Hi Heidi,
You are correct with the Romanization. I believe that the sheva under the gimel
would be ignored in this case per the HCM.
Haim
From: Heb-naco On Behalf Of Heidi G Lerner via
Heb-naco
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 2:59 PM
To: heb-naco@lists.osu.edu
Subject: [Heb-NACO] romanization
My pleasure, any time ☺
From: Heidi G Lerner
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 4:12 PM
To: Shinohara, Jasmin ; Hebrew Name Authority Funnel
Subject: Re: romanization question
Thank you
Heidi G. Lerner
Metadata Librarian for Hebraica and Judaica
Metadata Dept.
Stanford University
thanks!!
Good we are all on the same page!
Heidi G. Lerner
Metadata Librarian for Hebraica and Judaica
Metadata Dept.
Stanford University Libraries
Stanford, CA 94305-6004
ph: 650-725-9953
fax: 650-725-1120
e-mail: ler...@stanford.edu
From: Neil Manel
Thank you
Heidi G. Lerner
Metadata Librarian for Hebraica and Judaica
Metadata Dept.
Stanford University Libraries
Stanford, CA 94305-6004
ph: 650-725-9953
fax: 650-725-1120
e-mail: ler...@stanford.edu
From: Shinohara, Jasmin
Sent: Thursday, August
I agree with Jasmin.
Neil
On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 4:08 PM Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco <
heb-naco@lists.osu.edu> wrote:
> Yes, with the addition of the alif diacritic, mit’agdim. The sheva under
> the gimel would be naʻ because it has a dagesh, but per HCM-RDA, it’s
> ignored in ALA-LC
