Hatam Sofer
Unless there's a kamats under the het, which I strongly doubt, I see no reason for he-Hatam Sofer. It should be ha-Hatam, like la-hakham, etc. And before you go changing all the he-hags, please note that there are 4 he-hags, 4 be-hags and 1 ke-hag in the Tanakh. It's the kamats that demands the segol. Barry Barry Dov Walfish, Ph.D. Judaica Specialist University of Toronto Libraries Toronto, ON M5S 1A5 Canada From: owner-heb-n...@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu [owner-heb-n...@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu] On Behalf Of heb-naco@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu [heb-n...@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu] Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 12:06 AM To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel Subject: HEB-NACO digest 1376 HEB-NACO Digest 1376 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) he-hag no more by "Joan C Biella" -- Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:43:02 -0500 From: "Joan C Biella" To: Subject: he-hag no more Message-ID: <4b4f3b8602e600096...@ntgwgate.loc.gov> Dear colleagues, Recently in leafing idly through the new edition of Even-Shoshan I noticed that one of my favorite off-the-wall Hebrew romanization oddities exists no more. In the article on “hag [subscript dot under the h]” we are no longer instructed to romanize the singular with the definite article as “he-hag” (with segol and kamats). I counted six uses of “ha-hag” (two patahs) in the article. The LC database had 49 hits for “he-hag,” 29 for “ha-hag.” I’ll get started fixing the 49. In the grip of fear for other old favorites, I checked the articles which cover “he-hasid,” “he-hakham,” “he-haver,” and “he-‘arim.” I didn’t see any evidence that these need to be changed. he-Hatam Sofer is also safe for the moment. Joan -- End of HEB-NACO Digest 1376 ***
Hatam Sofer
Radak is not a good analogy because it's a stand-alone. It seems likely that Hatam is in semikhut with Sofer. Why wouldn't it be? Furthermore, Orthodox Ashkenazim pronounce his name Chasam Sofer. If there were a kamats under the het and tav it would be Chosom. Barry Barry Dov Walfish, Ph.D. Judaica Specialist University of Toronto Libraries Toronto, ON M5S 1A5 Canada
Re: Hatam Sofer
Responses to Barry's note: 1) In the LC database it seems to be assumed that the "hatam" in "Hatam Sofer" has kamats under the het. Why wouldn't it? Does it make sense that the "word" (of course, really an abbreviation for "Hidushe Torat Mosheh") is in semikhut with "Sofer"? I would expect it to follow the pattern of such abbreviations as Radak, vocalized with two kamatses in Even-Shoshan. If there is evidence for "Hatam" with hatef-patah in the first syllable, where can we find it? 2) Unfortunately, the Bible is not the source for Hebrew romanization according to the ALA/LC system. Even-Shoshan has given up not only the segol in the definite article before this word, but also the kamats--he gives two patahs, as described in my earlier message. I agree, though, that if the word he-het-gimel appears in a Biblical quotation that must be romanized, the Biblical vocalization should be used. (E.-S. does give one Biblical quotation, vocalizing with segol and kamats.) Joan >>> Barry Walfish 1/20/2010 12:24 AM >>> Unless there's a kamats under the het, which I strongly doubt, I see no reason for he-Hatam Sofer. It should be ha-Hatam, like la-hakham, etc. And before you go changing all the he-hags, please note that there are 4 he-hags, 4 be-hags and 1 ke-hag in the Tanakh. It's the kamats that demands the segol. Barry Barry Dov Walfish, Ph.D. Judaica Specialist University of Toronto Libraries Toronto, ON M5S 1A5 Canada From: owner-heb-n...@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu [owner-heb-n...@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu] On Behalf Of heb-naco@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu [heb-n...@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu] Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 12:06 AM To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel Subject: HEB-NACO digest 1376 HEB-NACO Digest 1376 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) he-hag no more by "Joan C Biella" -- Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:43:02 -0500 From: "Joan C Biella" To: Subject: he-hag no more Message-ID: <4b4f3b8602e600096...@ntgwgate.loc.gov> Dear colleagues, Recently in leafing idly through the new edition of Even-Shoshan I noticed that one of my favorite off-the-wall Hebrew romanization oddities exists no more. In the article on “hag [subscript dot under the h]” we are no longer instructed to romanize the singular with the definite article as “he-hag” (with segol and kamats). I counted six uses of “ha-hag” (two patahs) in the article. The LC database had 49 hits for “he-hag,” 29 for “ha-hag.” I’ll get started fixing the 49. In the grip of fear for other old favorites, I checked the articles which cover “he-hasid,” “he-hakham,” “he-haver,” and “he-‘arim.” I didn’t see any evidence that these need to be changed. he-Hatam Sofer is also safe for the moment. Joan -- End of HEB-NACO Digest 1376 ***
Re: Hatam Sofer
The argument from the pronunciation of "Chasam Sofer" sounds good to me. Would anyone else like to contribute to this discussion? If I don't hear to the contrary from anyone by next Monday, Feb. 1st, I'll change LC's "he-Hatam Sofer"s to "ha-Hatam Sofer"s. Joan >>> Barry Walfish 1/24/2010 12:51 AM >>> Radak is not a good analogy because it's a stand-alone. It seems likely that Hatam is in semikhut with Sofer. Why wouldn't it be? Furthermore, Orthodox Ashkenazim pronounce his name Chasam Sofer. If there were a kamats under the het and tav it would be Chosom. Barry Barry Dov Walfish, Ph.D. Judaica Specialist University of Toronto Libraries Toronto, ON M5S 1A5 Canada
more on Hatam Sofer
Because this message wasn't posted to Heb-NACO till last Friday, I'll extend my personal deadline to Friday of this week, Feb. 8. Any other comments on the Hatam Sofer and how to vocalize him? Joan >>> "Joan C Biella" 1/25/2010 3:46 PM >>> The argument from the pronunciation of "Chasam Sofer" sounds good to me. Would anyone else like to contribute to this discussion? If I don't hear to the contrary from anyone by next Monday, Feb. 1st, I'll change LC's "he-Hatam Sofer"s to "ha-Hatam Sofer"s. Joan >>> Barry Walfish 1/24/2010 12:51 AM >>> Radak is not a good analogy because it's a stand-alone. It seems likely that Hatam is in semikhut with Sofer. Why wouldn't it be? Furthermore, Orthodox Ashkenazim pronounce his name Chasam Sofer. If there were a kamats under the het and tav it would be Chosom. Barry Barry Dov Walfish, Ph.D. Judaica Specialist University of Toronto Libraries Toronto, ON M5S 1A5 Canada
RE: more on Hatam Sofer
As a rule, we follow Even Shoshan appendix in fixing vowels for abbreviations. Abbreviation Het tav samekh, referring to the well-known Mosheh Sofer, 1762-1839, is vocalized with initial Hataf-patah, NOT kamets. q.e.d. Clifford Miller -Original Message- From: owner-heb-n...@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu [mailto:owner-heb-n...@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu] On Behalf Of Joan C Biella Any other comments on the Hatam Sofer and how to vocalize him? Joan >>> "Joan C Biella" 1/25/2010 3:46 PM >>> The argument from the pronunciation of "Chasam Sofer" sounds good to me. Would anyone else like to contribute to this discussion? If I don't hear to the contrary from anyone by next Monday, Feb. 1st, I'll change LC's "he-Hatam Sofer"s to "ha-Hatam Sofer"s. Joan >>> Barry Walfish 1/24/2010 12:51 AM >>> Radak is not a good analogy because it's a stand-alone. It seems likely that Hatam is in semikhut with Sofer. Why wouldn't it be? Furthermore, Orthodox Ashkenazim pronounce his name Chasam Sofer. If there were a kamats under the het and tav it would be Chosom. Barry Barry Dov Walfish, Ph.D. Judaica Specialist University of Toronto Libraries Toronto, ON M5S 1A5 Canada
