Hi, Cliff. Yes, technically and ideally, you are correct. But expecting catalogers to know when a second word should aspirated would be expecting a knowledge of Hebrew grammar that is unrealistic for almost all of us. We suffice with knowledge of prefixes/little words and their impact on בג"ד כפ"ת/beged kefet, i.e., that it is correctly romanized bi-Vene.
Exceptions areמראה כהן and שפתי כהן, Marʼeh Khohen and Śifte Khohen, respectively, which are from a piyut and a pasuk, respectively, so we try to follow the sources. But there are still plenty of records with Marʼeh/Śifte K/kohen… From: Heb-naco <heb-naco-boun...@lists.osu.edu> On Behalf Of Cliff Miller via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2023 10:14 AM To: Rose Shoshanah Seidman <sseid...@northwestern.edu>; Hebrew Name Authority Funnel <heb-naco@lists.osu.edu> Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] Romanisation of בביזנטיון Did I overlook an obvious answer? I do not recall seeing anyone who suggested Bi-Vene Verak Ki-Vene Verak Li-Vene Verak Mi-Bene Verak Shouldn’t this be the accepted form? Rabbi Clifford B Miller, MLS, DD Home: [973] 228-3139 Library of the Did I overlook an obvious answer? I do not recall seeing anyone who suggested Bi-Vene Verak Ki-Vene Verak Li-Vene Verak Mi-Bene Verak Shouldn’t this be the accepted form? Rabbi Clifford B Miller, MLS, DD Home: [973] 228-3139 Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary
_______________________________________________ Heb-naco mailing list Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco
