Hebrew word structure: its rendering in pointing and in Latin conversion.In an earlier article (1) I noted that the conversion system of the Standards Institute of Israel--SII--(FDIS FDIS Final Draft International Standard (ISO)
FDIS Frequency Domain Interference Suppressor (GPS user equipment)
FDIS Fast Frequency Distribution Based Interpolation Search Algorithm for Sorted Arrays ISO (1) See ISO speed.
(2) (International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, www.iso.ch) An organization that sets international standards, founded in 1946. The U.S. member body is ANSI. 259-3) is more precise than the pointed Hebrew version, even if it does not include a visible distinction between short and long vowels, and even if it has no special sign for hatap's.
This statement calls for explanation and proof, which I propose to provide in this article. It details the drawbacks of pointing and the advantages of phonemic pho·ne·mic
1. Of or relating to phonemes.
2. Of or relating to phonemics.
3. Serving to distinguish phonemes or distinctive features. conversion in the elucidation e·lu·ci·date
v. e·lu·ci·dat·ed, e·lu·ci·dat·ing, e·lu·ci·dates
To make clear or plain, especially by explanation; clarify.
To give an explanation that serves to clarify. of Hebrew word structure. (2)
Originally, Hebrew script had only letters meant to designate consonants This is a list of all consonants, ordered by place and manner of articulation. Ordered by place of articulation
Pronunciation - In this dictionary slashes (/../) bracket phonetic pronunciations of words not found in a standard English dictionary. over time certain consonants became mute mute (myt), in music, device designed to diminish uniformly the loudness of a musical instrument. , and some fused with their attached vowels. As a result, some letters now appeared in script that occasionally were taken as vowel vowel
Speech sound in which air from the lungs passes through the mouth with minimal obstruction and without audible friction, like the i in fit. The word also refers to a letter representing such a sound (a, e, i, o, u, and sometimes y). signs. These were mainly the letters yod and waw. Generations later these letters began to be used to designate vowels that did not arise from fusion processes. This was the stage of development of Hebrew script when the sanctity of the Hebrew Bible was established: It was forbidden to alter even a single letter. In just a few generations after the Arab conquest in the seventh century C.E., Arabic had become the principal language--sometimes even the only language--of all dwellers of the ancient lands. Probably young Jews too were fluent in it; with Arabic being their first language. What could the leaders of the Jewish community do to ensure that subsequent generations could read the holy book in the pronunciation and intonation intonation
In phonetics, the melodic pattern of an utterance. Intonation is primarily a matter of variation in the pitch level of the voice (see tone), but in languages such as English, stress and rhythm are also involved. of their forefathers forefathers npl → antepasados mpl
forefathers npl → ancêtres mpl
forefathers npl → Vorfahren ?
By now Hebrew script contained letters denoting consonants, and also letters serving to mark some vowels. In the eighth century, this skeletal script was augmented by points. These signs served mainly to indicate vowel sounds but also other elements of vocal expression. The small Christian communities used similar pointing metods in their holy books. (3) Both Christians and Jews invented--separately--detailed systems of slender and light marks, through which were expressed vocal elements or indicators from the domain of pronunciation that were not denoted in the letters themselves. The marks they added had to be modest and small so as not to overshadow o·ver·shad·ow
tr.v. o·ver·shad·owed, o·ver·shad·ow·ing, o·ver·shad·ows
1. To cast a shadow over; darken or obscure.
2. To make insignificant by comparison; dominate. the letters, which might not be altered. The Hebrew pointed script then created thus contained both consonant consonant
Any speech sound characterized by an articulation in which a closure or narrowing of the vocal tract completely or partially blocks the flow of air; also, any letter or symbol representing such a sound. symbols and the detailed vowel symbols, in order to properly reflect the correct reading of the words in the sacred book. The separate system of intonation marks provided the required chant, and incidentally reinforced the intent of the pointing. Accordingly, pointing seemed the perfect and complete method to portray not only the pronunciation of these words, but also their structure. The question whether pointing does in fact give a faithful picture of Hebrew word structure is our central concern in this article.
