Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל
Yes, this was resolved back in February, with the critical text from HCM p. 21 (“In the rare cases where Even-Shoshan may show the same word under more than one entry element, the more 'analytical' option is chosen.”) re-added to HCMRDA, and we agreed that standard romanization of בגלל is bi-gelal (and בשביל is bi-shevil in all cases). From: Heb-naco On Behalf Of Joan Biella via Heb-naco Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 7:10 PM To: Yossi Galron via Heb-naco Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל Jasmine writes: בגלל has a direct entry, so I’d think it would be romanized biglal (NOT bigelal because as a whole word, the sheva would be considered merahef, ignored in romanization), but the entry also says “see גלל”. So which is it: Biglal or Bi-gelal? Doesn't HCM say, more or less, "If Even-Shoshan gives both, use THE MORE ANALYTICAL FORM"--that is, the form with the hyphen? This is done, in the same way as we write "Yerushalayim," so the 2nd part of the word will be searchable. Not that I expect people who want to search "biglal" will search "gelal" and expect to find it, but people wanting "Yerushalayim" will find "bi-Yerushalayim" also. And so that all catalogers will romanize these things the same way, after having once looked them up in the dictionary. Joan On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 1:29 PM Yossi Galron via Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> wrote: Bi-melot ... On Wed, Sep 18, 2019, 22:28 Marlene Schiffman via Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> wrote: We have a title that uses this word: Zeʼev Z'aboṭinsḳi, ha-ish u-mishnato : \b (bi-melot meʼah shanah le-huladto) Marlene Schiffman Gottesman Library Technical Services Yeshiva University 500 West 185th Street New York, NY 10033 646 592-4276 (direct) 646 592-4100 (general office) From: Heb-naco mailto:yu@lists.osu.edu>> On Behalf Of Abend-David,Ilana via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 1:07 PM To: Galron, Joseph mailto:galro...@osu.edu>>; Hebrew Name Authority Funnel mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל If so how would you transliterate במלאות 25 שנה ? Would this be correct bi-melo'ut ? From: Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu>> On Behalf Of Galron, Joseph via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 12:52 PM To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל It is “dangerous” going to Biglal or Bishvil – tomorrow we will say: If it is Bishvil so why not change it to Shvil We also Romanize בירושלים to “Bi-Yerushalayim” and not to “Birushalayim” Yossi From: Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu>> On Behalf Of Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 12:31 PM To: Gottschalk, Haim mailto:h...@loc.gov>>; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל Hi, Haim, bi-gelal would be correct if the ב is considered a prefix to the word גלל. But since there is a direct entry for the word as a whole, I’m asking if we should romanize it as a whole word instead of as a compound word. Thanks, Jasmin From: Gottschalk, Haim [mailto:h...@loc.gov] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 12:24 PM To: Shinohara, Jasmin; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' Subject: RE: בגלל I think it should be “biglal” and not “bi-gelal” because of the sheva being treat as a sheva nach (which is how it is in the Alcalay). This is in my humble opinion. ~Haim From: Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu>> On Behalf Of Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 11:00 AM To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> Subject: [Heb-NACO] בגלל Hello Collective Wisdom, please remind me: if there’s an entry in E-Sh., even if it ends with a “see also”, is that sufficient justification for romanizing the word as a word as opposed to a compound? E.g. בגלל has a direct entry, so I’d think it would be romanized biglal (NOT bigelal because as a whole word, the sheva would be considered merahef, ignored in romanization), but the entry also says “see גלל”. So which is it: Biglal or Bi-gelal? Thanks, Jasmin --- Jasmin Shinohara Hebraica Cataloging Librarian University of Pennsylvania Van Pelt-Dietrich Library Center 3420 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-6206 T. 215-746-6397 jsh...@upenn.edu<mailto:jsh...@upenn.edu> ___ Heb-naco mailing list Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu<mailto:Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu> https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco ___ Heb-naco mailing list Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu<mailto:Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu> https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco ___ Heb-naco mailing list Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco
Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל
Jasmine writes: בגלל has a direct entry, so I’d think it would be romanized biglal (NOT bigelal because as a whole word, the sheva would be considered merahef, ignored in romanization), but the entry also says “see גלל”. So which is it: Biglal or Bi-gelal? Doesn't HCM say, more or less, "If Even-Shoshan gives both, use THE MORE ANALYTICAL FORM"--that is, the form with the hyphen? This is done, in the same way as we write "Yerushalayim," so the 2nd part of the word will be searchable. Not that I expect people who want to search "biglal" will search "gelal" and expect to find it, but people wanting "Yerushalayim" will find "bi-Yerushalayim" also. And so that all catalogers will romanize these things the same way, after having once looked them up in the dictionary. Joan On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 1:29 PM Yossi Galron via Heb-naco < heb-naco@lists.osu.edu> wrote: > Bi-melot ... > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2019, 22:28 Marlene Schiffman via Heb-naco < > heb-naco@lists.osu.edu> wrote: > >> We have a title that uses this word: Zeʼev Z'aboṭinsḳi, ha-ish u-mishnato >> : \b (bi-melot meʼah shanah le-huladto) >> >> >> >> Marlene Schiffman >> >> Gottesman Library Technical Services >> >> Yeshiva University >> >> 500 West 185th Street >> >> New York, NY 10033 >> >> >> >> 646 592-4276 (direct) >> >> 646 592-4100 (general office) >> >> >> >> *From:* Heb-naco *On >> Behalf Of *Abend-David,Ilana via Heb-naco >> *Sent:* Thursday, February 07, 2019 1:07 PM >> *To:* Galron, Joseph ; Hebrew Name Authority Funnel < >> heb-naco@lists.osu.edu> >> *Subject:* Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל >> >> >> >> If so how would you transliterate במלאות 25 שנה ? Would this be correct >> bi-melo'ut ? >> >> >> >> *From:* Heb-naco *On Behalf Of *Galron, >> Joseph via Heb-naco >> *Sent:* Thursday, February 7, 2019 12:52 PM >> *To:* Hebrew Name Authority Funnel >> *Subject:* Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל >> >> >> >> It is “dangerous” going to Biglal or Bishvil – tomorrow we will say: If >> it is Bishvil so why not change it to Shvil >> >> We also Romanize בירושלים to “Bi-Yerushalayim” and not to “Birushalayim” >> >> >> >> Yossi >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Heb-naco *On Behalf Of *Shinohara, >> Jasmin via Heb-naco >> *Sent:* Thursday, February 7, 2019 12:31 PM >> *To:* Gottschalk, Haim ; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' < >> heb-naco@lists.osu.edu> >> *Subject:* Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל >> >> >> >> Hi, Haim, bi-gelal would be correct if the ב is considered a prefix to >> the word גלל. But since there is a direct entry for the word as a whole, >> I’m asking if we should romanize it as a whole word instead of as a >> compound word. >> >> >> >> Thanks, Jasmin >> >> >> >> *From:* Gottschalk, Haim [mailto:h...@loc.gov ] >> *Sent:* Thursday, February 07, 2019 12:24 PM >> *To:* Shinohara, Jasmin; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' >> *Subject:* RE: בגלל >> >> >> >> I think it should be “biglal” and not “bi-gelal” because of the sheva >> being treat as a sheva nach (which is how it is in the Alcalay). This is >> in my humble opinion. >> >> >> >> ~Haim >> >> >> >> *From:* Heb-naco *On Behalf Of *Shinohara, >> Jasmin via Heb-naco >> *Sent:* Thursday, February 07, 2019 11:00 AM >> *To:* Hebrew Name Authority Funnel >> *Subject:* [Heb-NACO] בגלל >> >> >> >> Hello Collective Wisdom, please remind me: if there’s an entry in E-Sh., >> even if it ends with a “see also”, is that sufficient justification for >> romanizing the word as a word as opposed to a compound? E.g. בגלל has a >> direct entry, so I’d think it would be romanized biglal (NOT bigelal >> because as a whole word, the sheva would be considered merahef, ignored in >> romanization), but the entry also says “see גלל”. So which is it: Biglal >> or Bi-gelal? >> >> >> >> Thanks, Jasmin >> >> >> >> >> >> --- >> >> Jasmin Shinohara >> >> Hebraica Cataloging Librarian >> >> University of Pennsylvania >> >> Van Pelt-Dietrich Library Center >> >> 3420 Walnut Street >> >> Philadelphia, PA 19104-6206 >> >> T. 215-746-6397 >> >> jsh...@upenn.edu >> >> >> ___ >> Heb-naco mailing list >> Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu >> https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco >> > ___ > Heb-naco mailing list > Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu > https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco > ___ Heb-naco mailing list Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco
Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל
Bi-melot ... On Wed, Sep 18, 2019, 22:28 Marlene Schiffman via Heb-naco < heb-naco@lists.osu.edu> wrote: > We have a title that uses this word: Zeʼev Z'aboṭinsḳi, ha-ish u-mishnato > : \b (bi-melot meʼah shanah le-huladto) > > > > Marlene Schiffman > > Gottesman Library Technical Services > > Yeshiva University > > 500 West 185th Street > > New York, NY 10033 > > > > 646 592-4276 (direct) > > 646 592-4100 (general office) > > > > *From:* Heb-naco *On > Behalf Of *Abend-David,Ilana via Heb-naco > *Sent:* Thursday, February 07, 2019 1:07 PM > *To:* Galron, Joseph ; Hebrew Name Authority Funnel < > heb-naco@lists.osu.edu> > *Subject:* Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל > > > > If so how would you transliterate במלאות 25 שנה ? Would this be correct > bi-melo'ut ? > > > > *From:* Heb-naco *On Behalf Of *Galron, > Joseph via Heb-naco > *Sent:* Thursday, February 7, 2019 12:52 PM > *To:* Hebrew Name Authority Funnel > *Subject:* Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל > > > > It is “dangerous” going to Biglal or Bishvil – tomorrow we will say: If it > is Bishvil so why not change it to Shvil > > We also Romanize בירושלים to “Bi-Yerushalayim” and not to “Birushalayim” > > > > Yossi > > > > > > > > *From:* Heb-naco *On Behalf Of *Shinohara, > Jasmin via Heb-naco > *Sent:* Thursday, February 7, 2019 12:31 PM > *To:* Gottschalk, Haim ; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' < > heb-naco@lists.osu.edu> > *Subject:* Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל > > > > Hi, Haim, bi-gelal would be correct if the ב is considered a prefix to > the word גלל. But since there is a direct entry for the word as a whole, > I’m asking if we should romanize it as a whole word instead of as a > compound word. > > > > Thanks, Jasmin > > > > *From:* Gottschalk, Haim [mailto:h...@loc.gov ] > *Sent:* Thursday, February 07, 2019 12:24 PM > *To:* Shinohara, Jasmin; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' > *Subject:* RE: בגלל > > > > I think it should be “biglal” and not “bi-gelal” because of the sheva > being treat as a sheva nach (which is how it is in the Alcalay). This is > in my humble opinion. > > > > ~Haim > > > > *From:* Heb-naco *On Behalf Of *Shinohara, > Jasmin via Heb-naco > *Sent:* Thursday, February 07, 2019 11:00 AM > *To:* Hebrew Name Authority Funnel > *Subject:* [Heb-NACO] בגלל > > > > Hello Collective Wisdom, please remind me: if there’s an entry in E-Sh., > even if it ends with a “see also”, is that sufficient justification for > romanizing the word as a word as opposed to a compound? E.g. בגלל has a > direct entry, so I’d think it would be romanized biglal (NOT bigelal > because as a whole word, the sheva would be considered merahef, ignored in > romanization), but the entry also says “see גלל”. So which is it: Biglal > or Bi-gelal? > > > > Thanks, Jasmin > > > > > > --- > > Jasmin Shinohara > > Hebraica Cataloging Librarian > > University of Pennsylvania > > Van Pelt-Dietrich Library Center > > 3420 Walnut Street > > Philadelphia, PA 19104-6206 > > T. 215-746-6397 > > jsh...@upenn.edu > > > ___ > Heb-naco mailing list > Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu > https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco > ___ Heb-naco mailing list Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco
Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל
We have a title that uses this word: Zeʼev Z'aboṭinsḳi, ha-ish u-mishnato : \b (bi-melot meʼah shanah le-huladto) Marlene Schiffman Gottesman Library Technical Services Yeshiva University 500 West 185th Street New York, NY 10033 646 592-4276 (direct) 646 592-4100 (general office) From: Heb-naco On Behalf Of Abend-David,Ilana via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 1:07 PM To: Galron, Joseph ; Hebrew Name Authority Funnel Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל If so how would you transliterate במלאות 25 שנה ? Would this be correct bi-melo'ut ? From: Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu>> On Behalf Of Galron, Joseph via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 12:52 PM To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל It is “dangerous” going to Biglal or Bishvil – tomorrow we will say: If it is Bishvil so why not change it to Shvil We also Romanize בירושלים to “Bi-Yerushalayim” and not to “Birushalayim” Yossi From: Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu>> On Behalf Of Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 12:31 PM To: Gottschalk, Haim mailto:h...@loc.gov>>; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל Hi, Haim, bi-gelal would be correct if the ב is considered a prefix to the word גלל. But since there is a direct entry for the word as a whole, I’m asking if we should romanize it as a whole word instead of as a compound word. Thanks, Jasmin From: Gottschalk, Haim [mailto:h...@loc.gov] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 12:24 PM To: Shinohara, Jasmin; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' Subject: RE: בגלל I think it should be “biglal” and not “bi-gelal” because of the sheva being treat as a sheva nach (which is how it is in the Alcalay). This is in my humble opinion. ~Haim From: Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu>> On Behalf Of Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 11:00 AM To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> Subject: [Heb-NACO] בגלל Hello Collective Wisdom, please remind me: if there’s an entry in E-Sh., even if it ends with a “see also”, is that sufficient justification for romanizing the word as a word as opposed to a compound? E.g. בגלל has a direct entry, so I’d think it would be romanized biglal (NOT bigelal because as a whole word, the sheva would be considered merahef, ignored in romanization), but the entry also says “see גלל”. So which is it: Biglal or Bi-gelal? Thanks, Jasmin --- Jasmin Shinohara Hebraica Cataloging Librarian University of Pennsylvania Van Pelt-Dietrich Library Center 3420 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-6206 T. 215-746-6397 jsh...@upenn.edu<mailto:jsh...@upenn.edu> ___ Heb-naco mailing list Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco
Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל
Hi there,
As Jasmin has pointed out the instruction for analyitcal entries does not
appear in the new edition of our manual "Hebrew cataloging RDA."
