Stanley Nachamie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 03/29/05 10:58 PM >>>
You wrote:
> Can anyone give me a good argument as to why we > should continue to romanize 
> these words as "munhe" > and "musge"?

Aren't there many cases when LC disregards the sheva na` in romanization?

-Stanley Nachamie
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: a new romanization opportunity?

[Joan C Biella]

I'm thinking now that the solution may be rather simple:  rewrite rule (1) 
about not romanizing sheva na' in pi'el, hitpa'el, etc. in more pragmatic 
terms, along the lines of "don't romanize sheva na' which follows a consonant 
with dagesh hazak" (with exceptions for yod with dagesh, etc.).  We can give 
several examples including "munhe."  I think this will work.  I'll prepare a 
draft for the AJL Cataloging Committee.

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/30/05 6:24 PM >>>
As a practical measure, I would support continuing our existing practice of 
romanizing as "munhe" and "musge," on the basis of the similar exceptions 
related to vowel reduction which are documented in HCM.

Although I understand Joan's concerns, I also recommend that the "munhe" 
example be documented in the new edition of HCM, and in the short term, that it 
be included in Rachel's romanization FAQ.  

Lenore



Lenore Bell
Team Leader, Hebraica Team
Regional and Cooperative Cataloging Division
Library of Congress
(202) 707-7313
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 


>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/30/05 2:37 PM >>>
I have carefully reread the section of HCM (p. 17-18) dealing with schwa na' 
which is not romanized, and I don't think either of the types discussed fits 
the case of mun(e)he.

1) Schwas occurring between the 2nd and 3rd consonants of the plural forms of 
participles, nouns, etc. and other verb forms of the pa'al/kal, pi'el, and 
hitpa'el binyan.

Munah is a participle of the hof'al binyan, and the consonant with dagesh is 
the 1st of the root, not the 2nd or 3rd.  Since the actual 2nd consonant of the 
root, vav, doesn't appear at all you might THINK nun was the 2nd and het was 
the 3rd, if you didn't pay close attention, though.  (Let's face it, this is a 
weird form!)

2) Schwas occurring between the 2nd and 3rd consonants of certain plural nouns 
in the construct state where the schwa is also the result of vowel reduction.

Well, we're dealing with a plural noun in the construct state, and the schwa is 
the result of vowel reduction (kamets in munah > schwa in mun(e)he), but again 
the schwa doesn't occur between the 2nd and 3rd consonants of the root--unless 
you stretch a point, as I suggest above. 

I suppose that generations of catalogers have said "munhe" and "musge" by 
analogy with one or the other of these rules, though.

My questions:

1) Shall we let sleeping dogs lie and go on saying "munhe" and "musge"?
2) Shall we start saying "munehe" and "musege"?
3) Shall we point out these forms in the new edition of HCM?

Re 3), I'm reluctant to do so, and also reluctant to create a list of "words 
not romanized according to our rules," which is the sort of thing that can get 
way out of hand.  

How do you all feel?
Joan

>>> Stanley Nachamie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 03/29/05 10:58 PM >>>
You wrote:
> Can anyone give me a good argument as to why we > should continue to romanize 
> these words as "munhe" > and "musge"?

Aren't there many cases when LC disregards the sheva na` in romanization?

-Stanley Nachamie
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Re: Where is COLON on RLIN 21 Heb keyboard?

[Joan C Biella]

You may all remember that when RLIN21 first appeared (seems so long ago now), 
the Hebrew keyboard provided did NOT have either a colon or a semicolon.  If 
Ruth can't find either of these on the keyboard she's presently using, perhaps 
she has the old version of the keyboard.  The new one with colon and semicolon 
in their normal RLIN places can be downloaded from www.rlg.org if necessary.

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/31/05 12:10 PM >>>
Ruth,

The RLIN21 Hebrew keyboard layout matches the original layout we used in RLIN21 
for Windows.  The colon is typed by pressing Shift + colon (peh sofit).  The 
semi-colon is typed by pressing Shift + L (khaf sofit).

For reference, you can always check the keyboard layout diagrams RLG has 
provided.  I'll paste the diagram of shifted characters (hopefully for all to 
see)





The RLIN21 keyboards.pdf  is part of the .zip file which you would have 
downloaded and extracted in order to load the necessary RLIN21 keyboards.  A 
second .pdf contains a useful list of the key sequences used to produce 
characters and diacritics with the RLIN21 Latin keyboard (Alternate Latin 
Characters.pdf).