We begin with a description of the details of pointed script that impair understanding word structure (section 2). In section 3, we clarify ways to connect the phonetic pho·net·ic
1. Of or relating to phonetics.
2. Representing the sounds of speech with a set of distinct symbols, each designating a single sound. marks with the word structure. Section 4 presents a survey of the conversion rules devised by the Academy of the Hebrew Language The Academy of the Hebrew Language (הָאָקָדֶמְיָה לַלָּשׁוֹן הָעִבְרִית, in 1957 and the background of these rules. We see in section 5 that neither transliteration nor transcription are suited to a reliable conversion of Hebrew, and in section 6 we set out the principles of "structure conversion," which satisfies these two accepted approaches. Conclusions come at 7, and in the appendix (section 8), we present the rules of structure conversion in detail. (4)
2. PROPERTIES OF POINTED HEBREW SCRIPT
2.1 Existence of Several Channels
Pointing was added to an existing skeletal script, which could not be changed. When communal leaders felt a need to simplify the reading and introduce pointing into the written language, the script that was created was not analogous to speech. In speech, the entire word is spoken, sound after sound, along a single channel, but the pointed word in script is not an analogous graphic expression, parallel to the sounded word, for the elements of the written Hebrew word with pointing are not transmitted--as they are in speech--in a single channel. The word [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII ASCII or American Standard Code for Information Interchange, a set of codes used to represent letters, numbers, a few symbols, and control characters. Originally designed for teletype operations, it has found wide application in computers. .], for example, when spoken has the entire order of its sounds in one channel: si bbo let. But by pointing the word, only some of its sounds are transmitted in the main channel: the channel with the consontant symbols. Apart from this one, three more channels are present in the pointed word: below the main channel, over it, and inside it. The written word [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] in pointed script is thus given in four channels. In the lower channel are the two vowels hiriq and segol, and in the upper channel is the vowel sign holam and the right hand mark on the [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] (which is part of the [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]), and in the inside channel is the dot in the letter [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.], which signifies two things: the geminate geminate /gem·i·nate/ (jem´i-nat) paired; occurring in twos.
Occurring in pairs.
paired; occurring in twos. consonant and its hard, not aspirate as·pi·rate
To take in or remove by aspiration.
A substance removed by aspiration.
The removal by suction of a fluid from a body cavity using a needle. , pronunciation.
However, all the various communication methods, even primitive ones such as semaphore semaphore (sĕm`əfôr'), device for the visible transmission of messages. The marine semaphore, used by day between ships or between a ship and the shore, consists essentially of a post at the top of which are two pivoted arms. , are based on sending signs one after the next, namely in a single channel. Old-fashioned typewriters too were designed with forward movement of the carriage after the letter was typed, and considerable technical modifications had to be added for them to be able to type another symbol on a letter. Modern electronic communication channels are of course also set up to send the signals on one channel. This is the natural kind of transmission, for communication is intended to be analogous to speech, and speech naturally is entirely on a single channel.
2.2 Pointing Symbols that are Not Clear-Cut
The flaw inherent in the four channels of the pointing system, while it impedes decipherment--especially decipherment de·ci·pher
tr.v. de·ci·phered, de·ci·pher·ing, de·ci·phers
1. To read or interpret (ambiguous, obscure, or illegible matter). See Synonyms at solve.
2. To convert from a code or cipher to plain text; decode. by a machine, does not prevent communication. But this is not its only flaw. When one scrutinizes pointing, it is immediately apparent that it has signs that are not clear-cut. Checking the various meanings of the different symbols, we discover that because of their multiple indications, misunderstandings sometimes arise in grammar. Because of the lack of clarity of a point in its instructions for performance (reading), certain symbols are interpreted as representing non-matching theoretical qualities.
2.2.1 Dot Inside the Letter
Here is a list of six meanings of the symbol "dot inside the letter."
220.127.116.11 Dagesh Lene v. t. 1. To lend; to grant; to permit.
a. 1. (Phonetics) Smooth; as, the lene breathing s>.
n. 1. (Phonetics) The smooth breathing (spiritus lenis).
The light dagesh signifies that the letter has to be uttered with a hard pronunciation (stop, plosive plosive (plō´siv),
n any speech sound made by impounding the airstream for a moment until considerable pressure has been developed and then suddenly releasing it (e.g.,
b, d, and
g). ), even though the hard pronunciation is really the letter's default sound. That is, if there is no reason to pronounce pro·nounce
v. pro·nounced, pro·nounc·ing, pro·nounc·es
a. To use the organs of speech to make heard (a word or speech sound); utter.
b. it differently, the written letter itself should indicate that the pronunciation is hard. Preferably, therefore, a special symbol should signify precisely the aspirate pronunciation (fricative fricative (frik´tiv),
n a speech sound made by forcing the airstream through such a narrow opening that audible high-frequency air ) and not the hard pronunciation. Recall that the pointing system certainly does have a special symbol to denote de·note
tr.v. de·not·ed, de·not·ing, de·notes
1. To mark; indicate: a frown that denoted increasing impatience.
2. aspirate pronunciation: a short horizontal line (Descriptive Geometry & Drawing) a constructive line, either drawn or imagined, which passes through the point of sight, and is the chief line in the projection upon which all verticals are fixed, and upon which all vanishing points are found.