I honestly have no memory why it is omitted.
I will as the Catalogoing Commitee about reinstating it.
We need to have the hierarchy of instruction in to order to base our final
decision.
As regards "בגלל"
It appears under "ג" as "גלל"
It appears as an "analytic" under "ב" as "בגלל"".
Thus we should continue to romanize it as "bi-gelal."
Thanks, Heidi
Heidi G. Lerner
Metadata Librarian for Hebraica and Judaica
Metadata Dept.
Stanford University Libraries
Stanford, CA 94305-6004
ph: 650-725-9953
fax: 650-725-1120
e-mail: ler...@stanford.edu
From: Heb-naco on behalf of Shinohara, Jasmin
via Heb-naco
Sent: Friday, February 8, 2019 12:17 PM
To: Gottschalk, Haim; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel'
Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל
p. 21 of HCM: "In the rare cases where Even-Shoshan may show the same word
under more than one entry element, the more 'analytical' option is chosen." Per
Yossi, there is an entry in E.-Sh. For גלל, so it’s romanized bi-gelal. Though
we have yet to hear from Heidi and Joan, both of whose input I’m eager to
hear...
Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
From: Gottschalk, Haim
Sent: Friday, February 8, 2019 3:12 PM
To: Shinohara, Jasmin; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel'
Subject: RE: בגלל
Jasmin,
If I may ask: if there is an actual entry for the word in E. Sh. forבגלל why
not treat that as a word onto itself and Romanize it as if the ב was part of
the word? I am just asking.
From: Heb-naco On Behalf OfShinohara, Jasmin
via Heb-naco
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2019 11:06 AM
To: Galron, Joseph ; Hebrew Name Authority Funnel
; ler...@stanford.edu; Joan Biella
Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל
Good morning, all, and happy Friday!
Picking up on where we left yesterday, based on p. 21 ofHCM, ("In the rare
cases where Even-Shoshan may show the same word under more than one entry
element, the more 'analytical' option is chosen.") we agreed that standard
romanization ofבגללis bi-gelal (and בשבילis bi-shevil in all cases). Yossi
confirmed that the romanzations of the words I’d listed (found in the wiki
romanzation FAQ) are correct but questionedממני. The source for that
romanization, mimeni NOT mi-meni, is the originalromanization
FAQ<http://library.princeton.edu/departments/tsd/katmandu/hebrew/roman/mis37.html>
compiled by Rachel and Joan. I could find no discussion in the
heb-nacoarchives<https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=heb-naco%40lists.service.ohio-state.edu=mimeni=0=0>,
so perhaps Joan could chime in on the reasoning.
In the meantime, I also looked at thecataloging
FAQ<http://www.princeton.edu/~rsimon/hebnaco.html> compiled by Rachel, which,
though a bit dated, is still a treasure trove of valuable information. For our
purposes, the entry under “levadi or
le-vadi<http://www.princeton.edu/~rsimon/levadi.html>” is instructive:
In Even-Shoshan under "lamed" there is an entry for: " lamed (sheva) bet
(patah) dalet"; under "bet" there is the following: "lamed (sheva) bet
(patah) dalet, bet (hirek) lamed (sheva) bet (patah) dalet, mem (hirek)
lamed (sheva) bet (patah) dalet, see lamed (sheva) bet (patah) dalet."
Therefore, this is *not* a case where Even-Shoshan shows the same word under
more than one entry element. He shows the word under lamed, and under bet
he refers the reader to the lamed entry. In short, he treats this compound
as a "word" beginning with lamed. Therefore again, there's no "more
'analytical'" option to be chosen-- he doesn't give an option at all. So:
levadi is correct. Even-Shoshan does say, in the "levad" entry, that the
word comes from "le-" plus "bad." But it's the fact that he doesn't give an
*entry* for it under "bad" that's critical.
For ממני, underמthere is an entry for ממנה/ממנוand ממני, both of which refer to
the entryמן. There are also entries forמנה, מנו(with a segol under the mem’s)
butno corresponding מני. Perhaps that is the reason for mimeni, but should it
be mi-menah and mi-menu? (LC shows 1 mi-menah; 19 mimenah; 15 mi-menu; 32
mimenu. There are also 5 mi-menO and 5 mimenO [different]; there’s no such
thing…) Again, Joan, we’d appreciate your input.
The more critical question at this time is, Heidi and Joan, was there a reason
the passage fromHCM was not included in HCM-RDA? Should it be reinstated?
Thanks and apologies for my verbosity… Kol tuv andשבת שלום, Jasmin
From: Galron, Joseph [mailto:galro...@osu.edu]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 5:55 PM
To: Shinohara, Jasmin; Hebr
Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל
p. 21 of HCM: "In the rare cases where Even-Shoshan may show the same word
under more than one entry element, the more 'analytical' option is chosen." Per
Yossi, there is an entry in E.-Sh. For גלל, so it’s romanized bi-gelal. Though
we have yet to hear from Heidi and Joan, both of whose input I’m eager to
hear...
Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
From: Gottschalk, Haim
Sent: Friday, February 8, 2019 3:12 PM
To: Shinohara, Jasmin; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel'
Subject: RE: בגלל
Jasmin,
If I may ask: if there is an actual entry for the word in E. Sh. forבגלל why
not treat that as a word onto itself and Romanize it as if the ב was part of
the word? I am just asking.
From: Heb-naco On Behalf OfShinohara, Jasmin
via Heb-naco
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2019 11:06 AM
To: Galron, Joseph ; Hebrew Name Authority Funnel
; ler...@stanford.edu; Joan Biella
Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל
Good morning, all, and happy Friday!
Picking up on where we left yesterday, based on p. 21 ofHCM, ("In the rare
cases where Even-Shoshan may show the same word under more than one entry
element, the more 'analytical' option is chosen.") we agreed that standard
romanization ofבגללis bi-gelal (and בשבילis bi-shevil in all cases). Yossi
confirmed that the romanzations of the words I’d listed (found in the wiki
romanzation FAQ) are correct but questionedממני. The source for that
romanization, mimeni NOT mi-meni, is the originalromanization
FAQ<http://library.princeton.edu/departments/tsd/katmandu/hebrew/roman/mis37.html>
compiled by Rachel and Joan. I could find no discussion in the
heb-nacoarchives<https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=heb-naco%40lists.service.ohio-state.edu=mimeni=0=0>,
so perhaps Joan could chime in on the reasoning.
In the meantime, I also looked at thecataloging
FAQ<http://www.princeton.edu/~rsimon/hebnaco.html> compiled by Rachel, which,
though a bit dated, is still a treasure trove of valuable information. For our
purposes, the entry under “levadi or
le-vadi<http://www.princeton.edu/~rsimon/levadi.html>” is instructive:
In Even-Shoshan under "lamed" there is an entry for: " lamed (sheva) bet
(patah) dalet"; under "bet" there is the following: "lamed (sheva) bet
(patah) dalet, bet (hirek) lamed (sheva) bet (patah) dalet, mem (hirek)
lamed (sheva) bet (patah) dalet, see lamed (sheva) bet (patah) dalet."
Therefore, this is *not* a case where Even-Shoshan shows the same word under
more than one entry element. He shows the word under lamed, and under bet
he refers the reader to the lamed entry. In short, he treats this compound
as a "word" beginning with lamed. Therefore again, there's no "more
'analytical'" option to be chosen-- he doesn't give an option at all. So:
levadi is correct. Even-Shoshan does say, in the "levad" entry, that the
word comes from "le-" plus "bad." But it's the fact that he doesn't give an
*entry* for it under "bad" that's critical.
For ממני, underמthere is an entry for ממנה/ממנוand ממני, both of which refer to
the entryמן. There are also entries forמנה, מנו(with a segol under the mem’s)
butno corresponding מני. Perhaps that is the reason for mimeni, but should it
be mi-menah and mi-menu? (LC shows 1 mi-menah; 19 mimenah; 15 mi-menu; 32
mimenu. There are also 5 mi-menO and 5 mimenO [different]; there’s no such
thing…) Again, Joan, we’d appreciate your input.
The more critical question at this time is, Heidi and Joan, was there a reason
the passage fromHCM was not included in HCM-RDA? Should it be reinstated?
Thanks and apologies for my verbosity… Kol tuv andשבת שלום, Jasmin
From: Galron, Joseph [mailto:galro...@osu.edu]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 5:55 PM
To: Shinohara, Jasmin; Hebrew Name Authority Funnel
Subject: RE: בגלל
Bedi’avad has no reference to another entry. There is no such a word in ES as
Di’avad.
There is also no reference in Bahem (or Bahen)
With Bilvad – There is a reference to Levad – so I would not change it to
Bilvad, but leave it as Bi-levad.
