Mark, you are very welcome.

A Gut Moed/Chag Sameach

Quote "Do you understand mumar to be anyone who is mehallel shabbat befarhesya, or perhaps something stronger than that? "

A Mumar is one that does it constantly. (Not a one timer)

Gut Moed all. Since Rav Alter re-iterated a number of times that we should find out from Artscroll regarding their use of transliteration, I took the liberty of sending one them an e-mail, and this then, is the reply:
"Thank you for your inquiry. Much of the senior staff is out this week for Chol HaMoed, but briefly, the original editors used an Ashkenazi transliteration system when the first Megillas Esther volume was published in 1976. It was felt at the time that most English readers could relate to that pronunciation. It was also felt that, for example, more readers would relate to a “k” rather than a “q” for transliterating a kof, the latter of which style being reserved for more academic works, and the former being more familiar and “user friendly.”

We hope this information helps you."

So Artscroll's method dates back to 1976.

Rav Alter may I ask from what year do your "professional" transliteration rules hail?

Is it safe to assume that Artscroll's "academic" system is Rav Alter's "professional" system?


I don't know if its the lack of a 'U' or something else, but I'm more comfortable with a 'K'. Are there any English alphabet languages in which it is common to see a 'Q' not followed by a 'U' for its own words?

I don't think I've ever seen Artscroll's transliteration of much anything except perhaps Parsha names. To what works of transliteration is this thread discussing?

Is there a full transliteration of Megillas Esther which dates back to 1976? Or are they refering to just a few words here and there within an English translation, where some words defied translation and were transliterated, such as person or place names?

quote:

Originally posted by Mark G:
the original editors used an Ashkenazi transliteration system when the first Megillas Esther volume was published in 1976. It was felt at the time that most English readers could relate to that pronunciation. It was also felt that, for example, more readers would relate to a “k” rather than a “q” for transliterating a kof, the latter of which style being reserved for more academic works, and the former being more familiar and “user friendly.”

We hope this information helps you."

The following comments are "off the top of my head."

I think the above attitude could be characterized as patronizing.

For fun, replace the concept of "the rules of translateration" with "the rules of kashrut." Would it then be acceptable to bend the rules?

quote:

Originally posted by rob:
Is it safe to assume that Artscroll's "academic" system is Rav Alter's "professional" system?

Yes. I should have referred to it as the official system of translation.

quote:

Are there any English alphabet languages in which it is common to see a 'Q' not followed by a 'U' for its own words?

I would have been more comfortable with a question like "Are there any other languages that use a Latin alphabet and must differntiate between two letters that have similar pronunciations?"

The parallel letter in Arabic is always transliterated as Q, and one has never noticed any attempt at patronizing by adopting another letter in place of the Q. As in Iraqi.

(Please note that strictly speaking, the qof is not pronounced the same way as the kaf.)

I dont think they are trying to be patronizing, I hasten to point out that in many communities Artscroll has become the de facto standard, this is especially true for those on the path of return and find the other siddurim to be difficult to follow. A side point, I noticed that a number of other zemirot/benchers (non Artscroll) have similar transliteration as the Artscroll series. While I enjoyed your concept of changing transliteration to Kosher, it of course cannot be compared. On the one hand, transliteration is an approximation of Hebrew, based more on pronunciation and Kashrut is Kashrut STAM. Oh by the by if we are going to argue on that level, what do you have to say about bending the rules and Chalav Milk ? or Kinglip ?

quote:

For fun, replace the concept of "the rules of translateration" with "the rules of kashrut." Would it then be acceptable to bend the rules?

If you want to have even more fun, replace the concept of "Hopscotch" with the concept of "open heart surgery" and imagine what happens when you step on a crack.

quote:

Quote "Do you understand mumar to be anyone who is mehallel shabbat befarhesya, or perhaps something stronger than that? "

A Mumar is one that does it constantly. (Not a one timer)

A referrence for that is Chulin 14a Tos. D"H Hashochet

quote:

quote:
Are there any English alphabet languages in which it is common to see a 'Q' not followed by a 'U' for its own words?


I would have been more comfortable with a question like "Are there any other languages that use a Latin alphabet and must differntiate between two letters that have similar pronunciations?"

The parallel letter in Arabic is always transliterated as Q, and one has never noticed any attempt at patronizing by adopting another letter in place of the Q. As in Iraqi.

That's a great question I hadn't even thought of asking since I know nothing about Arabic, and barely know anything about English or Hebrew.

If my question was at all off-putting, Rav Alter, I apologize, it is only my naivite to which you are reacting...

My question had more to do with how my USA grammar school trained eyes see a 'Q' not followed by a 'U' -- and thus one reason why I am more comfortable seeing a 'K' than a 'Q' without a 'U'.

Given this clarification, can you tell me if the 'U' has any phonetic significance?

For example, if I know how a "Qu" in American English is supposed to sound, and I also [think] I know how an American "K" is supposed to sound, am I any closer to an authentic "qof" sound in either Hebrew or Arabic with one and not the other?

If the letter name were academically transliterated as "quof" I might thank that more equivalent to "kwaf" -- does that get me warmer or colder?

quote:

Originally posted by Mark G:
I dont think they are trying to be patronizing,

Well, they stated "It was felt at the time that most English readers could relate to that pronunciation." I still regard that as patronizing, or perhaps regarding their audience as rather limited in abilities.

quote:

While I enjoyed your concept of changing transliteration to Kosher, it of course cannot be compared. On the one hand, transliteration is an approximation of Hebrew, based more on pronunciation and Kashrut is Kashrut STAM.

The point I was trying to make is that each "profession" has its rules. You are right that some we received at Sinai and some were devised by mere mortals. But these rules were in any case formulated by those who know.

quote:

Oh by the by if we are going to argue on that level, what do you have to say about bending the rules and Chalav Milk ? or Kinglip ?

I REALLY think we are getting far away from the original topic, but I have been accused of being the one who started it, so who cares.

The only thing I know about chalav milk is that chalav IS milk.

The only thing I know abouut kinglip (apparently aso spelled kingklip) is what I found here http://www.kosher.org.au/FAQ.htm

"For some time there appears to have been a question regarding the official Kosher status of Kingklip in South Africa where it is a very popular fish. The South African Beth Din is reported to have initially listed it as a "non-Mehadrin" kosher fish. In later years this ruling was apparently upgraded and the Kingklip was promoted by the South African Beth Din as unquestionably kosher. This prompted a number of other Rabbinic authorities to investigate further The latest Rabbinic rulings issued by the esteemed posek Rav Elyashav and by the Badatz of the Eidah HaChareidis in Israel have in the past month unequivocally pronounced the Kingklip as a non-Kosher fish species. In reaching these rulings the Kingklip was examined thoroughly and the minute scales that is found on them (that may have resulted in the lenient rulings) have been ruled to not be the type of scales acceptable in Halachah."

Also see http://www.kosher.org.au/FAQ-ling/kingklip_psak_-_yetad_neeman_june_2005.pdf

quote:

Originally posted by rob:
My question had more to do with how my USA grammar school trained eyes see a 'Q' not followed by a 'U' -- and thus one reason why I am more comfortable seeing a 'K' than a 'Q' without a 'U'.

Given this clarification, can you tell me if the 'U' has any phonetic significance?

The sound represented by QU is similar to that represented by KW, while Q sounds like K.

quote:

For example, if I know how a "Qu" in American English is supposed to sound, and I also [think] I know how an American "K" is supposed to sound, am I any closer to an authentic "qof" sound in either Hebrew or Arabic with one and not the other?

Only by convention. I can pronounce the qof and the Arabic equivalent, but it takes effort, while a Jew from an Arab country has no difficulty and does it naturally.

quote:

If the letter name were academically transliterated as "quof" I might thank that more equivalent to "kwaf" -- does that get me warmer or colder?

I think you're right on. That is probably why the Q is used to represent qof rather than QU.

quote:

Originally posted by Rav Chaim:
[QUOTE]For fun, replace the concept of "the rules of translateration" with "the rules of kashrut." Would it then be acceptable to bend the rules?

quote:

If you want to have even more fun, replace the concept of "Hopscotch" with the concept of "open heart surgery" and imagine what happens when you step on a crack.

I can't figure out whether you did not understand my comparison, or that you tried your hand at reductio ad absurdum. I have explained my comparison about two posts above.

quote:

Quote "Do you understand mumar to be anyone who is mehallel shabbat befarhesya, or perhaps something stronger than that? "

quote:

A Mumar is one that does it constantly. (Not a one timer)

quote:

A referrence for that is Chulin 14a Tos. D"H Hashochet

The reference did not explain (define) the term "mumar lehallel Shabbat beferhesya." Nor does Hullin 5a. (Your reference did indeed differentiate between the shehita beshabbat of the Gemara and that done by such a mumar.) Have you a reference that does explain (define) the term "mumar lehallel Shabbat beferhesya"?

Apolgies Rav Alter, I meant Chalav Yisroel milk as opposed to saying 'milk' milk. As far as I undestand the BD in South Africa have NOT classified the Kingklip as unkosher. And yes I think that Artscroll have correctly assumed that their target market generally find it difficult to read hebrew and follow the services and have therefore made a Siddur which is almost 'fool proof'. Now we have to assume if someone needs a transliterated Siddur over a Hebrew Siddur that they obviously have difficulty in reading the Hebrew and thusly DO have limited abilities you. You are right, each profession does have its rules, but those rules need to stay relevant and have a frame of relevance to those using it. My point here being that certain rules can be changed to keep there validity, especially if changes these rules makes no discernable difference but in fact can enhance the relevance to those whom it is designed for (I know your not going to like that). I have no problems with professional rules for academic purposes, but the language needs to be accessible to the plebs as well. Do we want a language, whose point of relevance has dwindled into the horizon, and thusly becomes lost to the next generation (my thought is Yiddish here).

quote:

Originally posted by Mark G:
Apolgies Rav Alter, I meant Chalav Yisroel milk as opposed to saying 'milk' milk. As far as I undestand the BD in South Africa have NOT classified the Kingklip as unkosher.