See also: Horizontal over the letter. It is unfortunate that precisely the dot inside the letter was accepted to denote the hard pronunciation.
There has to be a reason for the letter to be performed with an aspirate pronunciation, and the reason is principally the consonant's location after a vowel, including cases where the original vowel lying before the consonant is not performed due to morphological mor·phol·o·gy
n. pl. mor·phol·o·gies
a. The branch of biology that deals with the form and structure of organisms without consideration of function.
b. changes that have occurred in the word. For example, in the word [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] the letter [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] comes after the vowel qamatz so its sound is fricative, but this soft sound exists also after the qamatz has been eliminated due to a morphological change that befell the word, and the [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] now comes after the consonant marked with swa (e.g., [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]). From a phonetic standpoint there is no vowel element here before the [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]. In passing we may note that the notion of "floating (wavering) swa" has no foundation in the theory of phonetics phonetics (fōnĕt`ĭks, fə–), study of the sounds of languages from three basic points of view. Phonetics studies speech sounds according to their production in the vocal organs (articulatory phonetics), their physical properties . This swa is nothing but swa nah nah
[Variant of no1.] (quiescens). Floating swa was invented by a renowned grammarian called Shlomo Haane in the eighteenth century. By means of the new name, he wanted to explain how, contrary to the grammatical rule, an aspirate consonant followed swa nah. This explanation is wholly superfluous su·per·flu·ous
Being beyond what is required or sufficient.
[Middle English, from Old French superflueux, from Latin superfluus, from superfluere, to overflow : . The fricative pronunciation is interpreted as a simple feature prevalent in various languages: an existing linguistic habit does not change even when the phonetic conditions change later. (5)
18.104.22.168 Dagesh Forte
The strong dagesh indicates that the letter is an identical geminate consonant, and not a single consonant, that is, the consonant standing at the end of the last syllable syllable
Segment of speech usually consisting of a vowel with or without accompanying consonant sounds (e.g., a, I, out, too, cap, snap, check). A syllabic consonant, like the final n sound in button and widen, also constitutes a syllable. is repeated in a second token at the start of the following syllable. Dagesh forte is not marked in letters [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] (see later).
22.214.171.124 Mappiq and U-Vowels
Where the dot is in the letter [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] denoting a consonant when it is the final letter in the word.
A long u vowel (suruq) where the dot is in the letter [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] following an unpointed consonant in the middle or at the end of the word.
A short u (qubbutz) where the dot is in the letter [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] and the [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] is one of the executions of waw connective connective - An operator used in logic to combine two logical formulas. See first order logic. ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]) or in the unique words [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]. Elsewhere (6) I have extensively described this vowel, which occurs mainly when, due to a morphological change in the word, a cluster of three consonants forms at the beginning of the word. An example is when waw connective attaches to a word such as [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] which begins with a cluster of two consonants (? followed by [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]: tpilla). A phonetic rule with no exceptions holds that if another consonant is attached before this cluster (making it a triple cluster), a small vowel must be inserted after the first consonant of the triple cluster. In many instances, this small vowel is hiriq or patah, (e.g., [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]: bitpilla) but if the first consonant is ? the small inserted vowel is "u," namely qubbutz. The spelling [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] (suruq) instead of qubbutz accords with the habit of the pointing masters to write every u vowel attached to the letter ? with suruq. (7)
126.96.36.199 Dot in the Letter [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]
The dot in the letter [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] can denote something entirely different: it can mean that the consonant [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] comes after the vowel hiriq. For example, in the word [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.], whose structure is like the structure of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] and [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.], there is no dagesh forte but there is, as in the two latter words, a single consonant (not doubled) after the hiriq. However, in [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] the consonant that follows the h iriq is [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.], but the written text has only one letter [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]. Therefore, it was necessary to insert the dot into this letter to signify that there is another [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] here, but the second is a consonant while the first marks a vowel. In the Bible, two consecutive letters [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] were not written unless an extra hiriq was added after the consonant [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.], for example, in the plural form Noun 1. plural form - the form of a word that is used to denote more than one
relation - (usually plural) mutual dealings or connections among persons or groups; "international relations" [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.], and this too not always (e.g., [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]).
That the dot in the [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] is not dagesh forte is evident also from looking at the masculine form [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]. The letter [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] at the end is without doubt a symbol for the long hiriq vowel and not for the consonant [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]. True, in theory the consonant [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] is also present there after the long hiriq, but this consonant is silent at the end of the word, and the letter that is supposed to mark it is not written at all. The written masculine form is therefore written without a sign for its final consonant [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]. Likewise the final letter in the masculine of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] is likely not to be written, due to the silence of the consonant [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] at the end of the word: [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]. But in each of these nouns the final consonant, [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] or [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.], regains its sound when a syllable is added and the letter is present in the text. (8)
The pointing masters could not avoid inserting a dot into the letter [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] after a hiriq, otherwise the vowel before the consonant [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] would be taken as a short vowel (short hiriq) and there is no place for a short vowel in the middle of a word with an open syllable; also, they perhaps could not hear the difference between the combination of a long hiriq vowel before the consonant [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] and the double [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]. Accordingly, a dot was placed in the letter. But perusal of the given structure leads us to conclude that this is not gemination gem·i·na·tion
Embryologic partial division of a primordium, as of a single tooth germ forming two teeth.
gemination (jem´ of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.], but a combination of a vowel hiriq followed by a consonant [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.].
It is worth noting that cases exist where the dot in the letter [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] indicates gemination (dagesh forte). In the word [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] it certainly does so, and at times it marks doubling even if a hiriq precedes it, for example, in the verb [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] in Piel. The same mark--a dot in the letter [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]--can therefore be interpreted in the same situation in different ways.
But a dot inside the letter is not the only sign that is not clear-cut.
2.2.2 Shwa Symbol
In the Bible, if the symbol swa is written below a letter in the middle of the word, it attests that this is a letter that has to be uttered. For example, in the word [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] (Gen 30:18) the second [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] is not uttered as there is no swa below it. In addition to this task, the swa shows that the letter below which it is placed is not followed by any of the vowels on the vowel inventory. Yet the swa seemingly indicates two states in which a consonant is to be uttered without there being any vowel after it: (a) swa [na.sup.c] (mobile), that is, a consonant at the opening of a syllable before another consonant, where together they apparently indicate a consonant cluster--even though already in Spanish Medieval Hebrew Medieval Hebrew has many features that distinguish it from older forms of Hebrew. These affect grammar, syntax, sentence structure, and also include a wide variety of new lexical items, which are usually based on older forms. poetry there is concrete evidence of sounding of such a swa [na.sup.c]. inside a word, as if it did not stand at the head of the syllable but was swa nah, that is (b) a consonant closing a syllable. And the reverse: the swa at the end of a syllable may be given, that is, in the Hebrew poetry of Spain, the status of swa standing at the opening of a hatap syllable. (9) Regarding the two terms swa [na.sup.c] and swa nah nowadays, the former is interpreted as hatap e and the latter as the complete absence of any vowel. (10)
Other points that are not clear-cut are these:
2.2.3 Qamatz and Patah Sign
The qamatz sign can signify a or o, and as we know, with many ancient words, all we can do is leap from one conjecture CONJECTURE. Conjectures are ideas or notions founded on probabilities without any demonstration of their truth. Mascardus has defined conjecture: "rationable vestigium latentis veritatis, unde nascitur opinio sapientis;" or a slight degree of credence arising from evidence too weak or too to another as to whether a given qamatz is pronounced one way or the other. Examples are the names [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] or [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.].
The patah sign denotes the vowel a after the letter under which it is written, but in certain conditions it denotes this vowel sounded before the letter under which the point is written ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]--a after the [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]--a before the [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]).
2.3 Two Signs for a Single Quality
Another drawback DRAWBACK, com. law. An allowance made by the government to merchants on the reexportation of certain imported goods liable to duties, which, in some cases, consists of the whole; in others, of a part of the duties which had been paid upon the importation. of pointing is the presence of two symbols that serve to represent a single linguistic entity: both qamatz and segol at the end of the word before final [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] signify either a or e ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]). But the letter [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] itself is an ancient sign for the same vowel at the end of the word. The following assumption is certainly correct: this [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] is the outcome of the consonant sign [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] that in the past was part of an inflection inflection, in grammar. In many languages, words or parts of words are arranged in formally similar sets consisting of a root, or base, and various affixes. Thus walking, walks, walker have in common the root walk and the affixes -ing, -s, and formative, as in the form [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]* whose pronunciation changed in time: the final vowel u was dropped, and when the sound [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] became the last in the word it fell silent--it ceased to be uttered. Yet words like this continued to be written with [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.], and this letter was thus taken to signify a vowel at the end of the word (in the example the vowel is holam). After the points were added, the pointing masters could not avoid marking the appropriate vowel under the letter preceding the [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] at the end of the word (or over it, as in the above example): a letter could not be left without pointing as its rule would be not to be uttered. As a result, words that structurally ended in a vowel acquired a double marking of the final vowel. At later stages, the [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] was sometimes grasped not as denoting a vowel but the consonant [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]. For example, in Bible translations This article surveys the general history of Bible translations. For translations of the Bible into numerous specific languages, see List of Bible translations. For the Bible in English and its history, see English Bible translations. we find transcription of a name such as [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]--Deborah, which reflects the transcription of the vowel qamatz and also of the letter [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.], which as stated is nothing other than an ancient sign for the same vowel.
