[Heb-NACO] בגלל

[Shinohara, Jasmin]

I hear the concern, Yossi, but I’m afraid we’ve already started down the proverbial slope. Per the FAQ<http://rascat.pbworks.com/w/page/109347700/Romanization%20FAQ>, we’ve agreed to romanize the words as

Bediʻavad
Bahem
Bilvad
Kaʻet
Kefi
Levad
Lemaʻan
Lefi
Mimeni
Sheli

No one can argue for Shvil since the sheva na’ at the beginning of a word requires it to be Shevil. No one can argue for Birushalayim because there is no E-Sh. entry for the compound.

So do I hear consensus on Biglal (and Bishvil – when it means “because/on behalf of”; otherwise bi/ba-shevil when it means “on a/the path)?

From: Heb-naco [mailto:heb-naco-bounces at lists.osu.edu] On Behalf Of Galron, Joseph via Heb-naco
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 12:52 PM
To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel
Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל

It is “dangerous” going to Biglal or Bishvil – tomorrow we will say: If it is Bishvil so why not change it to Shvil
We also Romanize בירושלים  to “Bi-Yerushalayim” and not to “Birushalayim”

Yossi



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/20190207/03030e41/attachment-0001.html>