he-hag no more

[Joan C Biella]

Dear colleagues,

Recently in leafing idly through the new edition of Even-Shoshan I
noticed that one of my favorite off-the-wall Hebrew romanization
oddities exists no more.  In the article on “hag [subscript dot under
the h]” we are no longer instructed to romanize the singular with the
definite article as “he-hag” (with segol and kamats).  I counted six
uses of “ha-hag” (two patahs) in the article.

The LC database had 49 hits for “he-hag,” 29 for “ha-hag.” 
I’ll get started fixing the 49.

In the grip of fear for other old favorites, I checked the articles
which cover “he-hasid,” “he-hakham,” “he-haver,” and
“he-‘arim.”  I didn’t see any evidence that these need to
be changed.  he-Hatam Sofer is also safe for the moment. 

Joan