[Heb-NACO] AJL RAS Cataloging Committee and romanization of foreign loan words

[Gottschalk, Haim]

I am in favor of keeping the rule that “The first sheṿa in a foreign loan word with an initial consonantal cluster is generally treated as a sheṿa naḥ. For correct Romanization it is necessary to consult Even-Shoshan and Alcalay on a case-by-case basis.”

Haim


From: Heb-naco [mailto:heb-naco-bounces+hgot=loc.gov at lists.osu.edu] On Behalf Of Dickel, Geraldine
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 10:53 AM
To: Hasafran; 'heb-naco at lists.acs.ohio-state.edu'
Subject: [Heb-NACO] AJL RAS Cataloging Committee and romanization of foreign loan words

Dear colleagues,

I have posted the minutes from the 2016 AJL RAS Cataloging Committee meeting on the AJL RAS Cataloging Wiki (http://rascat.pbworks.com/w/page/117519816/AJL%20RAS%20Cataloging%20Committee%20Meeting-2016).  Thank you, Lenore Bell, for taking and writing up the minutes for us – I am very grateful.

One issue from the meeting that has not yet been resolved is the question of the romanization of initial consonant clusters in foreign loan word of Greek or Latin origen, such as Deramah/Dramah, words beginning with pesikh/psikh, etc., as well as pesefas/psefas.  The members of the AJL RAS Catalog committee need to vote on whether or not to change the policy of following Alcalay in such cases.  Section 6 of the 2016 meeting minutes reports on the discussion of this issue that took place at the committee meeting.  The archive of the email discussion of this issue is at https://www.mail-archive.com/heb-naco@lists.osu.edu/msg00389.html

On page 19 of Hebraica Cataloging RDA, under Foreign Loan Words, it is written:
“The first sheṿa in a foreign loan word with an initial consonantal cluster is generally treated as a sheṿa naḥ. For correct romanization it is necessary to consult Even-Shoshan and Alcalay on a case-by-case basis.”

Should we add a line to the manual stating that Alcalay should not be followed in cases of foreign loan words of Greek or Latin origin.   Should all initial shevas in such words be considered to be silent shevas?  Or is there some other principle by which we should determine if the initial sheva is silent or vocal for these words?  Are there any foreign loan words of Greek or Latin origin for which we would not want to treat an initial sheva as a silent sheva?

I would like to open the “floor” for any additional discussion on this matter, prior to calling for a vote on the proposal to change the policy of following Alcalay in cases of foreign loan words of Greek or Latin origin.

Sincerely,
Jerry Anne Dickel (chair)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/heb-naco/attachments/20170427/4ae248d1/attachment.html>