The .zip file is located on the RLIN21* Keyboards & Input Method Editors
page at http://www.rlg.org/en/page.php?Page_ID=17401  

Hope this helps!

Sharon Hammer
Yeshiva University



At 10:34 AM 3/31/2005, you wrote:
Hi Steven,
Many thanks. In Word (Microsoft) Hebrew, everything works fine, including 
the colon and semi-colon. The problem is only in the RLIN21 Hebrew keyboard. I 
may have to write RLG to ask. But many thanks anyway!
 Ruth

Quoting Steven Bernstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

| I cannot speak as to the RLIN21 keyboard layout, but if you would like to use
| the Microsoft Hebrew keyboard layout (the standard Israeli layout) the colon
| is right where it would be on the English (United States) keyboard layout:
| the ף [peh sofit].  It can be entered by holding the Shift key and the ף
| [peh sofit] key.  The semi-colon can be entered by pressing Caps Lock and
| hitting the ף [peh sofit] key.
| 

Sharon Hammer
Yeshiva University Library
Technical Services Dept.
500 W. 185th St.
NY, NY 10033

e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Re: a new romanization opportunity?

[Joan C Biella]

Alcalay also indicates the schwa under the consonant with dagesh hazak in the 
piel, etc., forms which come under exception 1 in HCM.  What do you think of my 
suggestion about rephrasing part of exception 1 so that it covers "munhe" also?

"The schwa following consonants with dagesh hazak, as often in pi'el and 
hitpa'el forms but also elsewhere, is not romanized.  Examples:  medabrim, 
mitstarfim, munhe; exceptions (described as in HCM now): mitpalelim, 
metsayerim."

The lomdim, rof'im examples can be referred to exception 2, the "toldot" 
exception, I think.  (But I haven't worked on this idea yet.)

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/31/05 1:25 PM >>>

Hebraica Cataloging, on p. 16 notes that "Alcalay is useful for the
identification of schwa nah (quiesent) and schwa na (mobile) in that he
does not transcribe the schwa nah in his vocalization scheme."

Since Alcalay indicates a schwa under the nun in the construct plural of
"munah", "munehe" is inescapable, I think.

Paul

Re: yod'e binah/yod'e vinah

[Joan C Biella]

I hope we're not about to get into a flame war here!  What with Cliff wanting 
to romanize all shewa mobiles and Yossi wanting to romanize none of them (and 
nothing else either), I'd just like to chime in and say we need 
romanization--it's my bread and butter!

Perhaps we can all agree to disagree?  (Personally I agree with Cliff, but 
think it's far too late for us all to change to his position.)

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/04/05 11:19 PM >>>
I am for 245:  Yod'e binah
and 246:  Yod'e vinah

alternativly:

ABOLISH THE ROMANIZATION SYSTEM AND DO IT ONLY IN HEBREW SCRIPT
If someone needs the Hebrew journal he should be able read the script. He 
does not need
a Romanized form!

(Am I serious?  YES!)


At 11:11 PM 4/4/2005, you wrote:
>I have always trascribed these types of titles as they appear in a
>standard,vocalized Tanakh. If I find the source of such a title in a
>concordance, I will then go to the verse and transcribe/romanize the title
>for the catalog record as it appears in the Tanakh.. In this case I would
>have transcribed the title of the journal Yod'e vinah. Others?.
>Heidi
>- Original Message -
>From: "Barry Dov Walfish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: 
>Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 4:03 PM
>Subject: yod'e binah/yod'e vinah
>
>
> > Dear Group,
> >
> >
> > How should one transcribe book titles that are taken from biblical
> > verses. Do biblical grammar rules trump those of Modern Hebrew grammar?
> > E.g., I recently came across the title of a journal entitled Yod'e
> > vinah. The phrase is taken from the verse in I Chronicles 12:32 umi-Bene
> > Yisakhar yod'e vinah la-itim.
> >
> > I found a few clusters in RLIN under Yod'e binah, none under Yod'e vinah.
> >
> > I am sure there are other similar examples. What to do?
> >
> > Barry
> >
> >

Re: yod'e binah/yod'e vinah

[Joan C Biella]

Chiming in here--I feel the opposite of Yossi:  I'd give the biblical 
vocalization, if known, in the 245, and the "normal" version in the 246.  But 
it really doesn't matter a bit, because either treatment makes them equally 
searchable.

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/04/05 11:19 PM >>>
I am for 245:  Yod'e binah
and 246:  Yod'e vinah

alternativly:

ABOLISH THE ROMANIZATION SYSTEM AND DO IT ONLY IN HEBREW SCRIPT
If someone needs the Hebrew journal he should be able read the script. He 
does not need
a Romanized form!

(Am I serious?  YES!)


At 11:11 PM 4/4/2005, you wrote:
>I have always trascribed these types of titles as they appear in a
>standard,vocalized Tanakh. If I find the source of such a title in a
>concordance, I will then go to the verse and transcribe/romanize the title
>for the catalog record as it appears in the Tanakh.. In this case I would
>have transcribed the title of the journal Yod'e vinah. Others?.
>Heidi
>- Original Message -
>From: "Barry Dov Walfish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: 
>Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 4:03 PM
>Subject: yod'e binah/yod'e vinah
>
>
> > Dear Group,
> >
> >
> > How should one transcribe book titles that are taken from biblical
> > verses. Do biblical grammar rules trump those of Modern Hebrew grammar?
> > E.g., I recently came across the title of a journal entitled Yod'e
> > vinah. The phrase is taken from the verse in I Chronicles 12:32 umi-Bene
> > Yisakhar yod'e vinah la-itim.
> >
> > I found a few clusters in RLIN under Yod'e binah, none under Yod'e vinah.
> >
> > I am sure there are other similar examples. What to do?
> >
> > Barry
> >
> >

Chinese spam?

[Joan C Biella]

Did anyone besides me just receive a Chinese document ostensibly from 
Heb-NACO??  I'm hoping LC won't protect me from this spam by disconnecting me 
from all of you!

Joan

Re: hotem/hotam tokhnit

[Joan C Biella]

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

Re: Verurah / Khamokha / Fele

[Joan C Biella]

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

our Chinese spam

[Joan C Biella]

I showed our spam to a Chinese cataloger and got the following information:


It's an announcement of a course offered at Shenzhen, China (near Hong Kong) on 
April 14 for two days. The charge is 1980 (I don't know what kind of money) and 
the course is "Purchasing and chain supply management advanced course" 

Does it sound interesting to you? 


Joan

Re: spirit headings

[Joan C Biella]

The only Spirit I can think of offhand, Elvis's, has been established in its 
own right.  --Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/12/05 1:54 PM >>>
Folks:

I have a book here in which the author claims to be in contact with Yitshak 
Lurya.  I pass no judgement.  The issue I'm struggling with is whether or 
not a new  heading with the qualification (Spirit) should be created.
--22.14a in the AACR2: add Spirit to a heading established for a spirit 
communication (see 21.26 [curiously, the record cited in 21.26 does not 
have the spirit qualifier added to the heading in the OCLC record])
--22.14a RI: if the spirit is supposed to be that of a real person, 
establish the heading for the person (unless he or she is already 
established) and add the word ("Spirit") to complete the heading for the 
person.

So: do I establish a 2nd Ari NAR (to wit: Luria, Isaac ben Solomon, $d 
1534-1572 ("Spirit")) to exist side by side with Luria, Isaac ben Solomon, 
$d 1534-1572 OR do I leave well enough alone and simply float a record with 
the ("Spirit") added to the heading but not supported by an NAR?

My thought, again without passing judgement: I think that the historical 
Ari, whom our current record represents, and his spirit analog with whom 
the author is in contact could [rightly] be considered to be two seperate 
persons, and a second NAR following the form [heading x] ("Spirit") would 
be required.

Your help is needed, and I thank you for all replies in advance.

Bob

Re: Lanu vs. Lonu

[Joan C Biella]

As regards how many and which NARs to make when a person writes under a 
pseudonym--there are rules telling us what to do.  Cf. AACR2 22.1A, 22.2B, 
etc., etc., and the relevant RIs.  We don't really have to guess or have mere 
opinions about this.

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/29/05 2:52 PM >>>
whoops.

please add:

0) i wouldn't make a new record for the penname.  i think it's a bit much 
to create a full parallel record like this for considering it appears as 
though he only wrote one book (1!) using the pen name.  even so, lanu would 
be the form i'd use if i somehow became compelled to make a seperate record 
for the pen name because ej romanizations are the rule in the absence of a 
romanized form on the item in hand.

again, i grovel before those who know more and see more clearly.

