quote:

Originally posted by Sam-:

quote:

Originally posted by Rav Alter:
Artscroll does not follow the professional rules for transliteration.

Do you have a source for what are the "professional rules"?

Of course. Two that come to mind are the U.S. Library of Congress and the Hebrew Language Academy in Israel.

But of course, I mentioned these in my previous posting.

quote:

Originally posted by Rav Chaim:
The Mishna Brurah 128:134 Pasul a Mechalel Shabbos B'Farhesya from making Birchas Kohanim.

The MB 128:134 states, among other things that one who is a mumar lehallel shabbat befarhesya may not "raise his hands". Do you understand mumar to be anyone who is mehallel shabbat befarhesya, or perhaps something stronger than that? See http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/toshba/halacha/din-2.htm for the practical halakhic application. Particularly how the Hazon Ish rules in this case, which may be surprising.

BTW, that should be "posel" (verb) rather than "pasul" (noun). The MB is not RL pasul.

Ok.

I wen to the library of congress website and did a search and came to this webpage - http://www.loc.gov/rr/amed/TransliterationPage/TransliterationPage1.html then i went to the PDF file which can be viewed at this link - http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/romanization/hebrew.pdf and the PDF file says that the vernacular "Koof" is in fact transliterated as the letter "K", and nothing shows for anything with the letter "Q".

I went to this link: http://hebrew-academy.huji.ac.il/english.html and if this is what you are referring to, I couldn't find anything on it.

What makes the Hebrew Language Academy or the US Lib of Cong 'professional' over say Artscroll (who have some very accomplished Rabbonim on their payroll).

Kol Tov
Have a wonderful Shabbat all
Or Shabbos if you like
Sorry Rav, not sure how you would transliterate it

Mark, I ask the same question. And I bring proof that Artscroll is doing like the Library of Congress PDF file shows for the letter "Koof". And I still think that Artscroll is #1 on the Jewish English writing scene.

Chag Sukkos Sameach to everyone.

quote:

Originally posted by Sam-:
Ok.

I wen to the library of congress website and did a search and came to this webpage - http://www.loc.gov/rr/amed/TransliterationPage/TransliterationPage1.html then i went to the PDF file which can be viewed at this link - http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/romanization/hebrew.pdf and the PDF file says that the vernacular "Koof" is in fact transliterated as the letter "K", and nothing shows for anything with the letter "Q".

That is actually the ALA system rather than the LoC system. And what it gives is the letter K with a dot beneath it. That can be used in scholarly publications, to differentiate the qof from the kaf. The GPO Style Manual, based on LoC standards (“by foreign language experts at the Library of Congress . . .), gives Q for qof and K for kaf.

quote:

I went to this link: http://hebrew-academy.huji.ac.il/english.html and if this is what you are referring to, I couldn't find anything on it.

The link is http://hebrew-academy.huji.ac.il/PDF/Tatik.pdf . This, of course, also gives Q for qof and K for kaf. BTW, the name of the letter is qof and not qoof.
I must say that Sam is to be congratulated for doing this research.

quote:

Originally posted by Mark G:
What makes the Hebrew Language Academy or the US Lib of Cong 'professional' over say Artscroll (who have some very accomplished Rabbonim on their payroll).

I know some very learned rabbanim, and I know some Hebrew language scholars. The overlap is far from 100 percent. In fact, we used to say that one is either a talmudist of a grammarian.

One more thing Rav, I spend a fair amount of time on jewish web sites and around transliterated material and I have VERY rarely seen the Q used as you suggest, now I am not suggesting you are wrong for one minute, but shouldnt we just work on the principle of Minhag HaMakom on this one and go with the prevailing transliteration (viz Artscroll ). One more thought: 'That is actually the ALA system rather than the LoC system. And what it gives is the letter K with a dot beneath it' Quoted from you, seems to indicate further that even this 'definitive' system is not definitive. Shakespearian english is based on a set of grammatical laws, but is not used today as common speech. Indeed dictionaries have to continually update their words and definitions in order to keep relevant.

Chag Sukkot (Succos/Sukot/Sucot/Sucoth/Suqoth - sorry that was a joke Rav) Sameach to you all.

I must agree with Rav Alter (re Sam) a yasher koach on doing such sterling research

quote:

Originally posted by Mark G:
One more thing Rav, I spend a fair amount of time on jewish web sites and around transliterated material and I have VERY rarely seen the Q used as you suggest,

And I spend considerable time in open-air markets, where I hear people say "hamesh sheqel." That does not make it right. Using an illiteracy makes one sound illiterate.

quote:

now I am not suggesting you are wrong for one minute, but shouldnt we just work on the principle of Minhag HaMakom on this one and go with the prevailing transliteration.

Of course not.

The HEBREW. PDF reference made me smile, since the learned writer wrote "principle" when he should have written "principal." As in "the principle dictionary used." This is a common mistake, but by the time one gets to junior high school, one is expected to know the difference. And if one is posing as an expert in language and makes this error, he thereeby loses his exalted status.