3. HOW WORD STRUCTURE IS DETECTED
3.1 Theoretical Versus Observational
The science of linguistics distinguishes qualitatively between the theoretical concept of its various units--phonemes, morphemes, and sundry sun·dry
Various; miscellaneous: a purse containing keys, wallet, and sundry items.
[Middle English sundri, from Old English syndrig, separate. kinds of larger clusters of units--and the observational concept, namely their performance in practice. The word structure is a theoretical concept expressed in a succession of phonemes. Is this theoretical concept conveyed faithfully by the pointing system? It probably is not. From the outset, pointing was invented and was intended solely to reflect the performance of the phonemes as the pointing masters heard them in their day, and not their theoretical quality.
Pointing in essence is the phonetic recording of the pronunciation of the pointing masters, not phonemic writing. For these masters it was important only to signify the sound that they recognized in transmission through the generations. Linguistic theory then did not cover the distinction between phonemes and phones, that is, sounds, and the erudite er·u·dite
Characterized by erudition; learned. See Synonyms at learned.
[Middle English erudit, from Latin in language were those who knew the language in practice and marked the ways of its performance.
Modern linguistics has handed us tools for understanding how we can determine the phonemic writing of words according to according to
1. As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians.
2. In keeping with: according to instructions.
3. their phonetic rendering, and thereby gain understanding of the structure of the words. We should take this path also in the investigation of pointing: learn from our pointed texts the theoretical structure of the Hebrew words. Deep scrutiny--not the appearance of the pointed text itself--may reveal the structure behind the pointed word. Let us look at a few examples of discovering the theoretical structure according to the knowledge that we draw from the pointed text.
3.2 Discovering Theoretical Structures
3.2.1 Example 1
By examining the inflection of many nouns, we know that the plural form in most words is obtained by adding the plural PLURAL. A term used in grammar, which signifies more than one.
2. Sometimes, however, it may be so expressed that it means only one, as, if a man were to devise to another all he was worth, if he, the testator, died without children, and he died leaving one morpheme morpheme: see grammar.
In linguistics, the smallest grammatical unit of speech. It may be an entire word (cat) or an element of a word (re- and -ed in reappeared). , namely the syllable [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] (-im), to the singular. For example, if for testing purposes we remove from the word [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] the plural morpheme [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.], the well-known singular form Noun 1. singular form - the form of a word that is used to denote a singleton
descriptor, form, signifier, word form - the phonological or orthographic sound or appearance of a word that can be used to describe or identify something; "the inflected [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] is left. If we follow this path and check the plural form of a word such as [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] we will have the form [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]. But here the change between the singular form and the plural is not only by the addition of the morpheme [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] to the singular form, but also by doubling the consonant [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] at the end of the singular form. That is, if we remove from the word [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] the morpheme [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] the remainder will be [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] (badd) and not [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] (bad): the final consonant in the word after deleting the plural morpheme will be geminate.
Based on the linguistic principle known as "unification of systems" we must assume that [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] is the phonemic, theoretical structure of the singular form of the word. But in pointing there is no sign at all for a theoretical gemination of a word's final consonant. The reason for non-marking of the gemination required in the final consonant of the theoretical word [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] is that the vocal performance of the word indeed has no doubling of this consonant. Hence, the performance rule can be learnt: gemination properly found at the end of certain words (theoretical germination germination, in a seed, process by which the plant embryo within the seed resumes growth after a period of dormancy and the seedling emerges. The length of dormancy varies; the seed of some plants (e.g. ) is eliminated in speech. Therefore, in pointing, which is the phonetic recording of the word, we find no gemination symbol in the final consonant of words in whose inflection gemination appears. (11)
So according to the inflection forms, being aware of pointing as phonetic recording, we reach the understanding that words such as [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] or [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] theoretically end in two identical consonants coming together at their end--two [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] and two [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] (respectively). Without this conclusion, we would not be able to understand why there is a dagesh in the letter [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] of the word [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.], in contrast to the plural of the word [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.], where there is no dagesh in the [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]. From where does the dagesh come in the letter [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] in the plural [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.], in contrast to the plural of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]? And why in the inflected in·flect