The same is with Ka’et – there is a reference to ‘Et
There is no reference in Kefi (and also Lefi), Levad,
There is no reference to Ma’an in Lema’an
But there are references to Min from Mi-meni, Mi-menah, Mi-meno and so on.
(those I would continue to hyphen)
Seli, shelkha, shelak and so on, do not have prefixes.
I am heading home ☺
Yossi
––
Joseph (Yossi) Galron-Goldschläger
Head, Hebraica & Jewish Studies
Library<http://guides.osu.edu/c.php?g=337806=2274681>
and German Language and Literature Librarian
305 G Thompson Memorial Library
The Ohio State University Libraries
1858 Neil Ave. Mall
Columbus, Ohio 43210 USA
Tel.: (614) 292-3362, Fax: (614)292-1918
Mobile: (614) 285-4290
E-Mail: galro...@osu.edu<mailto:galro...@
Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל
Jasmin,
If I may ask: if there is an actual entry for the word in E. Sh. for בגלל why
not treat that as a word onto itself and Romanize it as if the ב was part of
the word? I am just asking.
From: Heb-naco On Behalf Of Shinohara, Jasmin
via Heb-naco
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2019 11:06 AM
To: Galron, Joseph ; Hebrew Name Authority Funnel
; ler...@stanford.edu; Joan Biella
Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל
Good morning, all, and happy Friday!
Picking up on where we left yesterday, based on p. 21 of HCM, ("In the rare
cases where Even-Shoshan may show the same word under more than one entry
element, the more 'analytical' option is chosen.") we agreed that standard
romanization of בגלל is bi-gelal (and בשביל is bi-shevil in all cases). Yossi
confirmed that the romanzations of the words I’d listed (found in the wiki
romanzation FAQ) are correct but questioned ממני. The source for that
romanization, mimeni NOT mi-meni, is the original romanization
FAQ<http://library.princeton.edu/departments/tsd/katmandu/hebrew/roman/mis37.html>
compiled by Rachel and Joan. I could find no discussion in the heb-naco
archives<https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=heb-naco%40lists.service.ohio-state.edu=mimeni=0=0>,
so perhaps Joan could chime in on the reasoning.
In the meantime, I also looked at the cataloging
FAQ<http://www.princeton.edu/~rsimon/hebnaco.html> compiled by Rachel, which,
though a bit dated, is still a treasure trove of valuable information. For our
purposes, the entry under “levadi or
le-vadi<http://www.princeton.edu/~rsimon/levadi.html>” is instructive:
In Even-Shoshan under "lamed" there is an entry for: " lamed (sheva) bet
(patah) dalet"; under "bet" there is the following: "lamed (sheva) bet
(patah) dalet, bet (hirek) lamed (sheva) bet (patah) dalet, mem (hirek)
lamed (sheva) bet (patah) dalet, see lamed (sheva) bet (patah) dalet."
Therefore, this is *not* a case where Even-Shoshan shows the same word under
more than one entry element. He shows the word under lamed, and under bet
he refers the reader to the lamed entry. In short, he treats this compound
as a "word" beginning with lamed. Therefore again, there's no "more
'analytical'" option to be chosen-- he doesn't give an option at all. So:
levadi is correct. Even-Shoshan does say, in the "levad" entry, that the
word comes from "le-" plus "bad." But it's the fact that he doesn't give an
*entry* for it under "bad" that's critical.
For ממני, under מ there is an entry for ממנה/ממנו and ממני, both of which refer
to the entry מן. There are also entries for מנה, מנו (with a segol under the
mem’s) but no corresponding מני. Perhaps that is the reason for mimeni, but
should it be mi-menah and mi-menu? (LC shows 1 mi-menah; 19 mimenah; 15
mi-menu; 32 mimenu. There are also 5 mi-menO and 5 mimenO [different]; there’s
no such thing…) Again, Joan, we’d appreciate your input.
The more critical question at this time is, Heidi and Joan, was there a reason
the passage from HCM was not included in HCM-RDA? Should it be reinstated?
Thanks and apologies for my verbosity… Kol tuv and שבת שלום, Jasmin
From: Galron, Joseph [mailto:galro...@osu.edu]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 5:55 PM
To: Shinohara, Jasmin; Hebrew Name Authority Funnel
Subject: RE: בגלל
Bedi’avad has no reference to another entry. There is no such a word in ES as
Di’avad.
There is also no reference in Bahem (or Bahen)
With Bilvad – There is a reference to Levad – so I would not change it to
Bilvad, but leave it as Bi-levad.
The same is with Ka’et – there is a reference to ‘Et
There is no reference in Kefi (and also Lefi), Levad,
There is no reference to Ma’an in Lema’an
But there are references to Min from Mi-meni, Mi-menah, Mi-meno and so on.
(those I would continue to hyphen)
Seli, shelkha, shelak and so on, do not have prefixes.
I am heading home ☺
Yossi
––
Joseph (Yossi) Galron-Goldschläger
Head, Hebraica & Jewish Studies
Library<http://guides.osu.edu/c.php?g=337806=2274681>
and German Language and Literature Librarian
305 G Thompson Memorial Library
The Ohio State University Libraries
1858 Neil Ave. Mall
Columbus, Ohio 43210 USA
Tel.: (614) 292-3362, Fax: (614)292-1918
Mobile: (614) 285-4290
E-Mail: galro...@osu.edu<mailto:galro...@osu.edu> or
jgal...@gmail.com<mailto:jgal...@gmail.com>
Lexicon of Modern Hebrew Literature:
http://go.osu.edu/hebrewlit
Union List of Digitized Jewish Historic Newspapers and Periodicals
http://go.osu.edu/jpress
From: Shinohara, Jasmin mailto:jsh...@pobox.upenn.edu>>
Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 2:01 PM
To: Galron, Joseph mailto:galro...@osu.edu>>; Hebrew Name
Authority Funnel mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>>
Subject: RE: בגלל
I hear the concern, Yossi, but I’m afraid we’ve already started
Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל
lists.osu.edu] On Behalf Of Galron, Joseph via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 12:52 PM To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל It is “dangerous” going to Biglal or Bishvil – tomorrow we will say: If it is Bishvil so why not change it to Shvil We also Romanize בירושלים to “Bi-Yerushalayim” and not to “Birushalayim” Yossi From: Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu>> On Behalf Of Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 12:31 PM To: Gottschalk, Haim mailto:h...@loc.gov>>; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל Hi, Haim, bi-gelal would be correct if the ב is considered a prefix to the word גלל. But since there is a direct entry for the word as a whole, I’m asking if we should romanize it as a whole word instead of as a compound word. Thanks, Jasmin From: Gottschalk, Haim [mailto:h...@loc.gov] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 12:24 PM To: Shinohara, Jasmin; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' Subject: RE: בגלל I think it should be “biglal” and not “bi-gelal” because of the sheva being treat as a sheva nach (which is how it is in the Alcalay). This is in my humble opinion. ~Haim From: Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu>> On Behalf Of Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 11:00 AM To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> Subject: [Heb-NACO] בגלל Hello Collective Wisdom, please remind me: if there’s an entry in E-Sh., even if it ends with a “see also”, is that sufficient justification for romanizing the word as a word as opposed to a compound? E.g. בגלל has a direct entry, so I’d think it would be romanized biglal (NOT bigelal because as a whole word, the sheva would be considered merahef, ignored in romanization), but the entry also says “see גלל”. So which is it: Biglal or Bi-gelal? Thanks, Jasmin --- Jasmin Shinohara Hebraica Cataloging Librarian University of Pennsylvania Van Pelt-Dietrich Library Center 3420 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-6206 T. 215-746-6397 jsh...@upenn.edu<mailto:jsh...@upenn.edu> ___ Heb-naco mailing list Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco
Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל
I have another 51 years to 120 to retire …. Yossi From: Heb-naco On Behalf Of Gabe Angulo via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 5:32 PM To: Shinohara, Jasmin ; Hebrew Name AuthorityFunnel Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל So much needs to change, we have a life’s work ahead of us! Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10 From: Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco<mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu> Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 5:30 PM To: Galron, Joseph<mailto:galro...@osu.edu>; Hebrew Name Authority Funnel<mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu> Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל So then why did we decide to change practice with the 10 words below? If we strive for accuracy and consistency, something needs to change. From: Heb-naco [mailto:heb-naco-bounces+jshino=pobox.upenn@lists.osu.edu] On Behalf Of Galron, Joseph via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 5:26 PM To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל I checked previous editions of ES and their also was a refrence to Gelal or Shevil It is not a change from previous editions of the Dictionary. I don’t agree that it is wrong. I wouldn’t change it. Yossi From: Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu>> On Behalf Of Robert M. TALBOTT via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 4:52 PM To: Neil Manel Frau-Cortes mailto:nf...@umd.edu>>; Hebrew Name Authority Funnel mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל Folks: I have to say that I'm in Yosi's camp. A vote for "bi-gelal" is a vote for sanity. B On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 1:23 PM Neil Manel Frau-Cortes via Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> wrote: I agree with Jasmin. Neil On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:20 PM Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> wrote: I hear the concern, Yossi, but I’m afraid we’ve already started down the proverbial slope. Per the FAQ<http://rascat.pbworks.com/w/page/109347700/Romanization%20FAQ>, we’ve agreed to romanize the words as Bediʻavad Bahem Bilvad Kaʻet Kefi Levad Lemaʻan Lefi Mimeni Sheli No one can argue for Shvil since the sheva na’ at the beginning of a word requires it to be Shevil. No one can argue for Birushalayim because there is no E-Sh. entry for the compound. So do I hear consensus on Biglal (and Bishvil – when it means “because/on behalf of”; otherwise bi/ba-shevil when it means “on a/the path)? From: Heb-naco [mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu<mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu>] On Behalf Of Galron, Joseph via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 12:52 PM To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל It is “dangerous” going to Biglal or Bishvil – tomorrow we will say: If it is Bishvil so why not change it to Shvil We also Romanize בירושלים to “Bi-Yerushalayim” and not to “Birushalayim” Yossi From: Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu>> On Behalf Of Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 12:31 PM To: Gottschalk, Haim mailto:h...@loc.gov>>; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל Hi, Haim, bi-gelal would be correct if the ב is considered a prefix to the word גלל. But since there is a direct entry for the word as a whole, I’m asking if we should romanize it as a whole word instead of as a compound word. Thanks, Jasmin From: Gottschalk, Haim [mailto:h...@loc.gov] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 12:24 PM To: Shinohara, Jasmin; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' Subject: RE: בגלל I think it should be “biglal” and not “bi-gelal” because of the sheva being treat as a sheva nach (which is how it is in the Alcalay). This is in my humble opinion. ~Haim From: Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu>> On Behalf Of Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 11:00 AM To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> Subject: [Heb-NACO] בגלל Hello Collective Wisdom, please remind me: if there’s an entry in E-Sh., even if it ends with a “see also”, is that sufficient justification for romanizing the word as a word as opposed to a compound? E.g. בגלל has a direct entry, so I’d think it would be romanized biglal (NOT bigelal because as a whole word, the sheva would be considered merahef, ignored in romanization), but the entry also says “see גלל”. So which is it: Biglal or Bi-gelal? Thanks, Jasmin --- Jasmin Shinohara Hebraica Cataloging Librarian University of Pennsylvania Van Pelt-Dietrich Library Center 3420 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-6206 T. 215-746-6397 jsh...@upenn.edu<mailto:jsh...@upenn.edu> ___ Heb-naco mailing list Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu<mailto:Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu> https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco -- Neil M. Frau-Cortes, Ph.D. (he, him, his) Judaica
Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל
So much needs to change, we have a life’s work ahead of us! Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 5:30 PM To: Galron, Joseph; Hebrew Name Authority Funnel Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל So then why did we decide to change practice with the 10 words below? If we strive for accuracy and consistency, something needs to change. From: Heb-naco [mailto:heb-naco-bounces+jshino=pobox.upenn@lists.osu.edu] On Behalf Of Galron, Joseph via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 5:26 PM To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל I checked previous editions of ES and their also was a refrence to Gelal or Shevil It is not a change from previous editions of the Dictionary. I don’t agree that it is wrong. I wouldn’t change it. Yossi From: Heb-naco On Behalf Of Robert M. TALBOTT via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 4:52 PM To: Neil Manel Frau-Cortes ; Hebrew Name Authority Funnel Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל Folks: I have to say that I'm in Yosi's camp. A vote for "bi-gelal" is a vote for sanity. B On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 1:23 PM Neil Manel Frau-Cortes via Heb-naco wrote: I agree with Jasmin. Neil On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:20 PM Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco wrote: I hear the concern, Yossi, but I’m afraid we’ve already started down the proverbial slope. Per the FAQ, we’ve agreed to romanize the words as Bediʻavad Bahem Bilvad Kaʻet Kefi Levad Lemaʻan Lefi Mimeni Sheli No one can argue for Shvil since the sheva na’ at the beginning of a word requires it to be Shevil. No one can argue for Birushalayim because there is no E-Sh. entry for the compound. So do I hear consensus on Biglal (and Bishvil – when it means “because/on behalf of”; otherwise bi/ba-shevil when it means “on a/the path)? From: Heb-naco [mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu] On Behalf Of Galron, Joseph via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 12:52 PM To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל It is “dangerous” going to Biglal or Bishvil – tomorrow we will say: If it is Bishvil so why not change it to Shvil We also Romanize בירושלים to “Bi-Yerushalayim” and not to “Birushalayim” Yossi From: Heb-naco On Behalf Of Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 12:31 PM To: Gottschalk, Haim ; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל Hi, Haim, bi-gelal would be correct if the ב is considered a prefix to the word גלל. But since there is a direct entry for the word as a whole, I’m asking if we should romanize it as a whole word instead of as a compound word. Thanks, Jasmin From: Gottschalk, Haim [mailto:h...@loc.gov] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 12:24 PM To: Shinohara, Jasmin; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' Subject: RE: בגלל I think it should be “biglal” and not “bi-gelal” because of the sheva being treat as a sheva nach (which is how it is in the Alcalay). This is in my humble opinion. ~Haim From: Heb-naco On Behalf Of Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 11:00 AM To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel Subject: [Heb-NACO] בגלל Hello Collective Wisdom, please remind me: if there’s an entry in E-Sh., even if it ends with a “see also”, is that sufficient justification for romanizing the word as a word as opposed to a compound? E.g. בגלל has a direct entry, so I’d think it would be romanized biglal (NOT bigelal because as a whole word, the sheva would be considered merahef, ignored in romanization), but the entry also says “see גלל”. So which is it: Biglal or Bi-gelal? Thanks, Jasmin --- Jasmin Shinohara Hebraica Cataloging Librarian University of Pennsylvania Van Pelt-Dietrich Library Center 3420 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-6206 T. 215-746-6397 jsh...@upenn.edu ___ Heb-naco mailing list Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco -- Neil M. Frau-Cortes, Ph.D. (he, him, his) Judaica, Hebraica and Metadata Cataloger University of Maryland 4109 McKeldin Library College Park, MD 20742 Phone (301) 405-9337 nf...@umd.edu ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/-0002-1881-1405 ___ Heb-naco mailing list Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco -- Bob Talbott Principal cataloger/Hebraica cataloger UC Berkeley 250 Moffitt Berkeley, CA 94720 If they're too small for court, they're probably shorts. If they're long and advanced, you're looking at pants ___ Heb-naco mailing list Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco
Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל
Yes! Thank you, Shoshanah, that was helpful! I looked in the Heb-NACO archives and found a discussion from 2012 regarding li-fene<https://www.mail-archive.com/heb-naco@lists.service.ohio-state.edu/msg00256.html>. At the time, Joan weighed in with a citation of HCM, p. 21: “’In the few cases where Even-Shoshan may show the same word under more than one entry element, the more 'analytical' option is chosen.’ There are definitions of "li-fene" under both lamed and peh, and therefore the standard romanization is "li-fene."” However, looking at the current HCM-RDA, those instructions were not carried over. The question is, why not? And which (if any) of the 10 words below need to be switched back? From: Heb-naco [mailto:heb-naco-bounces+jshino=pobox.upenn@lists.osu.edu] On Behalf Of Rose Shoshanah Seidman via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 5:31 PM To: Galron, Joseph; Hebrew Name Authority Funnel Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל Hi hope Joan will pitch in. I remember we had this same discussion we few years ago … bi-gelal … Shoshanah Shoshanah Seidman Faculty Liaison, Program for Jewish Studies, Northwestern University Library 847-467-2914 From: Heb-naco On Behalf Of Galron, Joseph via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 4:26 PM To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל I checked previous editions of ES and their also was a refrence to Gelal or Shevil It is not a change from previous editions of the Dictionary. I don’t agree that it is wrong. I wouldn’t change it. Yossi From: Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu>> On Behalf Of Robert M. TALBOTT via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 4:52 PM To: Neil Manel Frau-Cortes mailto:nf...@umd.edu>>; Hebrew Name Authority Funnel mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל Folks: I have to say that I'm in Yosi's camp. A vote for "bi-gelal" is a vote for sanity. B On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 1:23 PM Neil Manel Frau-Cortes via Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> wrote: I agree with Jasmin. Neil On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:20 PM Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> wrote: I hear the concern, Yossi, but I’m afraid we’ve already started down the proverbial slope. Per the FAQ<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rascat.pbworks.com_w_page_109347700_Romanization-2520FAQ=DwMGaQ=yHlS04HhBraes5BQ9ueu5zKhE7rtNXt_d012z2PA6ws=16SoAV47CIfZoss58D_H0doRSteNqo65SPQan5BgSVs=0HNfKVPYLRCF5nEQFs2l5YkFSzKnz8XkNIfP5NXmsNo=GsCvrzP6URxKWSdcRsEhyfPLcXYuQXHFr6kkUP637-k=>, we’ve agreed to romanize the words as Bediʻavad Bahem Bilvad Kaʻet Kefi Levad Lemaʻan Lefi Mimeni Sheli No one can argue for Shvil since the sheva na’ at the beginning of a word requires it to be Shevil. No one can argue for Birushalayim because there is no E-Sh. entry for the compound. So do I hear consensus on Biglal (and Bishvil – when it means “because/on behalf of”; otherwise bi/ba-shevil when it means “on a/the path)? From: Heb-naco [mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu<mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu>] On Behalf Of Galron, Joseph via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 12:52 PM To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל It is “dangerous” going to Biglal or Bishvil – tomorrow we will say: If it is Bishvil so why not change it to Shvil We also Romanize בירושלים to “Bi-Yerushalayim” and not to “Birushalayim” Yossi From: Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu>> On Behalf Of Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 12:31 PM To: Gottschalk, Haim mailto:h...@loc.gov>>; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל Hi, Haim, bi-gelal would be correct if the ב is considered a prefix to the word גלל. But since there is a direct entry for the word as a whole, I’m asking if we should romanize it as a whole word instead of as a compound word. Thanks, Jasmin From: Gottschalk, Haim [mailto:h...@loc.gov] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 12:24 PM To: Shinohara, Jasmin; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' Subject: RE: בגלל I think it should be “biglal” and not “bi-gelal” because of the sheva being treat as a sheva nach (which is how it is in the Alcalay). This is in my humble opinion. ~Haim From: Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu>> On Behalf Of Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 11:00 AM To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> Subject: [Heb-NACO] בגלל Hello Collective Wisdom, please remind me: if there’s an entry in E-Sh., even if it ends with a “see also”, is that sufficient justification for romanizing the word as a word as opposed to a compound? E.g. בגלל has a direct entry, so I’d think it would be romanized biglal (NOT bigelal because as a whole word, the sheva would
Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל
Bedi’avad has no reference to another entry. There is no such a word in ES as Di’avad. There is also no reference in Bahem (or Bahen) With Bilvad – There is a reference to Levad – so I would not change it to Bilvad, but leave it as Bi-levad. The same is with Ka’et – there is a reference to ‘Et There is no reference in Kefi (and also Lefi), Levad, There is no reference to Ma’an in Lema’an But there are references to Min from Mi-meni, Mi-menah, Mi-meno and so on. (those I would continue to hyphen) Seli, shelkha, shelak and so on, do not have prefixes. I am heading home ☺ Yossi –– Joseph (Yossi) Galron-Goldschläger Head, Hebraica & Jewish Studies Library<http://guides.osu.edu/c.php?g=337806=2274681> and German Language and Literature Librarian 305 G Thompson Memorial Library The Ohio State University Libraries 1858 Neil Ave. Mall Columbus, Ohio 43210 USA Tel.: (614) 292-3362, Fax: (614)292-1918 Mobile: (614) 285-4290 E-Mail: galro...@osu.edu or jgal...@gmail.com Lexicon of Modern Hebrew Literature: http://go.osu.edu/hebrewlit Union List of Digitized Jewish Historic Newspapers and Periodicals http://go.osu.edu/jpress From: Shinohara, Jasmin Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 2:01 PM To: Galron, Joseph ; Hebrew Name Authority Funnel Subject: RE: בגלל I hear the concern, Yossi, but I’m afraid we’ve already started down the proverbial slope. Per the FAQ<http://rascat.pbworks.com/w/page/109347700/Romanization%20FAQ>, we’ve agreed to romanize the words as Bediʻavad Bahem Bilvad Kaʻet Kefi Levad Lemaʻan Lefi Mimeni Sheli No one can argue for Shvil since the sheva na’ at the beginning of a word requires it to be Shevil. No one can argue for Birushalayim because there is no E-Sh. entry for the compound. So do I hear consensus on Biglal (and Bishvil – when it means “because/on behalf of”; otherwise bi/ba-shevil when it means “on a/the path)? From: Heb-naco [mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu] On Behalf Of Galron, Joseph via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 12:52 PM To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל It is “dangerous” going to Biglal or Bishvil – tomorrow we will say: If it is Bishvil so why not change it to Shvil We also Romanize בירושלים to “Bi-Yerushalayim” and not to “Birushalayim” Yossi From: Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu>> On Behalf Of Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 12:31 PM To: Gottschalk, Haim mailto:h...@loc.gov>>; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל Hi, Haim, bi-gelal would be correct if the ב is considered a prefix to the word גלל. But since there is a direct entry for the word as a whole, I’m asking if we should romanize it as a whole word instead of as a compound word. Thanks, Jasmin From: Gottschalk, Haim [mailto:h...@loc.gov] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 12:24 PM To: Shinohara, Jasmin; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' Subject: RE: בגלל I think it should be “biglal” and not “bi-gelal” because of the sheva being treat as a sheva nach (which is how it is in the Alcalay). This is in my humble opinion. ~Haim From: Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu>> On Behalf Of Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 11:00 AM To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> Subject: [Heb-NACO] בגלל Hello Collective Wisdom, please remind me: if there’s an entry in E-Sh., even if it ends with a “see also”, is that sufficient justification for romanizing the word as a word as opposed to a compound? E.g. בגלל has a direct entry, so I’d think it would be romanized biglal (NOT bigelal because as a whole word, the sheva would be considered merahef, ignored in romanization), but the entry also says “see גלל”. So which is it: Biglal or Bi-gelal? Thanks, Jasmin --- Jasmin Shinohara Hebraica Cataloging Librarian University of Pennsylvania Van Pelt-Dietrich Library Center 3420 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-6206 T. 215-746-6397 jsh...@upenn.edu<mailto:jsh...@upenn.edu> ___ Heb-naco mailing list Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco
Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל
So then why did we decide to change practice with the 10 words below? If we strive for accuracy and consistency, something needs to change. From: Heb-naco [mailto:heb-naco-bounces+jshino=pobox.upenn@lists.osu.edu] On Behalf Of Galron, Joseph via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 5:26 PM To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל I checked previous editions of ES and their also was a refrence to Gelal or Shevil It is not a change from previous editions of the Dictionary. I don’t agree that it is wrong. I wouldn’t change it. Yossi From: Heb-naco On Behalf Of Robert M. TALBOTT via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 4:52 PM To: Neil Manel Frau-Cortes ; Hebrew Name Authority Funnel Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל Folks: I have to say that I'm in Yosi's camp. A vote for "bi-gelal" is a vote for sanity. B On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 1:23 PM Neil Manel Frau-Cortes via Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> wrote: I agree with Jasmin. Neil On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:20 PM Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> wrote: I hear the concern, Yossi, but I’m afraid we’ve already started down the proverbial slope. Per the FAQ<http://rascat.pbworks.com/w/page/109347700/Romanization%20FAQ>, we’ve agreed to romanize the words as Bediʻavad Bahem Bilvad Kaʻet Kefi Levad Lemaʻan Lefi Mimeni Sheli No one can argue for Shvil since the sheva na’ at the beginning of a word requires it to be Shevil. No one can argue for Birushalayim because there is no E-Sh. entry for the compound. So do I hear consensus on Biglal (and Bishvil – when it means “because/on behalf of”; otherwise bi/ba-shevil when it means “on a/the path)? From: Heb-naco [mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu<mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu>] On Behalf Of Galron, Joseph via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 12:52 PM To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל It is “dangerous” going to Biglal or Bishvil – tomorrow we will say: If it is Bishvil so why not change it to Shvil We also Romanize בירושלים to “Bi-Yerushalayim” and not to “Birushalayim” Yossi From: Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu>> On Behalf Of Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 12:31 PM To: Gottschalk, Haim mailto:h...@loc.gov>>; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל Hi, Haim, bi-gelal would be correct if the ב is considered a prefix to the word גלל. But since there is a direct entry for the word as a whole, I’m asking if we should romanize it as a whole word instead of as a compound word. Thanks, Jasmin From: Gottschalk, Haim [mailto:h...@loc.gov] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 12:24 PM To: Shinohara, Jasmin; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' Subject: RE: בגלל I think it should be “biglal” and not “bi-gelal” because of the sheva being treat as a sheva nach (which is how it is in the Alcalay). This is in my humble opinion. ~Haim From: Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu>> On Behalf Of Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 11:00 AM To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> Subject: [Heb-NACO] בגלל Hello Collective Wisdom, please remind me: if there’s an entry in E-Sh., even if it ends with a “see also”, is that sufficient justification for romanizing the word as a word as opposed to a compound? E.g. בגלל has a direct entry, so I’d think it would be romanized biglal (NOT bigelal because as a whole word, the sheva would be considered merahef, ignored in romanization), but the entry also says “see גלל”. So which is it: Biglal or Bi-gelal? Thanks, Jasmin --- Jasmin Shinohara Hebraica Cataloging Librarian University of Pennsylvania Van Pelt-Dietrich Library Center 3420 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-6206 T. 215-746-6397 jsh...@upenn.edu<mailto:jsh...@upenn.edu> ___ Heb-naco mailing list Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu<mailto:Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu> https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco -- Neil M. Frau-Cortes, Ph.D. (he, him, his) Judaica, Hebraica and Metadata Cataloger University of Maryland 4109 McKeldin Library College Park, MD 20742 Phone (301) 405-9337 nf...@umd.edu<http://nf...@umd.edu> ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/-0002-1881-1405 ___ Heb-naco mailing list Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu<mailto:Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu> https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco -- Bob Talbott Principal cataloger/Hebraica cataloger UC Berkeley 250 Moffitt Berkeley, CA 94720 If they're too small for court, they're probably shorts. If they're long and advanced, you're looking at pants ___ Heb-naco mailing list Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco
Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל
If it depends on me – YES. Yossi From: Gabriel Angulo Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 5:28 PM To: Galron, Joseph ; Hebrew Name Authority Funnel Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל So you would stick with Bi-gelal? On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 5:25 PM Galron, Joseph via Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> wrote: I checked previous editions of ES and their also was a refrence to Gelal or Shevil It is not a change from previous editions of the Dictionary. I don’t agree that it is wrong. I wouldn’t change it. Yossi From: Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu>> On Behalf Of Robert M. TALBOTT via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 4:52 PM To: Neil Manel Frau-Cortes mailto:nf...@umd.edu>>; Hebrew Name Authority Funnel mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל Folks: I have to say that I'm in Yosi's camp. A vote for "bi-gelal" is a vote for sanity. B On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 1:23 PM Neil Manel Frau-Cortes via Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> wrote: I agree with Jasmin. Neil On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:20 PM Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> wrote: I hear the concern, Yossi, but I’m afraid we’ve already started down the proverbial slope. Per the FAQ<http://rascat.pbworks.com/w/page/109347700/Romanization%20FAQ>, we’ve agreed to romanize the words as Bediʻavad Bahem Bilvad Kaʻet Kefi Levad Lemaʻan Lefi Mimeni Sheli No one can argue for Shvil since the sheva na’ at the beginning of a word requires it to be Shevil. No one can argue for Birushalayim because there is no E-Sh. entry for the compound. So do I hear consensus on Biglal (and Bishvil – when it means “because/on behalf of”; otherwise bi/ba-shevil when it means “on a/the path)? From: Heb-naco [mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu<mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu>] On Behalf Of Galron, Joseph via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 12:52 PM To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל It is “dangerous” going to Biglal or Bishvil – tomorrow we will say: If it is Bishvil so why not change it to Shvil We also Romanize בירושלים to “Bi-Yerushalayim” and not to “Birushalayim” Yossi From: Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu>> On Behalf Of Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 12:31 PM To: Gottschalk, Haim mailto:h...@loc.gov>>; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל Hi, Haim, bi-gelal would be correct if the ב is considered a prefix to the word גלל. But since there is a direct entry for the word as a whole, I’m asking if we should romanize it as a whole word instead of as a compound word. Thanks, Jasmin From: Gottschalk, Haim [mailto:h...@loc.gov] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 12:24 PM To: Shinohara, Jasmin; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' Subject: RE: בגלל I think it should be “biglal” and not “bi-gelal” because of the sheva being treat as a sheva nach (which is how it is in the Alcalay). This is in my humble opinion. ~Haim From: Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu>> On Behalf Of Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 11:00 AM To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> Subject: [Heb-NACO] בגלל Hello Collective Wisdom, please remind me: if there’s an entry in E-Sh., even if it ends with a “see also”, is that sufficient justification for romanizing the word as a word as opposed to a compound? E.g. בגלל has a direct entry, so I’d think it would be romanized biglal (NOT bigelal because as a whole word, the sheva would be considered merahef, ignored in romanization), but the entry also says “see גלל”. So which is it: Biglal or Bi-gelal? Thanks, Jasmin --- Jasmin Shinohara Hebraica Cataloging Librarian University of Pennsylvania Van Pelt-Dietrich Library Center 3420 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-6206 T. 215-746-6397 jsh...@upenn.edu<mailto:jsh...@upenn.edu> ___ Heb-naco mailing list Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu<mailto:Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu> https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco -- Neil M. Frau-Cortes, Ph.D. (he, him, his) Judaica, Hebraica and Metadata Cataloger University of Maryland 4109 McKeldin Library College Park, MD 20742 Phone (301) 405-9337 nf...@umd.edu<http://nf...@umd.edu> ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/-0002-1881-1405 ___ Heb-naco mailing list Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu<mailto:Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu> https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco -- Bob Talbott Principal cataloger/Hebraica cataloger UC Berkeley 250 Moffitt Berkeley, CA 94720 If they're too small for court, they're probably shorts. If they're long and advanced, you're looking at pants ___ Heb-naco ma
Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל
Hi hope Joan will pitch in. I remember we had this same discussion we few years ago … bi-gelal … Shoshanah Shoshanah Seidman Faculty Liaison, Program for Jewish Studies, Northwestern University Library 847-467-2914 From: Heb-naco On Behalf Of Galron, Joseph via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 4:26 PM To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל I checked previous editions of ES and their also was a refrence to Gelal or Shevil It is not a change from previous editions of the Dictionary. I don’t agree that it is wrong. I wouldn’t change it. Yossi From: Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu>> On Behalf Of Robert M. TALBOTT via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 4:52 PM To: Neil Manel Frau-Cortes mailto:nf...@umd.edu>>; Hebrew Name Authority Funnel mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל Folks: I have to say that I'm in Yosi's camp. A vote for "bi-gelal" is a vote for sanity. B On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 1:23 PM Neil Manel Frau-Cortes via Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> wrote: I agree with Jasmin. Neil On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:20 PM Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> wrote: I hear the concern, Yossi, but I’m afraid we’ve already started down the proverbial slope. Per the FAQ<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rascat.pbworks.com_w_page_109347700_Romanization-2520FAQ=DwMGaQ=yHlS04HhBraes5BQ9ueu5zKhE7rtNXt_d012z2PA6ws=16SoAV47CIfZoss58D_H0doRSteNqo65SPQan5BgSVs=0HNfKVPYLRCF5nEQFs2l5YkFSzKnz8XkNIfP5NXmsNo=GsCvrzP6URxKWSdcRsEhyfPLcXYuQXHFr6kkUP637-k=>, we’ve agreed to romanize the words as Bediʻavad Bahem Bilvad Kaʻet Kefi Levad Lemaʻan Lefi Mimeni Sheli No one can argue for Shvil since the sheva na’ at the beginning of a word requires it to be Shevil. No one can argue for Birushalayim because there is no E-Sh. entry for the compound. So do I hear consensus on Biglal (and Bishvil – when it means “because/on behalf of”; otherwise bi/ba-shevil when it means “on a/the path)? From: Heb-naco [mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu<mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu>] On Behalf Of Galron, Joseph via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 12:52 PM To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל It is “dangerous” going to Biglal or Bishvil – tomorrow we will say: If it is Bishvil so why not change it to Shvil We also Romanize בירושלים to “Bi-Yerushalayim” and not to “Birushalayim” Yossi From: Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu>> On Behalf Of Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 12:31 PM To: Gottschalk, Haim mailto:h...@loc.gov>>; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל Hi, Haim, bi-gelal would be correct if the ב is considered a prefix to the word גלל. But since there is a direct entry for the word as a whole, I’m asking if we should romanize it as a whole word instead of as a compound word. Thanks, Jasmin From: Gottschalk, Haim [mailto:h...@loc.gov] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 12:24 PM To: Shinohara, Jasmin; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' Subject: RE: בגלל I think it should be “biglal” and not “bi-gelal” because of the sheva being treat as a sheva nach (which is how it is in the Alcalay). This is in my humble opinion. ~Haim From: Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu>> On Behalf Of Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 11:00 AM To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> Subject: [Heb-NACO] בגלל Hello Collective Wisdom, please remind me: if there’s an entry in E-Sh., even if it ends with a “see also”, is that sufficient justification for romanizing the word as a word as opposed to a compound? E.g. בגלל has a direct entry, so I’d think it would be romanized biglal (NOT bigelal because as a whole word, the sheva would be considered merahef, ignored in romanization), but the entry also says “see גלל”. So which is it: Biglal or Bi-gelal? Thanks, Jasmin --- Jasmin Shinohara Hebraica Cataloging Librarian University of Pennsylvania Van Pelt-Dietrich Library Center 3420 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-6206 T. 215-746-6397 jsh...@upenn.edu<mailto:jsh...@upenn.edu> ___ Heb-naco mailing list Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu<mailto:Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu> https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.osu.edu_mailman_listinfo_heb-2Dnaco=DwMGaQ=yHlS04HhBraes5BQ9ueu5zKhE7rtNXt_d012z2PA6ws=16SoAV47CIfZoss58D_H0doRSteNqo65SPQan5BgSVs=0HNfKVPYLRCF5nEQFs2l5YkFSzKnz8XkNIfP5NXmsNo=6dDKaEN8rPISkGPY_ofOVAVzkSitLzX_C3MzpI-js3c=> -- Neil M. Frau-Cortes, Ph.D. (he, him, his) Judaica, Hebraica and Metadata Cataloger University of Maryland 4109 McKeldin Library College Park, MD
Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל
So you would stick with Bi-gelal? On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 5:25 PM Galron, Joseph via Heb-naco < heb-naco@lists.osu.edu> wrote: > I checked previous editions of ES and their also was a refrence to Gelal > or Shevil > > It is not a change from previous editions of the Dictionary. > > > > I don’t agree that it is wrong. I wouldn’t change it. > > > > Yossi > > > > *From:* Heb-naco *On Behalf Of *Robert > M. TALBOTT via Heb-naco > *Sent:* Thursday, February 7, 2019 4:52 PM > *To:* Neil Manel Frau-Cortes ; Hebrew Name Authority > Funnel > *Subject:* Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל > > > > Folks: > > > > I have to say that I'm in Yosi's camp. A vote for "bi-gelal" is a vote for > sanity. > > > > B > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 1:23 PM Neil Manel Frau-Cortes via Heb-naco < > heb-naco@lists.osu.edu> wrote: > > I agree with Jasmin. > > > > > > Neil > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:20 PM Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco < > heb-naco@lists.osu.edu> wrote: > > I hear the concern, Yossi, but I’m afraid we’ve already started down the > proverbial slope. Per the FAQ > <http://rascat.pbworks.com/w/page/109347700/Romanization%20FAQ>, we’ve > agreed to romanize the words as > > > > Bediʻavad > > Bahem > > Bilvad > > Kaʻet > > Kefi > > Levad > > Lemaʻan > > Lefi > > Mimeni > > Sheli > > > > No one can argue for Shvil since the sheva na’ at the beginning of a word > requires it to be Shevil. No one can argue for Birushalayim because there > is no E-Sh. entry for the compound. > > > > So do I hear consensus on Biglal (and Bishvil – when it means “because/on > behalf of”; otherwise bi/ba-shevil when it means “on a/the path)? > > > > *From:* Heb-naco [mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu] *On Behalf Of > *Galron, > Joseph via Heb-naco > *Sent:* Thursday, February 07, 2019 12:52 PM > *To:* Hebrew Name Authority Funnel > *Subject:* Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל > > > > It is “dangerous” going to Biglal or Bishvil – tomorrow we will say: If it > is Bishvil so why not change it to Shvil > > We also Romanize בירושלים to “Bi-Yerushalayim” and not to “Birushalayim” > > > > Yossi > > > > > > > > *From:* Heb-naco *On Behalf Of *Shinohara, > Jasmin via Heb-naco > *Sent:* Thursday, February 7, 2019 12:31 PM > *To:* Gottschalk, Haim ; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' < > heb-naco@lists.osu.edu> > *Subject:* Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל > > > > Hi, Haim, bi-gelal would be correct if the ב is considered a prefix to > the word גלל. But since there is a direct entry for the word as a whole, > I’m asking if we should romanize it as a whole word instead of as a > compound word. > > > > Thanks, Jasmin > > > > *From:* Gottschalk, Haim [mailto:h...@loc.gov ] > *Sent:* Thursday, February 07, 2019 12:24 PM > *To:* Shinohara, Jasmin; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' > *Subject:* RE: בגלל > > > > I think it should be “biglal” and not “bi-gelal” because of the sheva > being treat as a sheva nach (which is how it is in the Alcalay). This is > in my humble opinion. > > > > ~Haim > > > > *From:* Heb-naco *On Behalf Of *Shinohara, > Jasmin via Heb-naco > *Sent:* Thursday, February 07, 2019 11:00 AM > *To:* Hebrew Name Authority Funnel > *Subject:* [Heb-NACO] בגלל > > > > Hello Collective Wisdom, please remind me: if there’s an entry in E-Sh., > even if it ends with a “see also”, is that sufficient justification for > romanizing the word as a word as opposed to a compound? E.g. בגלל has a > direct entry, so I’d think it would be romanized biglal (NOT bigelal > because as a whole word, the sheva would be considered merahef, ignored in > romanization), but the entry also says “see גלל”. So which is it: Biglal > or Bi-gelal? > > > > Thanks, Jasmin > > > > > > --- > > Jasmin Shinohara > > Hebraica Cataloging Librarian > > University of Pennsylvania > > Van Pelt-Dietrich Library Center > > 3420 Walnut Street > > Philadelphia, PA 19104-6206 > > T. 215-746-6397 > > jsh...@upenn.edu > > > > ___ > Heb-naco mailing list > Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu > https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco > > > > > -- > > *Neil M. Frau-Cortes, Ph.D. *(he, him, his) > > Judaica, Hebraica and Metadata Cataloger > > > > University of Maryland > > 4109 McKeldin Library > > College Park, MD 20742 > > Phone (301) 405-9337 > > nf...@umd.edu > > ORCID ID: https://or
Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל
I checked previous editions of ES and their also was a refrence to Gelal or Shevil It is not a change from previous editions of the Dictionary. I don’t agree that it is wrong. I wouldn’t change it. Yossi From: Heb-naco On Behalf Of Robert M. TALBOTT via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 4:52 PM To: Neil Manel Frau-Cortes ; Hebrew Name Authority Funnel Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל Folks: I have to say that I'm in Yosi's camp. A vote for "bi-gelal" is a vote for sanity. B On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 1:23 PM Neil Manel Frau-Cortes via Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> wrote: I agree with Jasmin. Neil On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:20 PM Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> wrote: I hear the concern, Yossi, but I’m afraid we’ve already started down the proverbial slope. Per the FAQ<http://rascat.pbworks.com/w/page/109347700/Romanization%20FAQ>, we’ve agreed to romanize the words as Bediʻavad Bahem Bilvad Kaʻet Kefi Levad Lemaʻan Lefi Mimeni Sheli No one can argue for Shvil since the sheva na’ at the beginning of a word requires it to be Shevil. No one can argue for Birushalayim because there is no E-Sh. entry for the compound. So do I hear consensus on Biglal (and Bishvil – when it means “because/on behalf of”; otherwise bi/ba-shevil when it means “on a/the path)? From: Heb-naco [mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu<mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu>] On Behalf Of Galron, Joseph via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 12:52 PM To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל It is “dangerous” going to Biglal or Bishvil – tomorrow we will say: If it is Bishvil so why not change it to Shvil We also Romanize בירושלים to “Bi-Yerushalayim” and not to “Birushalayim” Yossi From: Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu>> On Behalf Of Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 12:31 PM To: Gottschalk, Haim mailto:h...@loc.gov>>; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל Hi, Haim, bi-gelal would be correct if the ב is considered a prefix to the word גלל. But since there is a direct entry for the word as a whole, I’m asking if we should romanize it as a whole word instead of as a compound word. Thanks, Jasmin From: Gottschalk, Haim [mailto:h...@loc.gov] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 12:24 PM To: Shinohara, Jasmin; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' Subject: RE: בגלל I think it should be “biglal” and not “bi-gelal” because of the sheva being treat as a sheva nach (which is how it is in the Alcalay). This is in my humble opinion. ~Haim From: Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu>> On Behalf Of Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 11:00 AM To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> Subject: [Heb-NACO] בגלל Hello Collective Wisdom, please remind me: if there’s an entry in E-Sh., even if it ends with a “see also”, is that sufficient justification for romanizing the word as a word as opposed to a compound? E.g. בגלל has a direct entry, so I’d think it would be romanized biglal (NOT bigelal because as a whole word, the sheva would be considered merahef, ignored in romanization), but the entry also says “see גלל”. So which is it: Biglal or Bi-gelal? Thanks, Jasmin --- Jasmin Shinohara Hebraica Cataloging Librarian University of Pennsylvania Van Pelt-Dietrich Library Center 3420 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-6206 T. 215-746-6397 jsh...@upenn.edu<mailto:jsh...@upenn.edu> ___ Heb-naco mailing list Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu<mailto:Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu> https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco -- Neil M. Frau-Cortes, Ph.D. (he, him, his) Judaica, Hebraica and Metadata Cataloger University of Maryland 4109 McKeldin Library College Park, MD 20742 Phone (301) 405-9337 nf...@umd.edu<http://nf...@umd.edu> ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/-0002-1881-1405 ___ Heb-naco mailing list Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu<mailto:Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu> https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco -- Bob Talbott Principal cataloger/Hebraica cataloger UC Berkeley 250 Moffitt Berkeley, CA 94720 If they're too small for court, they're probably shorts. If they're long and advanced, you're looking at pants ___ Heb-naco mailing list Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco
Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל
Folks: I have to say that I'm in Yosi's camp. A vote for "bi-gelal" is a vote for sanity. B On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 1:23 PM Neil Manel Frau-Cortes via Heb-naco < heb-naco@lists.osu.edu> wrote: > I agree with Jasmin. > > > Neil > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:20 PM Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco < > heb-naco@lists.osu.edu> wrote: > >> I hear the concern, Yossi, but I’m afraid we’ve already started down the >> proverbial slope. Per the FAQ >> <http://rascat.pbworks.com/w/page/109347700/Romanization%20FAQ>, we’ve >> agreed to romanize the words as >> >> >> >> Bediʻavad >> >> Bahem >> >> Bilvad >> >> Kaʻet >> >> Kefi >> >> Levad >> >> Lemaʻan >> >> Lefi >> >> Mimeni >> >> Sheli >> >> >> >> No one can argue for Shvil since the sheva na’ at the beginning of a word >> requires it to be Shevil. No one can argue for Birushalayim because there >> is no E-Sh. entry for the compound. >> >> >> >> So do I hear consensus on Biglal (and Bishvil – when it means “because/on >> behalf of”; otherwise bi/ba-shevil when it means “on a/the path)? >> >> >> >> *From:* Heb-naco [mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu] *On Behalf Of >> *Galron, >> Joseph via Heb-naco >> *Sent:* Thursday, February 07, 2019 12:52 PM >> *To:* Hebrew Name Authority Funnel >> *Subject:* Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל >> >> >> >> It is “dangerous” going to Biglal or Bishvil – tomorrow we will say: If >> it is Bishvil so why not change it to Shvil >> >> We also Romanize בירושלים to “Bi-Yerushalayim” and not to “Birushalayim” >> >> >> >> Yossi >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Heb-naco *On Behalf Of *Shinohara, >> Jasmin via Heb-naco >> *Sent:* Thursday, February 7, 2019 12:31 PM >> *To:* Gottschalk, Haim ; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' < >> heb-naco@lists.osu.edu> >> *Subject:* Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל >> >> >> >> Hi, Haim, bi-gelal would be correct if the ב is considered a prefix to >> the word גלל. But since there is a direct entry for the word as a whole, >> I’m asking if we should romanize it as a whole word instead of as a >> compound word. >> >> >> >> Thanks, Jasmin >> >> >> >> *From:* Gottschalk, Haim [mailto:h...