I found no such errors in the Hebrew Language Academy publication, which gives Q for qof. Both of them, by the way, use KH for kaf rafa (without a dagesh).

Just to see how we cannot use the recommendation of the ALA here, the following is from their expert:

In 1976 inferior dots were added to "v" and "t" in order to distinguish vet (v) from ṿaṿ, and taṿ (t) from ṭet (t); the miagkii znak, or prime (´) for alef was changed to alif (’); the acute was added to the "s" to distinguish samekh (s) from śin (ś), and the grave was added to the "s" in romanized Yiddish to distinguish the aṿ ( ) from samekh (s) and śin (ś).

Here is a web site that has a fair amount of Hebrew fonts. DISCLAIMER: I do not endorse or know any of these web sites personally so PLEASE be very careful when you download. http://elmar.co.il/wwh/wwh/xfiles/H.fonts/index.en.html#Table
You need to make sure that you INSTALL the font correctly before use. Hope this helps...

Here is a web site that has a fair amount of Hebrew fonts. DISCLAIMER: I do not endorse or know any of these web sites personally so PLEASE be very careful when you download. http://elmar.co.il/wwh/wwh/xfiles/H.fonts/index.en.html#Table
You need to make sure that you INSTALL the font correctly before use. Hope this helps... A

Thank you Rav for the correction of the incorrect usage of 'principle' as opposed to 'principal'. However this does not change my stance. Quote "and if one poses as an expert in language" for the record I do not 'pose' as anything, merely give me opinions, I am not an expert nor have I at any time stated that I am one (G-D forbid) and if I have in any way implied this to be the case I humbly apologise, nor for the record am I learned, I am merely a lay person and do not expect my opinion to be seen as anything but. I find your opinion to be a little myopic and perhaps a little draconian, the 'correct' english noun might be 'nit picker'. I am sure that if Artscroll has not chosen to use the 'professional' way then they must have a very good reason for it, after all, the idiom, "if it aint broke dont fixt it" applies here very well.

PS. before you correct me, it was meant to be 'fix' not 'fixt' a spelling typo made in haste

quote:

Originally posted by Rav Alter:
I know some very learned rabbanim, and I know some Hebrew language scholars. The overlap is far from 100 percent. In fact, we used to say that one is either a talmudist of a grammarian.

When you learn Gemara from the Steinzaltz edition you can readil see the dirrence between the "correct" and Yeshivish pronounciations. For example, everyone I have ever come across says "k'miflegi" whereas Steinsaltz has it as "kamipalgi".

The word for a living thing is also different in the Yeshiva world. I believe the correct pronounciation is "beriyah" whereas the more common Yeshivish pronounciation is "b'riyah".

quote:

Originally posted by Mark G:
Thank you Rav for the correction of the incorrect usage of 'principle' as opposed to 'principal'. However this does not change my stance. Quote "and if one poses as an expert in language" for the record I do not 'pose' as anything,

I am saddened for any number of reasons. For one, my criticism was not of you, but rather of the one who misused the English language (in the cited PDF file). Next, because the level of education in this generation is such that people neither know how to write well nor to recognize good writing and to distinguish it from faulty writing. The good in this is that there will always be work for editors.

quote:

I find your opinion to be a little myopic and perhaps a little draconian, the 'correct' english noun might be 'nit picker'. I am sure that if Artscroll has not chosen to use the 'professional' way then they must have a very good reason for it, after all, the idiom, "if it aint broke dont fixt it" applies here very well.

I have stated and will restate that if you want to know why Artscroll does what they do, you must ask them. If their level of writing were as high as their level of Torah scholarship, I suppose that they would be perfect. But we know that there is but one Perfect One.
But if recognizing poor usage is classified as nitpicking, then oy vavoy la'oznayim shekakh sham`u.

quote:

Originally posted by Yisroel Phillips:

The word for a living thing is also different in the Yeshiva world. I believe the correct pronounciation is "beriyah" whereas the more common Yeshivish pronounciation is "b'riyah".

We are really getting far afield now. As it turns out, biblical Hebrew is quite different from Hazal Hebrew (to coin a phrase). The word is beriyah in the former, and biryah in the latter.

Each is correct in its surroundings.

quote:

Originally posted by Mark G:
PS. before you correct me, it was meant to be 'fix' not 'fixt' a spelling typo made in haste

Mark, you should know that there is a two hour time frame where one can go ahead and fix errors or change the way one wants their posting to look like. Simply click on the middle icon of any posting of yours (provided that it is within the 2 hour time frame) and make the necessary changes.

As to the research, well I simply went to Google and searched for the LOC's website and did a search on the site for "hebrew transliterated" and found the page on the first result. Took a few minutes if not less.

quote:

Originally posted by Rav Alter:
We are really getting far afield now.

Well you started it!

Thankls for the tip Sam, I appreciate it. It also make the threads less messy.