b
At 11:27 AM 4/29/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>depending on how it's spelled this is what i would do:
>
>1) questionable vowel rides under an alef: go with the ej spelling, only 
>adding an x-ref for lonu if you find an explicit pointing to this affect;
>
>2) questionable vowel under the lamed, no alef: put them both in, giving a 
>670 for for lanu from ej, and a 670 from given database for lonu.
>
>this is of course only one possible solution and i humbly bow and defer to 
>higher authority.
>
>bob
>At 10:54 AM 4/29/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>>Dear Group,
>>I am establishing an author "Gozhansky, Samuel, 1867-1943. He wrote in 
>>Yiddish under the pseudonym "Lanu". Lanu does not appear in Weinrich. In 
>>the article in the EJ under Gozhansky, the pseudonym is given as "Lanu.".
>>Some libraries have transcribed this as "Lonu".
>>Should "Lanu" or "Lonu" be the heading for the pseudonym.
>>Thanks, Heidi
>>
>>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: alternative titles

[Joan C Biella]

Sounds fine to me.  --Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/04/05 12:47 PM >>>
Dear Group,
I have a vocalized title page for "Sefer Berakhah u-parnasah".
Since it is clearly vocalized with a dagesh in the peh, can I still go 
ahead and add an alternative title (246 field) for
"Sefer Berakhah u-farnasah".
I think that it would be helpful.
Heidi

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: class as set or separate?

[Joan C Biella]

Here's what we do at the Library of Congress.

As a rule, we don't treat related works like these (same author, same title 
proper, different subtitles) as sets or "multipart items" unless the set has 
its own numbering (the volume on Berakhot has an alef on its spine, the volume 
on Pe'ah has a bet on its spine, or the like).  If the volumes come along 
separately and are not individually numbered, we treat them as independent 
works.  As this approach can result in numerous records for works with the same 
author and title proper, we add uniform titles with parenthetical qualifiers 
naming the particular subject of each volume.

If there are more than three prominent subjects, as in your example, we put 
only the first one in the qualifer ("Hidushe Rabenu Mosheh Maimeran (Rosh 
ha-Shanah)") but name them all in the 670 of the authority record for the 
uniform title.

An exception to this practice--if we're dealing with commentaries on the 
Pentateuch, we usually put them together as a set (usually a 5-volume set!) 
even if they're not numbered.  In the catalog record we bracket the volume 
numbers to show that they are not on the actual books.

Unfortunately I see that the two existing authority records (no2004003401 and 
no2004003402) for works in this series take a third approach which LC seldom 
employs in current cataloging--the names of the subject tractates are presented 
as parts (subfield p) of the major work.  I do not recommend this method of 
differentiating the titles.

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/09/05 9:35 AM >>>
Hello all,

I'm a newbie cataloger and new to Judaica cataloging, so please bare 
with me and my novice questions.
I'm processing a book, "Hidushe rabenu Mosheh Maimeran :   le-masekhtot 
Rosh ha-Shanah, Megilah, Mo'ed Katan ve-Hagigah /   ma'aseh yede Mosheh 
Maimeran."  Thus far, my predecessor (Marcia Goldberg, A"H), has been 
cataloging and classing the previous three works separately, with each 
volume appearing on the shelf next to other works on those particular 
tractates.  Yet other sets of Talmud commentaries appear on the shelf in 
complete runs.  Can you please explain to me why some works are classed 
together and others are split by topic?  Is it so that "orphan" pieces 
(works on just one of the tractates) stand next to other works on that 
tractate (which may belong to a set)?  Is it appropriate to change how 
it's been done thus far and create a set record for this set?  (No, I'm 
not looking for extra work )  Another complicating factor in this 
particular case is that the un-numbered "Hidushe rabenu Mosheh 
Maimeran..." set belongs to a larger, numbered series, "Sifre Mekhon 
"Ahavat shalom" Yerushalayim."  Should I leave well enough alone and 
class this issue of "Hidushe rabenu Mosheh Maimeran" separately, as has 
been done with the previous three volumes?

Thanks for your help.  I look forward to meeting you in Oakland!

Jasmin

-- 
Jasmin Nof
Judaica and Hebraica Cataloger
2200 McKeldin Library
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742
301-405-9330
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Re: establishing NACO heading

[Joan C Biella]

There's no rule that says all uniform titles have to be in the LC/NACO 
Authority File.

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/12/05 12:34 PM >>>
Hello all,

I'm not yet NACO trained and have a book in hand that requires 
establishing a new uniform title heading. Would someone be able to 
create a heading for "H.idushe Rabenu Mosheh Maimeran (Rosh ha-Shanah)"?

Thank you,

Jasmin

-- 
Jasmin Nof
Judaica and Hebraica Cataloger
2200 McKeldin Library
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742
301-405-9330
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Re: romanization q

[Joan C Biella]

Seems reasonable to me (except that surely that's a kamats on the 'ayin).