@loc.gov ] >> *Sent:* Thursday, February 07, 2019 12:24 PM >> *To:* Shinohara, Jasmin; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' >> *Subject:* RE: בגלל >> >> >> >> I think it should be “biglal” and not “bi-gelal” because of the sheva >> being treat as a sheva nach (which is how it is in the Alcalay). This is >> in my humble opinion. >> >> >> >> ~Haim >> >> >> >> *From:* Heb-naco *On Behalf Of *Shinohara, >> Jasmin via Heb-naco >> *Sent:* Thursday, February 07, 2019 11:00 AM >> *To:* Hebrew Name Authority Funnel >> *Subject:* [Heb-NACO] בגלל >> >> >> >> Hello Collective Wisdom, please remind me: if there’s an entry in E-Sh., >> even if it ends with a “see also”, is that sufficient justification for >> romanizing the word as a word as opposed to a compound? E.g. בגלל has a >> direct entry, so I’d think it would be romanized biglal (NOT bigelal >> because as a whole word, the sheva would be considered merahef, ignored in >> romanization), but the entry also says “see גלל”. So which is it: Biglal >> or Bi-gelal? >> >> >> >> Thanks, Jasmin >> >> >> >> >> >> --- >> >> Jasmin Shinohara >> >> Hebraica Cataloging Librarian >> >> University of Pennsylvania >> >> Van Pelt-Dietrich Library Center >> >> 3420 Walnut Street >> >> Philadelphia, PA 19104-6206 >> >> T. 215-746-6397 >> >> jsh...@upenn.edu >> >> >> ___ >> Heb-naco mailing list >> Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu >> https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco >> > > > -- > > *Neil M. Frau-Cortes, Ph.D. *(he, him, his) > > Judaica, Hebraica and Metadata Cataloger > > > University of Maryland > > 4109 McKeldin Library > > College Park, MD 20742 > > Phone (301) 405-9337 > > nf...@umd.edu > > ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/-0002-1881-1405 > > > ___ > Heb-naco mailing list > Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu > https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco > -- Bob Talbott Principal cataloger/Hebraica cataloger UC Berkeley 250 Moffitt Berkeley, CA 94720 If they're too small for court, they're probably shorts. If they're long and advanced, you're looking at pants ___ Heb-naco mailing list Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco
Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל
I agree with Jasmin. Neil On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:20 PM Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco < heb-naco@lists.osu.edu> wrote: > I hear the concern, Yossi, but I’m afraid we’ve already started down the > proverbial slope. Per the FAQ > <http://rascat.pbworks.com/w/page/109347700/Romanization%20FAQ>, we’ve > agreed to romanize the words as > > > > Bediʻavad > > Bahem > > Bilvad > > Kaʻet > > Kefi > > Levad > > Lemaʻan > > Lefi > > Mimeni > > Sheli > > > > No one can argue for Shvil since the sheva na’ at the beginning of a word > requires it to be Shevil. No one can argue for Birushalayim because there > is no E-Sh. entry for the compound. > > > > So do I hear consensus on Biglal (and Bishvil – when it means “because/on > behalf of”; otherwise bi/ba-shevil when it means “on a/the path)? > > > > *From:* Heb-naco [mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu] *On Behalf Of > *Galron, > Joseph via Heb-naco > *Sent:* Thursday, February 07, 2019 12:52 PM > *To:* Hebrew Name Authority Funnel > *Subject:* Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל > > > > It is “dangerous” going to Biglal or Bishvil – tomorrow we will say: If it > is Bishvil so why not change it to Shvil > > We also Romanize בירושלים to “Bi-Yerushalayim” and not to “Birushalayim” > > > > Yossi > > > > > > > > *From:* Heb-naco *On Behalf Of *Shinohara, > Jasmin via Heb-naco > *Sent:* Thursday, February 7, 2019 12:31 PM > *To:* Gottschalk, Haim ; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' < > heb-naco@lists.osu.edu> > *Subject:* Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל > > > > Hi, Haim, bi-gelal would be correct if the ב is considered a prefix to > the word גלל. But since there is a direct entry for the word as a whole, > I’m asking if we should romanize it as a whole word instead of as a > compound word. > > > > Thanks, Jasmin > > > > *From:* Gottschalk, Haim [mailto:h...@loc.gov ] > *Sent:* Thursday, February 07, 2019 12:24 PM > *To:* Shinohara, Jasmin; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' > *Subject:* RE: בגלל > > > > I think it should be “biglal” and not “bi-gelal” because of the sheva > being treat as a sheva nach (which is how it is in the Alcalay). This is > in my humble opinion. > > > > ~Haim > > > > *From:* Heb-naco *On Behalf Of *Shinohara, > Jasmin via Heb-naco > *Sent:* Thursday, February 07, 2019 11:00 AM > *To:* Hebrew Name Authority Funnel > *Subject:* [Heb-NACO] בגלל > > > > Hello Collective Wisdom, please remind me: if there’s an entry in E-Sh., > even if it ends with a “see also”, is that sufficient justification for > romanizing the word as a word as opposed to a compound? E.g. בגלל has a > direct entry, so I’d think it would be romanized biglal (NOT bigelal > because as a whole word, the sheva would be considered merahef, ignored in > romanization), but the entry also says “see גלל”. So which is it: Biglal > or Bi-gelal? > > > > Thanks, Jasmin > > > > > > --- > > Jasmin Shinohara > > Hebraica Cataloging Librarian > > University of Pennsylvania > > Van Pelt-Dietrich Library Center > > 3420 Walnut Street > > Philadelphia, PA 19104-6206 > > T. 215-746-6397 > > jsh...@upenn.edu > > > ___ > Heb-naco mailing list > Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu > https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco > -- *Neil M. Frau-Cortes, Ph.D. *(he, him, his) Judaica, Hebraica and Metadata Cataloger University of Maryland 4109 McKeldin Library College Park, MD 20742 Phone (301) 405-9337 nf...@umd.edu ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/-0002-1881-1405 ___ Heb-naco mailing list Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco
Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל
I hear the concern, Yossi, but I’m afraid we’ve already started down the proverbial slope. Per the FAQ<http://rascat.pbworks.com/w/page/109347700/Romanization%20FAQ>, we’ve agreed to romanize the words as Bediʻavad Bahem Bilvad Kaʻet Kefi Levad Lemaʻan Lefi Mimeni Sheli No one can argue for Shvil since the sheva na’ at the beginning of a word requires it to be Shevil. No one can argue for Birushalayim because there is no E-Sh. entry for the compound. So do I hear consensus on Biglal (and Bishvil – when it means “because/on behalf of”; otherwise bi/ba-shevil when it means “on a/the path)? From: Heb-naco [mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu] On Behalf Of Galron, Joseph via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 12:52 PM To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל It is “dangerous” going to Biglal or Bishvil – tomorrow we will say: If it is Bishvil so why not change it to Shvil We also Romanize בירושלים to “Bi-Yerushalayim” and not to “Birushalayim” Yossi From: Heb-naco On Behalf Of Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 12:31 PM To: Gottschalk, Haim ; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל Hi, Haim, bi-gelal would be correct if the ב is considered a prefix to the word גלל. But since there is a direct entry for the word as a whole, I’m asking if we should romanize it as a whole word instead of as a compound word. Thanks, Jasmin From: Gottschalk, Haim [mailto:h...@loc.gov] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 12:24 PM To: Shinohara, Jasmin; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' Subject: RE: בגלל I think it should be “biglal” and not “bi-gelal” because of the sheva being treat as a sheva nach (which is how it is in the Alcalay). This is in my humble opinion. ~Haim From: Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu>> On Behalf Of Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 11:00 AM To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> Subject: [Heb-NACO] בגלל Hello Collective Wisdom, please remind me: if there’s an entry in E-Sh., even if it ends with a “see also”, is that sufficient justification for romanizing the word as a word as opposed to a compound? E.g. בגלל has a direct entry, so I’d think it would be romanized biglal (NOT bigelal because as a whole word, the sheva would be considered merahef, ignored in romanization), but the entry also says “see גלל”. So which is it: Biglal or Bi-gelal? Thanks, Jasmin --- Jasmin Shinohara Hebraica Cataloging Librarian University of Pennsylvania Van Pelt-Dietrich Library Center 3420 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-6206 T. 215-746-6397 jsh...@upenn.edu<mailto:jsh...@upenn.edu> ___ Heb-naco mailing list Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco
Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל
Sorry, but there’s no such thing as melo’ut. It’s bi-melot. See E-Sh. for מלא. From: Heb-naco [mailto:heb-naco-bounces+jshino=pobox.upenn@lists.osu.edu] On Behalf Of Abend-David,Ilana via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 1:07 PM To: Galron, Joseph; Hebrew Name Authority Funnel Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל If so how would you transliterate במלאות 25 שנה ? Would this be correct bi-melo'ut ? From: Heb-naco On Behalf Of Galron, Joseph via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 12:52 PM To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל It is “dangerous” going to Biglal or Bishvil – tomorrow we will say: If it is Bishvil so why not change it to Shvil We also Romanize בירושלים to “Bi-Yerushalayim” and not to “Birushalayim” Yossi From: Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu>> On Behalf Of Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 12:31 PM To: Gottschalk, Haim mailto:h...@loc.gov>>; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל Hi, Haim, bi-gelal would be correct if the ב is considered a prefix to the word גלל. But since there is a direct entry for the word as a whole, I’m asking if we should romanize it as a whole word instead of as a compound word. Thanks, Jasmin From: Gottschalk, Haim [mailto:h...@loc.gov] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 12:24 PM To: Shinohara, Jasmin; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' Subject: RE: בגלל I think it should be “biglal” and not “bi-gelal” because of the sheva being treat as a sheva nach (which is how it is in the Alcalay). This is in my humble opinion. ~Haim From: Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu>> On Behalf Of Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 11:00 AM To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> Subject: [Heb-NACO] בגלל Hello Collective Wisdom, please remind me: if there’s an entry in E-Sh., even if it ends with a “see also”, is that sufficient justification for romanizing the word as a word as opposed to a compound? E.g. בגלל has a direct entry, so I’d think it would be romanized biglal (NOT bigelal because as a whole word, the sheva would be considered merahef, ignored in romanization), but the entry also says “see גלל”. So which is it: Biglal or Bi-gelal? Thanks, Jasmin --- Jasmin Shinohara Hebraica Cataloging Librarian University of Pennsylvania Van Pelt-Dietrich Library Center 3420 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-6206 T. 215-746-6397 jsh...@upenn.edu<mailto:jsh...@upenn.edu> ___ Heb-naco mailing list Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco
Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל
במלאות will be Bi-melot. The Alef is silent – from the word מלא (like ראשון will be Rishon and not Rish’on) From: Abend-David,Ilana Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 1:07 PM To: Galron, Joseph ; Hebrew Name Authority Funnel Subject: RE: בגלל If so how would you transliterate במלאות 25 שנה ? Would this be correct bi-melo'ut ? From: Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu>> On Behalf Of Galron, Joseph via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 12:52 PM To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל It is “dangerous” going to Biglal or Bishvil – tomorrow we will say: If it is Bishvil so why not change it to Shvil We also Romanize בירושלים to “Bi-Yerushalayim” and not to “Birushalayim” Yossi From: Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu>> On Behalf Of Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 12:31 PM To: Gottschalk, Haim mailto:h...@loc.gov>>; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל Hi, Haim, bi-gelal would be correct if the ב is considered a prefix to the word גלל. But since there is a direct entry for the word as a whole, I’m asking if we should romanize it as a whole word instead of as a compound word. Thanks, Jasmin From: Gottschalk, Haim [mailto:h...@loc.gov] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 12:24 PM To: Shinohara, Jasmin; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' Subject: RE: בגלל I think it should be “biglal” and not “bi-gelal” because of the sheva being treat as a sheva nach (which is how it is in the Alcalay). This is in my humble opinion. ~Haim From: Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu>> On Behalf Of Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 11:00 AM To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> Subject: [Heb-NACO] בגלל Hello Collective Wisdom, please remind me: if there’s an entry in E-Sh., even if it ends with a “see also”, is that sufficient justification for romanizing the word as a word as opposed to a compound? E.g. בגלל has a direct entry, so I’d think it would be romanized biglal (NOT bigelal because as a whole word, the sheva would be considered merahef, ignored in romanization), but the entry also says “see גלל”. So which is it: Biglal or Bi-gelal? Thanks, Jasmin --- Jasmin Shinohara Hebraica Cataloging Librarian University of Pennsylvania Van Pelt-Dietrich Library Center 3420 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-6206 T. 215-746-6397 jsh...@upenn.edu<mailto:jsh...@upenn.edu> ___ Heb-naco mailing list Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco
Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל
If so how would you transliterate במלאות 25 שנה ? Would this be correct bi-melo'ut ? From: Heb-naco On Behalf Of Galron, Joseph via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 12:52 PM To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל It is “dangerous” going to Biglal or Bishvil – tomorrow we will say: If it is Bishvil so why not change it to Shvil We also Romanize בירושלים to “Bi-Yerushalayim” and not to “Birushalayim” Yossi From: Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu>> On Behalf Of Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 12:31 PM To: Gottschalk, Haim mailto:h...@loc.gov>>; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל Hi, Haim, bi-gelal would be correct if the ב is considered a prefix to the word גלל. But since there is a direct entry for the word as a whole, I’m asking if we should romanize it as a whole word instead of as a compound word. Thanks, Jasmin From: Gottschalk, Haim [mailto:h...@loc.gov] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 12:24 PM To: Shinohara, Jasmin; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' Subject: RE: בגלל I think it should be “biglal” and not “bi-gelal” because of the sheva being treat as a sheva nach (which is how it is in the Alcalay). This is in my humble opinion. ~Haim From: Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu>> On Behalf Of Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 11:00 AM To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> Subject: [Heb-NACO] בגלל Hello Collective Wisdom, please remind me: if there’s an entry in E-Sh., even if it ends with a “see also”, is that sufficient justification for romanizing the word as a word as opposed to a compound? E.g. בגלל has a direct entry, so I’d think it would be romanized biglal (NOT bigelal because as a whole word, the sheva would be considered merahef, ignored in romanization), but the entry also says “see גלל”. So which is it: Biglal or Bi-gelal? Thanks, Jasmin --- Jasmin Shinohara Hebraica Cataloging Librarian University of Pennsylvania Van Pelt-Dietrich Library Center 3420 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-6206 T. 215-746-6397 jsh...@upenn.edu<mailto:jsh...@upenn.edu> ___ Heb-naco mailing list Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco
Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל
It is “dangerous” going to Biglal or Bishvil – tomorrow we will say: If it is Bishvil so why not change it to Shvil We also Romanize בירושלים to “Bi-Yerushalayim” and not to “Birushalayim” Yossi From: Heb-naco On Behalf Of Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 12:31 PM To: Gottschalk, Haim ; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל Hi, Haim, bi-gelal would be correct if the ב is considered a prefix to the word גלל. But since there is a direct entry for the word as a whole, I’m asking if we should romanize it as a whole word instead of as a compound word. Thanks, Jasmin From: Gottschalk, Haim [mailto:h...@loc.gov] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 12:24 PM To: Shinohara, Jasmin; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' Subject: RE: בגלל I think it should be “biglal” and not “bi-gelal” because of the sheva being treat as a sheva nach (which is how it is in the Alcalay). This is in my humble opinion. ~Haim From: Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu>> On Behalf Of Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 11:00 AM To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> Subject: [Heb-NACO] בגלל Hello Collective Wisdom, please remind me: if there’s an entry in E-Sh., even if it ends with a “see also”, is that sufficient justification for romanizing the word as a word as opposed to a compound? E.g. בגלל has a direct entry, so I’d think it would be romanized biglal (NOT bigelal because as a whole word, the sheva would be considered merahef, ignored in romanization), but the entry also says “see גלל”. So which is it: Biglal or Bi-gelal? Thanks, Jasmin --- Jasmin Shinohara Hebraica Cataloging Librarian University of Pennsylvania Van Pelt-Dietrich Library Center 3420 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-6206 T. 215-746-6397 jsh...@upenn.edu<mailto:jsh...@upenn.edu> ___ Heb-naco mailing list Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco
Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל
Because there is a “see also” in E.S. and it explains that the ב is a prefix like בשביל – it should be Bi-gelal and Bi-shevil (and not Biglal or Bishvil) Yossi –– Joseph (Yossi) Galron-Goldschläger Head, Hebraica & Jewish Studies Library<http://guides.osu.edu/c.php?g=337806=2274681> and German Language and Literature Librarian 305 G Thompson Memorial Library The Ohio State University Libraries 1858 Neil Ave. Mall Columbus, Ohio 43210 USA Tel.: (614) 292-3362, Fax: (614)292-1918 Mobile: (614) 285-4290 E-Mail: galro...@osu.edu or jgal...@gmail.com Lexicon of Modern Hebrew Literature: http://go.osu.edu/hebrewlit Union List of Digitized Jewish Historic Newspapers and Periodicals http://go.osu.edu/jpress From: Heb-naco On Behalf Of Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 12:31 PM To: Gottschalk, Haim ; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל Hi, Haim, bi-gelal would be correct if the ב is considered a prefix to the word גלל. But since there is a direct entry for the word as a whole, I’m asking if we should romanize it as a whole word instead of as a compound word. Thanks, Jasmin From: Gottschalk, Haim [mailto:h...@loc.gov] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 12:24 PM To: Shinohara, Jasmin; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' Subject: RE: בגלל I think it should be “biglal” and not “bi-gelal” because of the sheva being treat as a sheva nach (which is how it is in the Alcalay). This is in my humble opinion. ~Haim From: Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu>> On Behalf Of Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 11:00 AM To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> Subject: [Heb-NACO] בגלל Hello Collective Wisdom, please remind me: if there’s an entry in E-Sh., even if it ends with a “see also”, is that sufficient justification for romanizing the word as a word as opposed to a compound? E.g. בגלל has a direct entry, so I’d think it would be romanized biglal (NOT bigelal because as a whole word, the sheva would be considered merahef, ignored in romanization), but the entry also says “see גלל”. So which is it: Biglal or Bi-gelal? Thanks, Jasmin --- Jasmin Shinohara Hebraica Cataloging Librarian University of Pennsylvania Van Pelt-Dietrich Library Center 3420 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-6206 T. 215-746-6397 jsh...@upenn.edu<mailto:jsh...@upenn.edu> ___ Heb-naco mailing list Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco
Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל
Thanks, Gabe. In romanization it is NEVER “majority rules”; the majority can often be wrong. ☺ Romanization is based on what is grammatically correct and the HCM-RDA, with the latter being bound by E-Sh., hence my question. Kol tuv, Jasmin From: Gabriel Angulo [mailto:gang...@brandeis.edu] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 12:24 PM To: Shinohara, Jasmin; Hebrew Name Authority Funnel Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל Hi Jasmin, It appears that most libraries opt for bi-gelal. Try a title search in connexion, you'll see that there are un-authorized variants. Gabe Angulo On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 12:09 PM Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco mailto:heb-naco@lists.osu.edu>> wrote: Hello Collective Wisdom, please remind me: if there’s an entry in E-Sh., even if it ends with a “see also”, is that sufficient justification for romanizing the word as a word as opposed to a compound? E.g. בגלל has a direct entry, so I’d think it would be romanized biglal (NOT bigelal because as a whole word, the sheva would be considered merahef, ignored in romanization), but the entry also says “see גלל”. So which is it: Biglal or Bi-gelal? Thanks, Jasmin --- Jasmin Shinohara Hebraica Cataloging Librarian University of Pennsylvania Van Pelt-Dietrich Library Center 3420 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-6206 T. 215-746-6397 jsh...@upenn.edu<mailto:jsh...@upenn.edu> ___ Heb-naco mailing list Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu<mailto:Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu> https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco ___ Heb-naco mailing list Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco
Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל
Hi Jasmin, It appears that most libraries opt for bi-gelal. Try a title search in connexion, you'll see that there are un-authorized variants. Gabe Angulo On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 12:09 PM Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco < heb-naco@lists.osu.edu> wrote: > Hello Collective Wisdom, please remind me: if there’s an entry in E-Sh., > even if it ends with a “see also”, is that sufficient justification for > romanizing the word as a word as opposed to a compound? E.g. בגלל has a > direct entry, so I’d think it would be romanized biglal (NOT bigelal > because as a whole word, the sheva would be considered merahef, ignored in > romanization), but the entry also says “see גלל”. So which is it: Biglal > or Bi-gelal? > > > > Thanks, Jasmin > > > > > > --- > > Jasmin Shinohara > > Hebraica Cataloging Librarian > > University of Pennsylvania > > Van Pelt-Dietrich Library Center > > 3420 Walnut Street > > Philadelphia, PA 19104-6206 > > T. 215-746-6397 > > jsh...@upenn.edu > > > ___ > Heb-naco mailing list > Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu > https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco > ___ Heb-naco mailing list Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco
Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל
Hi, Haim, bi-gelal would be correct if the ב is considered a prefix to the word גלל. But since there is a direct entry for the word as a whole, I’m asking if we should romanize it as a whole word instead of as a compound word. Thanks, Jasmin From: Gottschalk, Haim [mailto:h...@loc.gov] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 12:24 PM To: Shinohara, Jasmin; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' Subject: RE: בגלל I think it should be “biglal” and not “bi-gelal” because of the sheva being treat as a sheva nach (which is how it is in the Alcalay). This is in my humble opinion. ~Haim From: Heb-naco On Behalf Of Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 11:00 AM To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel Subject: [Heb-NACO] בגלל Hello Collective Wisdom, please remind me: if there’s an entry in E-Sh., even if it ends with a “see also”, is that sufficient justification for romanizing the word as a word as opposed to a compound? E.g. בגלל has a direct entry, so I’d think it would be romanized biglal (NOT bigelal because as a whole word, the sheva would be considered merahef, ignored in romanization), but the entry also says “see גלל”. So which is it: Biglal or Bi-gelal? Thanks, Jasmin --- Jasmin Shinohara Hebraica Cataloging Librarian University of Pennsylvania Van Pelt-Dietrich Library Center 3420 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-6206 T. 215-746-6397 jsh...@upenn.edu<mailto:jsh...@upenn.edu> ___ Heb-naco mailing list Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco
[Heb-NACO] בגלל
Hello Collective Wisdom, please remind me: if there’s an entry in E-Sh., even if it ends with a “see also”, is that sufficient justification for romanizing the word as a word as opposed to a compound? E.g. בגלל has a direct entry, so I’d think it would be romanized biglal (NOT bigelal because as a whole word, the sheva would be considered merahef, ignored in romanization), but the entry also says “see גלל”. So which is it: Biglal or Bi-gelal? Thanks, Jasmin --- Jasmin Shinohara Hebraica Cataloging Librarian University of Pennsylvania Van Pelt-Dietrich Library Center 3420 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-6206 T. 215-746-6397 jsh...@upenn.edu ___ Heb-naco mailing list Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco
