[Heb-NACO] בגלל

Fri Feb 8 15:30:48 EST 2019

Hi there,

As Jasmin has pointed out the instruction for analyitcal  entries does not appear in the new edition of our manual "Hebrew cataloging RDA."

I honestly have no memory why it is omitted.

I will as the Catalogoing Commitee about reinstating it.

We need to have the hierarchy of instruction in to order to base our final decision.

As regards "בגלל"

It appears under "ג"  as "גלל"

It appears as an "analytic" under "ב" as "בגלל"".

Thus we should continue to romanize it as "bi-gelal."

Thanks, Heidi

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: lerner at stanford.edu

________________________________
From: Heb-naco <heb-naco-bounces at lists.osu.edu> on behalf of Shinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco <heb-naco at lists.osu.edu>
Sent: Friday, February 8, 2019 12:17 PM
To: Gottschalk, Haim; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel'
Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל

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." Per Yossi, there is an entry in E.-Sh. For גלל, so it’s romanized bi-gelal. Though we have yet to hear from Heidi and Joan, both of whose input I’m eager to hear...

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
________________________________
From: Gottschalk, Haim <hgot at loc.gov>
Sent: Friday, February 8, 2019 3:12 PM
To: Shinohara, Jasmin; 'Hebrew Name Authority Funnel'
Subject: RE: בגלל

Jasmin,

If I may ask: if there is an actual entry for the word in E. Sh. forבגלל why not treat that as a word onto itself and Romanize it as if the ב was part of the word? I am just asking.

From: Heb-naco <heb-naco-bounces at lists.osu.edu> On Behalf OfShinohara, Jasmin via Heb-naco
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2019 11:06 AM
To: Galron, Joseph <galron.1 at osu.edu>; Hebrew Name Authority Funnel <heb-naco at lists.osu.edu>; lerner at stanford.edu; Joan Biella <jbiella2632 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] בגלל

Good morning, all, and happy Friday!

Picking up on where we left yesterday, based on p. 21 ofHCM, ("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 ofבגללis bi-gelal (and בשבילis 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 questionedממני. The source for that romanization, mimeni NOT mi-meni, is the originalromanization 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-nacoarchives<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 thecataloging 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, underמthere is an entry for ממנה/ממנוand ממני, both of which refer to the entryמן. There are also entries forמנה, מנו(with a segol under the mem’s) butno 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 fromHCM was not included in HCM-RDA? Should it be reinstated?

Thanks and apologies for my verbosity… Kol tuv andשבת 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<mailto:galron.1 at osu.edu> or jgalron at gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto:jshino at pobox.upenn.edu>>
Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 2:01 PM
To: Galron, Joseph <galron.1 at osu.edu<mailto:galron.1 at osu.edu>>; Hebrew Name Authority Funnel <heb-naco at lists.osu.edu<mailto: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 theFAQ<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 theבis 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.בגללhas 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 “seeגלל”. 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/c5eabaaf/attachment-0001.html>