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/16/05 3:52 PM >>>
folks:

i have an ash and sak clothe romanization issue here.  at issue is the book 
Tezunah u-refu?ah ?amamit.  the book has two authors, one being Yocheved 
Raiani [in rom. on the t.p. verso].  the proper lc romanization for a cross 
reference is what's causing me problems; i'd like to make sure the 
vocalization i give it is accord with the rules.  his name is spelt 
resh-yud-ayin-alef-nun-yud.  i read this as "Rai'ani" with a patah under 
the resh, a patah under the ayin, nothing under the alef, and a hirik under 
the nun, but i could just be out to lunch.

thanks in advance for all help rendered.

bob

Re: Agenda for R&S Cataloging Meeting

[Joan C Biella]

Daniel. Do you think we might have time to talk about Unicode 
formatting of bi-directional fields?  Or perhaps this is too systems-specific 
for a catalogers meeting?  Jerry Anne raised the question today about whether 
the parallel 100 field ought to have a [nun] rather than a "b." in subfield $d, 
wondering about the long-term display and data processing implications.  I 
realize that the very idea of Hebrew-script controlled vocabulary access points 
is problematic (in a way that, say, the imprint data in the 260 isn't) since in 
this there's no Hebrew-script controlled vocabulary to draw on. But it reminds 
me of how often the question comes up about bidirectional script, Unicode 
formatting characters (which I think I've got a handle on), and general 
guidelines for producing national-level multi-script records. 
Joan. I think you're talking about the whole big idea of a "controlled 
nonroman authority file," including controlled vocabulary (and I assume 
"control" would include decisions on what brand of dates, what kind of 
characters to write them in, etc.).  As you know, LC has (up to now) stated 
categorically that it did not intend to sponsor a project to control nonroman 
headings.  However, there are definitely libraries out there that do*I've never 
paid attention to which ones, but you can tell from the style of their nonroman 
headings that they do.
In the new day of "floating authority records," or whatever the 
official term is for Barbara Tillett's concept, I'm not sure the categorical 
refusal of the past will have any relevance*I mean, why restrict IN ANY WAY the 
references people want to make?  Why SHOULDN'T they use non-Latin digits to 
record dates, and so on?  (Heidi, being the researcher on the subject, maybe 
knows why, but I don't.)
Setting this aside, though, there's no rule to forbid a library, or 
group of libraries, from deciding to create a controlled nonroman authority 
file for its own use.  (LC might or might not be allowed to participate*if not, 
it would be on the grounds that controlling yet another file would take too 
much time and energy, which has always been the rationale against it.)
So AJL is free to do so, as far as I can see.  LC-slash-AACR2 (who 
knows about AACR3?) would have no way to prevent it, and wouldn't even want to 
(I mean, we've never told the libraries that already do it, not to do it.)  
Somebody*you?--would have to round up some libraries and get them to agree to 
support the idea, and then (in some way) enforce the decisions that are made 
about it.  For sure LC will not do that!  
If you are only talking about controlling the superstructure-type 
vocabulary, such as how you express "b." and "d." and "Selections" and so 
forth, it's a lot easier than if you also want to control the actual headings.  
But either way I don't see a way to say it's not possible or not allowed.

Daniel. In a similar vein, I wonder if we should discuss the 
possibility of entering the real Hebrew date (i.e., in Hebrew characters) in 
the parallel 260, since the Gregorian date and transliterated 
(trans-numerated?) Hebrew date have already been captured in the Romanized 
field, and since we provide a more faithful transcription this way, and since 
it would cut down on the number of bi-directional subfields.
Joan. This idea is not likely to fly on a national scale as long as 
AACR2 specifies roman expressions like "c" (for copyright date) and "or" (for 
complex date) in the 260$c.  Though RLIN21 makes the Unicode Western-style 
numerals available from the Hebrew character set, these other things can't be 
provided without left-to-right input.  Hebrew "equivalents" for the problematic 
strings ("o" for "or" and the like) make the departure from AACR2  obvious.

Daniel. Maybe people already using the Unicode version of Voyager could 
tell us about the effects of various formatting techniques once records are 
downloaded?
Joan. About this, I know nothing, never having paid attention.  LC has 
a nonpublic Unicode version of its database, and I could look at some copycat 
records in it and draw some conclusions, but I won't take the time unless I'm 
asked to do it.  Could you explain in more detail what sorts of things you 
would look for?  Are you thinking of how dates of birth and death in 
headings/references display, for example?