v. in·flect·ed, in·flect·ing, in·flects
1. To alter (the voice) in tone or pitch; modulate.
2. Grammar To alter (a word) by inflection.
3. form of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] is there a dagesh forte in the [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] and we pronounce [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.], as distinct from [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]? According to the pointing and the inflections, word structure can be ascertained even if the structure is not conveyed in the pointing, which has a different purpose, as in the words [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] which lack any mark of dagesh forte in the last letter, and they are written exactly like [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]. or [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.].
3.2.2 Example 2
The theoretical forms of the structure of words with gemination at the end were revealed to us by removal of the plural morpheme from their plural form. We could have obtained the theoretical singular form similarly by removing the inflection morphemes: for example, the morphemes [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] from the words [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] and [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] to obtain [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] and [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]. Likewise, it is useful to delete the inflection morpheme from other nouns and get their theoretical structure. For example, if we remove this morpheme ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]) from the word [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] we obtain the form [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.], and we have to assume that this is the theoretical structure of this noun noun [Lat.,=name], in English, part of speech of vast semantic range. It can be used to name a person, place, thing, idea, or time. It generally functions as subject, object, or indirect object of the verb in the sentence, and may be distinguished by a number of (the claim may be heard that since the adjustment intended to perform this form is in the monosyllable, it would be better to point it with qamatz). In the same way we will conclude according to an inflection such as [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.], [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] that the theoretical structure of the word is [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] (here too in keeping with the pointing rules the short vowel is replaced by a long one, but note that both are performances of the same phoneme phoneme
Smallest unit of speech distinguishing one word (or word element) from another (e.g., the sound p in tap, which differentiates that word from tab and tag). The term is usually restricted to vowels and consonants, but some linguists include differences of pitch, /o/). So we see that the pointed word [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] contains an additional vowel, segol, one that does not exist in the theoretical word. Segolate nouns, then, also evince e·vince
tr.v. e·vinced, e·vinc·ing, e·vinc·es
To show or demonstrate clearly; manifest: evince distaste by grimacing. a difference between the pointed word and the theoretical.
3.2.3 Example 3
As we know, already at the time of the pointing masters, five Hebrew consonants had lost the capacity for gemination: [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]. Still, these consonants are also present in words that according to their theoretical structure have gemination of one of these consonants. A word such as [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.], for example, has doubling of the [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]. This stems from the word pattern (misqal) mit_a_e_, which necessitates indicating that there is gemination here. The pattern includes a theoretical gemination, which some perform as gemination and some perform as a single consonant. (12) And as in the word [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.], it is correct that it exist in a word like [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] too. In this word too there is properly (theoretical) gemination in the consonant [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.], although already in ancient times, not only in our day, this gemination was not performed and the consonant was uttered as single. There is a difference, then, between this word as performed--as it is transmitted in pointed writing--and its theoretical structure, which has gemination of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]. Furthermore, modifications of vowels can occur before the non-geminate consonant placed in theoretical gemination with its performance not being geminate. A word such as [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] will serve to exemplify ex·em·pli·fy
tr.v. ex·em·pli·fied, ex·em·pli·fy·ing, ex·em·pli·fies
a. To illustrate by example: exemplify an argument.
b. the difference between the form of its performance (with pointing as above) and its theoretical structure *[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.].
3.2.4 Example 4
We saw above (188.8.131.52) the special meaning of the dot in the letter ? when preceded by the vowel hiriq. If we look as usual only at what our eyes see in the pointed texts, this dot will be interpreted to us as dagesh forte, and if we wish to cling to Verb 1. cling to - hold firmly, usually with one's hands; "She clutched my arm when she got scared"
hold close, hold tight, clutch
hold, take hold - have or hold in one's hands or grip; "Hold this bowl for a moment, please"; "A crazy idea took hold of a transcription that faithfully renders the pointing marks, we shall have to assert that in words such as [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.], and [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.], two letter y's must be written in transcription to denote what seems to be gemination. That in fact is what the modern transcribers did, taking pains to write yy in the rendering of these place-names. They kept the principle of "precise transcription," letter for letter and sign for sign, and they did not look into the meaning of the dot in the letter [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] after hiriq. (13)
3.2.5 Example 5
A prominent case is the pointing of short attached particles [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.], and [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]. Like all formative particles, they are written without a space after them, but they do not entail gemination of the first consonant of the following word. The pointing in this example, which is careful to transmit the precise pronunciation, presents clear rules that fix the vowel following the attached particle, but all the rules belong to the domain of performance, and they are phonetic rules. They stem from the same rule discussed elsewhere, (14) of dismembering a triple cluster by introducing a short vowel after the first consonant of the cluster. But the phonemic structure of these particles does not contain the vowels. The vowels are created only in speech, in performance, according to the structure of the word that follows the particle. The theoretical, phonemic structure determines that these particles are composed of a consonant only, and the vowels born at the moment of performance are not part of the word's structure.
