Responses to Barry's note:
1) In the LC database it seems to be assumed that the "hatam" in "Hatam
Sofer" has kamats under the het. Why wouldn't it? Does it make sense
that the "word" (of course, really an abbreviation for "Hidushe Torat
Mosheh") is in semikhut with "Sofer"? I would expect it to follow the
pattern of such abbreviations as Radak, vocalized with two kamatses in
Even-Shoshan. If there is evidence for "Hatam" with hatef-patah in the
first syllable, where can we find it?
2) Unfortunately, the Bible is not the source for Hebrew romanization
according to the ALA/LC system. Even-Shoshan has given up not only the
segol in the definite article before this word, but also the kamats--he
gives two patahs, as described in my earlier message. I agree, though,
that if the word he-het-gimel appears in a Biblical quotation that must
be romanized, the Biblical vocalization should be used. (E.-S. does
give one Biblical quotation, vocalizing with segol and kamats.)
Joan
>>> Barry Walfish <barry.walf...@utoronto.ca> 1/20/2010 12:24 AM >>>
Unless there's a kamats under the het, which I strongly doubt, I see no
reason for he-Hatam Sofer. It should be ha-Hatam, like la-hakham, etc.
And before you go changing all the he-hags, please note that there are
4 he-hags, 4 be-hags and 1 ke-hag in the Tanakh. It's the kamats that
demands the segol.
Barry
Barry Dov Walfish, Ph.D.
Judaica Specialist
University of Toronto Libraries
Toronto, ON M5S 1A5
Canada
________________________________________
From: owner-heb-n...@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu
[owner-heb-n...@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu] On Behalf Of
heb-naco@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu [heb-n...@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 12:06 AM
To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel
Subject: HEB-NACO digest 1376
HEB-NACO Digest 1376
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) he-hag no more
by "Joan C Biella" <j...@loc.gov>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:43:02 -0500
From: "Joan C Biella" <j...@loc.gov>
To: <heb-naco@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: he-hag no more
Message-ID: <4b4f3b86020000e600096...@ntgwgate.loc.gov>
Dear colleagues,
Recently in leafing idly through the new edition of Even-Shoshan I
noticed that one of my favorite off-the-wall Hebrew romanization
oddities exists no more. In the article on “hag [subscript dot
under
the h]” we are no longer instructed to romanize the singular with
the
definite article as “he-hag” (with segol and kamats). I counted
six
uses of “ha-hag” (two patahs) in the article.
The LC database had 49 hits for “he-hag,” 29 for “ha-hag.”
I’ll get started fixing the 49.
In the grip of fear for other old favorites, I checked the articles
which cover “he-hasid,” “he-hakham,” “he-haver,” and
“he-‘arim.” I didn’t see any evidence that these need to
be changed. he-Hatam Sofer is also safe for the moment.
Joan
------------------------------
End of HEB-NACO Digest 1376
***************************