Re: Agenda for the R&S Cataloging Commitee

[Joan C Biella]

Your 5 and 9 below seem to me to be the same item.  Not so>  --Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/16/05 10:41 PM >>>
Here is the agenda for the upcoming 2005 meeting of the R & S Cataloging 
Commitee of the Association of Jewish Libraries (4-5 PM, June 19).We have a 
very full  list of items and will start as close to 4:00 as possible.Many, 
manyt thanks to Daniel Lovins for providing the minutes from the 2004 meeting.

Heidi Lerner (Chair, R&S Cataloging Commitee)



 

Agenda - R & S Cataloging Committee Meeting - June 19, 2005 

 

1. Welcome, Introductions, Approval of Minutes of June 20, 2004 meeting, 4-5pm 
EST, Brooklyn Bridge Marriott, New York City (5 minutes)

 

2. Hebraica Cataloging Manual (Update) - Joan Biella, Steve Bernstein (10 
Minutes)

 

3. Review of Forthcoming RDA Drafts - (Lenore Bell, Heidi Lerner (5 minutes)

 

4. Judeo-Arabic Romanization Table (Draft) - Joan Biella (5 Minutes)

 

4. Date of Publication in Hebrew Script - Daniel Lovins (5 minutes)

 

5. Romanization of Place-Names with "Yiddish" spelling in Hebrew contexts - 
Joan Biella (5 minutes)

 

6. Use of Judeo-German in MARC Code Lists for Languages, LCSH - Daniel Lovins ( 
5 minutes)

 

7.  Use of Niborski's Verterbukh fun loshn-koydesh-shtamkike verter in Yidish 
as a Guide for the Romanization of Yiddish words of Hebrew Origin not found in 
Weinreich - Aaron Taub (5 minutes)

 

9. Non-Hebrew/Aramaic Place-names in Hebrew Contexts (Leykvoud, Bilgoraya ) - 
Joan Biella (5 minutes)

 

10. Other Items (5 minutes)



 

 




Heidi G. Lerner
Hebraica/Judaica Cataloger
Catalog Dept.
Stanford University Libraries
Stanford, CA 94305-6004
ph: 650-725-9953
fax: 650-725-1120
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Fw: [PCCLIST] Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established personal name headings

[Joan C Biella]

Speaking as someone who has responded to this issue on behalf of CPSO more than 
once, I'd like to say that the Maimonides case is a little different from the 
original idea about changing (or filling out) headings.  The reason always 
given for not changing Maimonides' dates is, as Daniel says, the fact that the 
major reference sources do not recognize the proposed change.  An important 
idea behind all AACR2-style authority work is that it should rely on reference 
sources supposed to be readily available, so that libraries of various types 
will have access to the necessary sources and be able to come up with 
predictable headings based on them.  This philosophy is really, truly the 
reason Maimonides' heading has not been changed.  Many headings with more 
instances were changed when the reference sources supported change, even before 
the day of global update.

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/29/05 10:42 AM >>>
Dear Heidi,

This is good news, I think.

I wonder, though, if CPSO will also reconsider *changing* some bio dates. A 
few years ago I tried, unsuccessfully, to have Maimonides' year of birth 
changed from 1135 to 1138, based on findings of Goitein and the new 
scholarly consensus. The proposal was rejected because the revised date 
hasn't yet been adopted by major reference sources (I checked Britanica, 
and its still true. Same with Encyclopedia Judaica, though I realize 
Britanica and the major American encyclopedias take precedence over EJ per 
LCRI 22.3C). Still, I wonder whether CPSO's reluctance also had something 
to do with the desire to avoid BFM, in which case, now that BFM has become 
simpler, and also now that there is greater sensitivity to users frustrated 
by inaccurate/incomplete dates, perhaps there would be renewed interest in 
considering proposals such as these.

Just a thought.