3.2.6 Example 6
Other attached particles entail gemination of the first consonant in the word following the particle. For example, the definite article definite article
A member of the class of determiners that restricts or particularizes a noun. In English, the is the definite article. [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] as we know calls for doubling. If the first consonant in the word after the definite article is one of the consonants that cannot be doubled, the vowel of the article sometimes changes. Most striking is the change from [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] to [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]. Obviously, these are changes in performance, and do not involve any change in the theoretical structure of the definite article.
A review of other properties of the pointing given above, such as the superfluity of the letter h in words ending in [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] in the Hebrew script, qibbutz written as suruq, the "wavering swa" which is nothing other than swa nah, and more, add further examples of this.
4. WORD STRUCTURE AND CONVERSION PROBLEMS
Detection of the theoretical structure of Hebrew words is an interesting process that presents us with Hebrew words in their complete form. This is a worthy goal in itself, but it is especially important in the field of rendering Hebrew words in Latin characters. The script that serves for handling many languages is one that developed from the original Latin script, and even after its development, it is called "Latin script." It is used particularly for purposes of scientific and commercial writing, and for languages that have a different script, which is mostly the national script of the peoples who speak them.
4.1 Two Ways of Conversion
The accepted conversion is done in one of two ways: transliteration (conversion of letters) and transcription (conversion of sounds). Transliteration is conversion letter by letter, in other words Adv. 1. in other words - otherwise stated; "in other words, we are broke"
put differently , conversion from one system of graphic symbols, representing the letters (including diacritics This article is about the academic journal. For the accent mark, see Diacritic.
diacritics is an academic journal founded in 1971 at Cornell University. ) of one language, to another system of graphic symbols representing precisely the same letters. Such is the case, for example, in transliteration from Greek or Cyrillic letters Variants of the Cyrillic alphabet are used by the writing systems of tens of languages, especially languages used in former Soviet Union. The tables below summarize and compare several of those alphabets. to Latin letters List of Latin letters. Basic alphabet
Original Latin alphabet of the Roman Kingdom
A B C D E F Z H I K L M N O P Q R S T V X
Latin alphabet of the Roman Empire
A B C D E F G H I K L M N O P Q R S T V X Y Z
Modern basic Latin alphabet .
The second way is transcription. Here the system of sounds of a certain language is expressed by means of accepted graphic symbols in another language. Transcription of sounds is particular to each language, and a uniform system for all languages is not possible here. First, the chosen signs may reflect only one chosen dialect of the source language, and not all the ways of sounding, and second, in transcription one is obliged to use signs that are accepted by speakers of a certain target language. Each target language has its own signs: the representation of the sound [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] in "English" transcription, sh, is unlike the representation in "French" transcription, ch, in German transcription sch, etc. To avoid transcription meant for one particular target language, the international phonetic transcription Noun 1. phonetic transcription - a transcription intended to represent each distinct speech sound with a separate symbol
transcription, written text - something written, especially copied from one medium to another, as a typewritten version of dictation of IPA IPA - International Phonetic Alphabet was developed, but it is intended solely for use by specialists.
In Hebrew script, we are accustomed to not having all the word's components before us. But words written in Latin letters are expected to contain all their components. Therefore, Hebrew conversions of all kinds are careful to include the vowels and the geminates, and feel no need to write in conversion final letters different from the regular letters. The perennial question before anyone proposing conversion systems of Hebrew is which of the two methods will best support the conversion of the Hebrew word into Latin script--transliteration of letters or transcription of sounds.
4.2 Accepted Scientific Conversion
For the last two centuries, scholars of Hebrew have used Latin letters for the conversion of Hebrew, founded on the transliteration method. In this transliteration worldwide, care was indeed taken to clearly distinguish the consonants, and it included identifying signs (diacritics), as in most European languages, which have accents and various kinds of auxiliary symbols. This meticulous transliteration was the best linguistic understanding in its day.
