[Heb-NACO] בגלל

Galron, Joseph galron.1 at osu.edu
Thu Feb 7 12:45:50 EST 2019


Because there is  a “see also” in E.S. and it explains that the ב is a prefix like בשביל – it should be Bi-gelal and Bi-shevil (and not Biglal or Bishvil)

Yossi

––
Joseph (Yossi) Galron-Goldschläger
Head, Hebraica & Jewish Studies Library<http://guides.osu.edu/c.php?g=337806&p=2274681>
and German Language and Literature Librarian
305 G Thompson Memorial Library
The Ohio State University Libraries
1858 Neil Ave. Mall
Columbus, Ohio 43210 USA
Tel.: (614) 292-3362, Fax: (614)292-1918
Mobile: (614) 285-4290
E-Mail: galron.1 at osu.edu or jgalron at gmail.com

Lexicon of Modern Hebrew Literature:
http://go.osu.edu/hebrewlit

Union List of Digitized Jewish Historic Newspapers and Periodicals
http://go.osu.edu/jpress



From: Heb-naco <heb-naco-bounces at lists.osu.edu> On Behalf Of Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco
Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 12:31 PM
To: Gottschalk, Haim <hgot at loc.gov>; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' <heb-naco at lists.osu.edu>
Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל

Hi, Haim, bi-gelal would be correct if the ב is considered a prefix to the word גלל. 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:hgot at loc.gov]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 12:24 PM
To: Shinohara, Jasmin; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel'
Subject: RE: בגלל

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 <heb-naco-bounces at lists.osu.edu<mailto:heb-naco-bounces at lists.osu.edu>> On Behalf Of Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 11:00 AM
To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel <heb-naco at lists.osu.edu<mailto:heb-naco at lists.osu.edu>>
Subject: [Heb-NACO] בגלל

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. בגלל 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 גלל”. 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
jshino at upenn.edu<mailto:jshino at upenn.edu>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/heb-naco/attachments/20190207/7b3cf09f/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Heb-naco mailing list