Daniel



At 11:18 PM 6/23/2005, Heidi G. Lerner wrote:
>Dear NACO Hebraica Funnel participants,
>
>Please see below:
>
>
>I suggest that you  send comments, suggestions and recommendations to me 
>and I will send a group response to CPSO.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Heidi Lerner (Chair, NACO Hebraica Funnel)
>- Original Message -
>From: Ana Lupe Cristán
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 3:22 PM
>Subject: [PCCLIST] Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established 
>personal name headings
>
>Posted to multiple lists--apologies for the duplication.
>
>
>Proposal for the addition of dates to existing personal name headings
>
>
>
>The Cataloging Policy and Support Office (CPSO) has been considering a 
>suggestion to reinstate MARC 21 note field 678 (Biographical or Historical 
>Data) in name authority records in order to provide the death date of 
>persons who are known to be deceased, but whose dates are kept "open" as a 
>result of the Library of Congress (LC) policy of not adding death dates to 
>established headings except in certain situations. Throughout the past 20 
>plus years that this policy has been in force, numerous catalog users have 
>expressed frustration with the policy.
>
>
>
>After extensive discussion, CPSO has concluded that its decision should 
>not be made solely to comply with the request of one community but across 
>the board, as all users have expressed similar frustration with LC's 
>policy.  For example, within the art community, artists such as:
>
> 100 1# $a Warhol, Andy, $d 1928-
>
>   100 1# $a Dali, Salvador, $d 1904-
>
>from the music community:
>
>  100 1# $a Bernstein, Leonard, $d 1918-
>
>  100 1# $a Stern, Isaac, $d 1920-
>
>from others, scholars or literary figures such as:
>
> 100 1# $a Borges, Jorge Louis, $d 1899-
>
>   100 1# $a Paz, Octavio, $d 1914-
>
>as well as famous political or cultural figures:
>
> 100 1# $a Nixon, Richard M. $q (Richard Milhous),$d 1913-
>
>   100 0# $a Diana, $c Princess of Wales, $d 1961-
>
>   100 0# $a John Paul $b II, $c Pope, $d 1920-
>
>
>
>CPSO has often received irate messages imploring LC to acknowledge the 
>need to add death dates, or deploring LC's lack of sensitivity in failing 
>to respond to such requests.  The difficulty of justifying the policies to 
>catalogers is only the tip of the iceberg, the reference staff who must 
>interpret the catalog on the front lines and catalog users themselves are 
>completely unaware of the purpose of the existing policy and often leap to 
>the conclusion that the catalog is "wrong" or "outdated."  Many libraries 
>have indicated that they add death dates to their local catalogs to pacify 
>their users, and for NACO participants this adds an additional maintenance 
>burden.
>
>
>
>Recently, it has also been noted in messages to the CPSO email account, or 
>reports to the Cooperative Cataloging Team (Coop), that many catalogers 
>are adding not just death dates, but are also adding birth dates to 
>established headings even though the Library of Congres

RE: Fw: [PCCLIST] Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established personal name headings

[Joan C Biella]

Of course the "a lot of time spent on corrections," not only at LC but at all 
libraries that follow LC, was the original reason for the rule saying NOT to 
add dates, etc., to headings.  But CPSO seems to be giving up on that, despite 
the hassle it will cause, because too many folks out there are either ignorant 
of, or refuse to sympathize with, that argument.

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/29/05 1:54 PM >>>
It will, indeed, be nice to add dates to existing NARs, but until all
catalogs point to a single authority file, this will cause
- headings different from NARs
or
- split files
or
- a lot of time spent on corrections
 
Rachel

  _  

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Heidi G.
Lerner
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 10:55 AM
To: heb-naco@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu 
Subject: Re: Fw: [PCCLIST] Proposal to allow the addition of dates to
established personal name headings


Dear Daniel,

I think that it would be worth looking into again. I will, if it is okay
with you, incorporate your comment when I write up a group response. So far
we have all agreed that the proposed change is good.
How did things seem at ALA? Did you pick up anything that would be of
particular interest to our community? And did you get a chance to the OCLC
demo of Hebrew ... [ et al]. in their Connexion software? 

Warmly,
Heidi
At 10:42 AM 6/29/2005 -0400, you wrote:


Dear Heidi, 

This is good news, I think.

I wonder, though, if CPSO will also reconsider *changing* some bio dates. A
few years ago I tried, unsuccessfully, to have Maimonides' year of birth
changed from 1135 to 1138, based on findings of Goitein and the new
scholarly consensus. The proposal was rejected because the revised date
hasn't yet been adopted by major reference sources (I checked Britanica, and
its still true. Same with Encyclopedia Judaica, though I realize Britanica
and the major American encyclopedias take precedence over EJ per LCRI
22.3C). Still, I wonder whether CPSO's reluctance also had something to do
with the desire to avoid BFM, in which case, now that BFM has become
simpler, and also now that there is greater sensitivity to users frustrated
by inaccurate/incomplete dates, perhaps there would be renewed interest in
considering proposals such as these.

Just a thought.

Daniel



At 11:18 PM 6/23/2005, Heidi G. Lerner wrote:


Dear NACO Hebraica Funnel participants,
 
Please see below:
 
 
I suggest that you  send comments, suggestions and recommendations to me and
I will send a group response to CPSO.
 
Thanks, 
 
Heidi Lerner (Chair, NACO Hebraica Funnel)
- Original Message - 
From: Ana Lupe Cristán   
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 3:22 PM
Subject: [PCCLIST] Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established
personal name headings

Posted to multiple lists--apologies for the duplication.
 


Proposal for the addition of dates to existing personal name headings


 

The Cataloging Policy and Support Office (CPSO) has been considering a
suggestion to reinstate MARC 21 note field 678 (Biographical or Historical
Data) in name authority records in order to provide the death date of
persons who are known to be deceased, but whose dates are kept "open" as a
result of the Library of Congress (LC) policy of not adding death dates to
established headings except in certain situations. Throughout the past 20
plus years that this policy has been in force, numerous catalog users have
expressed frustration with the policy.  

 

After extensive discussion, CPSO has concluded that its decision should not
be made solely to comply with the request of one community but across the
board, as all users have expressed similar frustration with LC's policy.
For example, within the art community, artists such as: 

100 1# $a Warhol, Andy, $d 1928- 

  100 1# $a Dali, Salvador, $d 1904- 

from the music community:

 100 1# $a Bernstein, Leonard, $d 1918-

 100 1# $a Stern, Isaac, $d 1920-

from others, scholars or literary figures such as:

100 1# $a Borges, Jorge Louis, $d 1899-

  100 1# $a Paz, Octavio, $d 1914- 

as well as famous political or cultural figures:

100 1# $a Nixon, Richard M. $q (Richard Milhous),$d 1913-

  100 0# $a Diana, $c Princess of Wales, $d 1961-

  100 0# $a John Paul $b II, $c Pope, $d 1920-

 

CPSO has often received irate messages imploring LC to acknowledge the need
to add death dates, or deploring LC's lack of sensitivity in failing to
respond to such requests.  The difficulty of justifying the policies to
catalogers is only the tip of the iceberg, the reference staff who must
interpret the catalog on the front lines and catalog users themselves are
completely unaware of the purpose of the existing policy and often leap to
the conclusion that the catalog is "wrong" or "outdated."  Many libraries
have indicated that they add death dates to their local catalogs to pacify
their users, and fo

Re: Fw: [PCCLIST] Proposal to allow the addition of dates to established personal name headings

[Joan C Biella]

When literary and user warrant is irresistible, I certainly agree that it makes 
sense to change headings, as also in certain circumstances now prescribed by 
rules, such as change of name.

The point of conflict will lie in varying definitions of "irresistible."  For 
example, I find it easy enough to resist the idea of changing Maimonides' 
birthdate at this time, because of my personal analysis of the reference 
sources involved in the problem.  You, on the other hand, may consider the same 
evidence irresistible.  I don't think such a problem can be appropriately 
resolved by, for example, a majority vote among subscribers to Heb-NACO--we're 
too specialized a group to represent all stakeholders, the users of the 
authority file who will be affected by our decisions.

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/29/05 3:22 PM >>>
Dear Joan,

I appreciate the distinction between the ban on adding NAR elements where 
no conflict exists and the need to maintain consistency between headings 
and corresponding encyclopedia citations. Looking at the current 
discussion, though, I can't help but wonder if the same rationale for 
loosening the rules would apply in both cases. Patrons looking at our 
headings may conclude (incorrectly!) that we are ignorant, lazy, or 
incompetent, since we refuse, despite their efforts and expertise, to 
"correct" the forms of names in the library catalog. While the current 
policy has much going for it in terms of work flow and consistency, I worry 
about the public relations aspect. Do you think we could at least allow 
exceptions in certain cases, where the literary and user warrant is 
irresistible?

Daniel

Re: Rambam's dates

[Joan C Biella]

In reply to your second paragraph--in the LC authority record for Maimonides, 
the proposed alternative date of birth is cited in the fourth 670.

Joan

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/29/05 4:23 PM >>>
One possible "solution" would be for individual
libraries to make a reference from a form (or forms)
with the revised dates, coding them in such a way to
acknowledge that references with different dates
aren't strictly in accord with AACR2+ or LCRI's.
(This could also work with other "dates" issues.)

Tackling the issue from another end, would it be
appropriate/permissible to list in a 6xx field in the
name authority record something about the other set of
dates? 

-Stanley Nachamie
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Authority Control Librarian (currently on leave)
 City University of New York