[Heb-NACO] בגלל

Fri Feb 8 11:06:25 EST 2019

Good morning, all, and happy Friday!

Picking up on where we left yesterday, based on p. 21 of HCM, ("In the rare cases where Even-Shoshan may show the  same word under more than  one entry element, the  more  'analytical' option is chosen.") we agreed that standard romanization of בגלל is bi-gelal (and בשביל is bi-shevil in all cases). Yossi confirmed that the romanzations of the words I’d listed (found in the wiki romanzation FAQ) are correct but questioned ממני. The source for that romanization, mimeni NOT mi-meni, is the original romanization FAQ<http://library.princeton.edu/departments/tsd/katmandu/hebrew/roman/mis37.html> compiled by Rachel and Joan. I could find no discussion in the heb-naco archives<https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=heb-naco%40lists.service.ohio-state.edu&q=mimeni&x=0&y=0>, so perhaps Joan could chime in on the reasoning.

In the meantime, I also looked at the cataloging FAQ<http://www.princeton.edu/~rsimon/hebnaco.html> compiled by Rachel, which, though a bit dated, is still a treasure trove of valuable information. For our purposes, the entry under “levadi or le-vadi<http://www.princeton.edu/~rsimon/levadi.html>” is instructive:
In Even-Shoshan under "lamed" there is an  entry for: " lamed (sheva) bet (patah) dalet"; under  "bet" there is the following:  "lamed (sheva)  bet  (patah) dalet,  bet  (hirek) lamed (sheva) bet (patah) dalet,  mem  (hirek) lamed (sheva)  bet (patah) dalet, see lamed (sheva) bet (patah) dalet."
Therefore, this is *not* a case where Even-Shoshan shows the same word under more than  one entry element.  He shows the  word under lamed, and  under  bet  he refers the reader to  the  lamed entry.  In short, he treats this compound as  a  "word" beginning with lamed.  Therefore again, there's no "more 'analytical'" option to be chosen-- he doesn't give  an  option  at  all.   So:   levadi  is correct.  Even-Shoshan does say, in  the "levad" entry, that the  word comes from "le-" plus "bad."  But it's the  fact that  he doesn't give an *entry* for it under "bad" that's critical.
For ממני, under מ there is an entry for ממנה/ממנו and ממני, both of which refer to the entry מן. There are also entries for מנה, מנו (with a segol under the mem’s) but no corresponding מני. Perhaps that is the reason for mimeni, but should it be mi-menah and mi-menu? (LC shows 1 mi-menah; 19 mimenah; 15 mi-menu; 32 mimenu. There are also 5 mi-menO and 5 mimenO [different]; there’s no such thing…) Again, Joan, we’d appreciate your input.

The more critical question at this time is, Heidi and Joan, was there a reason the passage from HCM was not included in HCM-RDA? Should it be reinstated?

Thanks and apologies for my verbosity… Kol tuv and שבת שלום, Jasmin

From: Galron, Joseph [mailto:galron.1 at osu.edu]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 5:55 PM
To: Shinohara, Jasmin; Hebrew Name Authority Funnel
Subject: RE: בגלל

Bedi’avad has no reference to another entry. There is no such a word in ES as Di’avad.

There is also no reference in Bahem (or Bahen)

With Bilvad – There is a reference to Levad – so I would not change it to Bilvad, but leave it as Bi-levad.

The same is with Ka’et – there is a reference to ‘Et

There is no reference in Kefi (and also Lefi), Levad,

There is no reference to Ma’an in Lema’an

But there are references to Min from Mi-meni, Mi-menah, Mi-meno and so on. (those I would continue to hyphen)

Seli, shelkha, shelak and so on, do not have prefixes.

I am heading home ☺

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: Shinohara, Jasmin <jshino at pobox.upenn.edu>
Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 2:01 PM
To: Galron, Joseph <galron.1 at osu.edu>; Hebrew Name Authority Funnel <heb-naco at lists.osu.edu>
Subject: RE: בגלל

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<mailto: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<mailto:hgot at loc.gov>>; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel' <heb-naco at lists.osu.edu<mailto: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/20190208/1dd671f5/attachment-0001.html>