That reminds me of a story I have heard but cannot vouch for. In fact, some people deny its veracity. In any event, it seems that once a rav in Baltimore, based on a misunderstanding, permitted the use of microphones on Shabbat. When Rav Ruderman found out about it and determined that it was forbiddenn, he nevertheless permitted the use of the microphone in those synagogues that had already been using them. The parallel with the fish is inescapable.

quote:

And yes I think that Artscroll have correctly assumed that their target market generally find it difficult to read hebrew

But surely they are familiar with the English alphabet!

quote:

Do we want a language, whose point of relevance has dwindled into the horizon, and thusly becomes lost to the next generation (my thought is Yiddish here).

Hassidim all learn in and speak Yiddish. Others, who stopped doing so, cannot.

Quote "
A reference for that is Chulin 14a Tos. D"H Hashochet

The reference did not explain (define) the term "mumar lehallel Shabbat beferhesya." have you a refernce that does do so?"

Read it again and you'll find it. If you need any help, I'll explain it to you. If it may be of assistance, a background in the Sugya of Eiruvin 69 might help. See Tos. there D"H Hoitzie for another reference. This is so explicit that I can't believe that you missed it

quote" The point I was trying to make is that each "profession" has its rules. You are right that some we received at Sinai and some were devised by mere mortals. But these rules were in any case formulated by those who know."

And so does Hopscotch, monopoly and Open Heart surgery, for sure. It is absurd to think that just because there are rules that its compared of what happens if you bend the rules. If you bend the rules of Monopoly and you put $500 fort hose that fall on "Free Parking" nothing is going to happen. Who cares? The same thing with transliterating. It doesn't matter if you take the rules of whoever taught you transliterating or Artscrolls transliterating or anything else free transliterating (as long as you get the thought across)

If you bend the rules of open heart surgery you're a murderer. If you bend the rules of Kashrus you're a Rasha. A big difference, wouldn't you think?

Quote "but surely they are familiar with the English Alphabet", forgive me Rav, but that is an obtuse answer. The point is that they are not familiar with the phonetic sound of Hebrew. Even transliterated Hebrew which is useful, is limited in the pronunciation. You can still hear when someone is unfamiliar with Hebrew. Do you still think that someone who is trying hard to pronounce unfamiliar words correctly cares about rules. Do you think that someone who is using a transliterated text, even cares about rules, otherwise, why do they not just learn the Hebrew. But now if you start imposing a series of extra difficulties on people you will scare them away. I know some people who use transliteration and I can tell you that if you started putting in pages of rules on transliteration their eyes would cross over.

quote:

Originally posted by Rav Chaim:
If you need any help, I'll explain it to you.

Please do.

quote:

If you bend the rules of open heart surgery you're a murderer. If you bend the rules of Kashrus you're a Rasha. A big difference, wouldn't you think?

You aren't a Yekke, by any chance?

quote:

Originally posted by Mark G:
Do you still think that someone who is trying hard to pronounce unfamiliar words correctly cares about rules. Do you think that someone who is using a transliterated text, even cares about rules, otherwise, why do they not just learn the Hebrew. But now if you start imposing a series of extra difficulties on people you will scare them away. I know some people who use transliteration and I can tell you that if you started putting in pages of rules on transliteration their eyes would cross over.

How about five lines of rules? Or three?

Well, I think that you are exaggerating and underestimating these people's intelligence. But I guess you know better about what they are capable of.

Chulin 14a (as paraphrased by Kollel Iyun Hadaf)

(a) (Mishnah): If one slaughters on Shabbos or Yom Kipur, even though he is Chayav Misah, the slaughter is Kosher.


Tosfos says the Gemarah wants to establish it if it was done intentional.

Question:

But if he does it intentionally how can it be Kosher, But a Mumar to be Michalel Shabbos his Shcita is Pasul as it says before 5a as paraphrased from KIH
(f) Answer: Rather, the end of the Beraisa says, a Mumar who is Menasech or publicly desecrates Shabbos

Answer: We could say that over here he didn't do it publicly

Question: This wouldn't answer it like R' Meir that doesn't make such a distinction (see there.)

Answer (Even when done publicly) doing it once is not considered to be a Mumer.(Exactly my definition.)

This is also brought L'Halacha in YD 11:2 in Shach and Taz, see there.

See Tos. Eiruvin 69a as I mentioned before (in the middle of Tosfos) The Ri explains that over here he's not a Mumer since it only applies to those who regularly are Mechalel Shabbos)



BTW I'm not a Yekke (not sure what thats got to do with anything)

I would also point out that Artscroll does have a valid point to transliterate as they do. Igros Moshe (in OC 3:5) rules that one should stick to their original Kabbala of pronunciations and not to go to a different pronunciation that is "thought" to be correct or "more correct." Thus it would be Halachically correct for a BT with Ashkinazik roots to pronounce them as its written transliterated by the Artscroll rather than the "official transliteration of the OTL" (Official Transliteration league.) Thus, if someone's Kabalah is not to differentiate between Kaf or Koof, Ayin and Aleph, or Gimal Degusha and without a Dagesh, its better not to start making them up and stick with what your family was saying for generations.