Hi, When I get these messages, many of the characters show up as ??? is there a way to view what they are? (actual question mark ;-) )
Sheryl Sheryl Stahl Library Director Frances-Henry Library Hebrew Union College- Jewish Institute of Religion Jack H. Skirball Campus 3077 University Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90007-3796 (213) 765-2127 [email protected] www.huc.edu/libraries/LA -----Original Message----- From: Heb-naco [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2019 11:41 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Heb-naco Digest, Vol 103, Issue 4 Send Heb-naco mailing list submissions to [email protected] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [email protected] You can reach the person managing the list at [email protected] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Heb-naco digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: ???? (Shinohara, Jasmin) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 14:44:51 +0000 From: "Shinohara, Jasmin" <[email protected]> To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] ???? Message-ID: <ch2pr10mb391058c5e4ef647b8914a83b9d...@ch2pr10mb3910.namprd10.prod.outlook.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" 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 ???? is bi-gelal (and ????? is bi-shevil in all cases). From: Heb-naco <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Joan Biella via Heb-naco Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 7:10 PM To: Yossi Galron via Heb-naco <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] ???? Jasmine writes: ???? 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 ????. 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 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Bi-melot ... On Wed, Sep 18, 2019, 22:28 Marlene Schiffman via Heb-naco <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: We have a title that uses this word: Ze?ev Z'abo?ins?i, ha-ish u-mishnato : \b (bi-melot me?ah 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 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Abend-David,Ilana via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 1:07 PM To: Galron, Joseph <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Hebrew Name Authority Funnel <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] ???? If so how would you transliterate ?????? 25 ??? ? Would this be correct bi-melo'ut ? From: Heb-naco <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Galron, Joseph via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 12:52 PM To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] ???? 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 ???????? to ?Bi-Yerushalayim? and not to ?Birushalayim? Yossi From: Heb-naco <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 12:31 PM To: Gottschalk, Haim <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] ???? Hi, Haim, bi-gelal would be correct if the ? is considered a prefix to the word ???. 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:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 12:24 PM To: Shinohara, Jasmin; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' Subject: RE: ???? 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 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 11:00 AM To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [Heb-NACO] ???? 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. ???? 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 ????. 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 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Heb-naco mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco _______________________________________________ Heb-naco mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/heb-naco/attachments/20190919/93f734c4/attachment.html> ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Heb-naco mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco ------------------------------ End of Heb-naco Digest, Vol 103, Issue 4 **************************************** _______________________________________________ Heb-naco mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco
