This is an interesting discussion:
Her is my take: Jamsin, the examples you listed are “constructs” of two nouns connected together, and when the first word of the construct ends with a long vowel, the following letter, (in this case, the first letter of the second word), loses its dagesh, like it would within a single word. I’m not one hundred percent sure if this happens consistently; there may be exceptions, but I believe this is the answer. Unfortuantely, I could not find this documented anywhere. Cliff, or our other noted grammarians, could you please weigh in on my theory or take it one step further. Heidi G. Lerner Metadata Librarian for Hebraica and Judaica Emerita, Stanford University Libraries ________________________________ From: Heb-naco <[email protected]> on behalf of Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2023 1:51 PM To: Cliff Miller <[email protected]>; heb-naco <[email protected]>; Rose Shoshanah Seidman <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] Romanisation of בביזנטיון 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 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 <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Cliff Miller via Heb-naco Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2023 10:14 AM To: Rose Shoshanah Seidman <[email protected]>; Hebrew Name Authority Funnel <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco
