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 <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 <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 <heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu<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 <h...@loc.gov<mailto:h...@loc.gov>>; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' <heb-naco@lists.osu.edu<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 <heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu<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 <heb-naco@lists.osu.edu<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
