[Heb-NACO] Romanisation of בביזנטיון

[Shinohara, Jasmin]

Hi, Cliff.

Yes, technically and ideally, you are correct. But expecting catalogers to know when a second word should aspirated would be expecting a knowledge of Hebrew grammar that is unrealistic for almost all of us. We suffice with knowledge of prefixes/little words and their impact on בג"ד כפ"ת/beged kefet, i.e., that it is correctly romanized bi-Vene.

Exceptions areמראה כהן  and שפתי כהן, Marʼeh Khohen and Śifte Khohen, respectively, which are from a piyut and a pasuk, respectively, so we try to follow the sources. But there are still plenty of records with Marʼeh/Śifte K/kohen…


From: Heb-naco <heb-naco-bounces at lists.osu.edu> On Behalf Of Cliff Miller via Heb-naco
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2023 10:14 AM
To: Rose Shoshanah Seidman <sseidman at northwestern.edu>; Hebrew Name Authority Funnel <heb-naco at lists.osu.edu>
Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] Romanisation of בביזנטיון

Did I overlook an obvious answer? I do not recall seeing anyone who suggested Bi-Vene Verak Ki-Vene Verak Li-Vene Verak Mi-Bene Verak Shouldn’t this be the accepted form? Rabbi Clifford B Miller, MLS, DD Home: [973] 228-3139 Library of the
Did I overlook an obvious answer?
I do not recall seeing anyone who suggested
Bi-Vene Verak
Ki-Vene Verak
Li-Vene Verak
Mi-Bene Verak

Shouldn’t this be the accepted form?

Rabbi Clifford B Miller, MLS, DD   Home: [973] 228-3139
Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/heb-naco/attachments/20230810/424a9415/attachment-0001.html>