For the learned, Hebrew was chiefly the Bible. And as the Bible was pointed, the transliterated rendering was a faithful representation In mathematics, a faithful representation ρ of a group G on a vector space V is a linear representation in which different elements g of G are represented by distinct linear mappings ρ(g). not only of the letters but also of the points. Scholars were at pains to ensure that every symbol present in the biblical text be indicated by a specific sign, different from every other sign in the transliteration. The principles of the accepted scientific transliteration Scientific transliteration, also called the International Scholarly System, is a system for transliteration of text from the Cyrillic to the Latin alphabet (romanization). This system is most often seen in linguistics publications on Slavic languages. may be learned from many Hebrew grammars or Hebrew textbooks as well as from periodicals that deal with Hebrew or linguistics. Some transliteration methods adhering to the pointing symbols by the letter-by-letter system lack any distinction between the different functions of the symbol. A document of the International Standards Organization See ISO. (ISO) from 1984, entitled "Documentation--Transliteration of Hebrew Characters into Latin Characters," provides two transliteration tables: one for consonants and one for vowels. (15) Yet in both, transliteration is given of the letter [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] with a dot to its left. In the consonant table we know that this is the consonant [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] geminate, and the letter is marked with dagesh forte, while in the vowel table it is the vowel suruq. But in both tables this symbol, ., is furnished with the same transliteration: the letter w with a dot over it. Similarly, one symbol is proposed for swa nah and swa [na.sup.c]. Long qamatz and short qamatz are both transliterated by a with a reduced o symbol over it: a.
In contrast, some systems based the transliteration on a particular view of the theoretical structure of the words, without clinging to the Hebrew pointing alone. A word such as [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] (name of the divinity) is written in various compositions [ba.sup.c]l, without a vowel a between the [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] and the [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]. (16) Some even enlarged the transliteration and added symbols for qualities not visible in the text. For example, after the conjecture arose in Semitic language a name used to designate a group of Asiatic and African languages, some living and some dead, namely: Hebrew and Phnician, Aramaic, Assyrian, Arabic, Ethiopic (Geez and Ampharic).
- Encyc. Brit.
See also: Semitic research that the sign qamatz in Hebrew pointing had two sources in the early stages of the language, scholars began consistently to mark in their transliterations both kinds of qamatz. Such a detailed transliteration was considered more scientific than a transliteration that did not distinguish the two kinds of qamatz; sure enough, it did introduce theoretical elements not seen in the pointed text, and invented new symbols for them. So the possibility exists of establishing a transliteration on a theory that sets out to interpret pointing symbols, and according to the interpretation two transliteration symbols will be determined for one pointing symbol given different interpretations.
4.3 Conversion Rules of 1957
4.3.1 Conversion by the Academy of Hebrew
In the early 1950s, the Academy of the Hebrew Language in Israel was called upon to establish an official standard for the transliteration of Hebrew into Latin letters. It too had before it the biblical text as the source for the transliteration, and it approximately followed scientifically accepted transliteration. The Academy held that there was no reason to burden the user with theories raised in Semitic language research, and it did not decide, for example, that the qamatz marked in pointing would be written differently when it was an "original qamatz" and when it was an "intonation-driven qamatz." But in the general introduction to the rules of transliteration published by the Academy, it is indeed noted that also the precise transliteration standard decided upon in 1957 "is not intended to satisfy the requirements of pure science." The Academy determined symbols in Latin letters only for the literal visible marking in the pointed Hebrew text. The conversion that it fixed, therefore, is in essence pure "trans-literation" of pointed Hebrew words: every letter and every pointing symbol has its particular replacement by a Latin letter.
This approach of the Academy was based on the knowledge of linguistics that existed then, which was only the two classic approaches to conversion noted above: transliteration and transcription. When the need arises to put a certain Hebrew word into Latin letters, the Academy advised looking at the pointed Hebrew word, which is the source for the transliteration. So if it happens that you have to transliterate a non-pointed Hebrew word, first point it, for only then can you render the right transliteration for it, and that will be done symbol for symbol. The intended goal of the transliteration rules is therefore to transliterate a pointed Hebrew text as it stands. Accordingly, the Academy determined an individual substitute for every symbol existing in the pointed Hebrew text. For example, in the precise transliteration, the vowel patah. earned a different rendering from that of the vowel qamatz, and yet another different mark was given to hatap patah. Short qamatz was transliterated by o and long qamatz by a. (17) Likewise qubbutz was differentiated from suruq, the two being represented by two different points: one is a "small" (or "short") vowel, the other a "big" (or "long") vowel. Of course, all these distinctions are made by use of identifying marks in the transliteration, symbols that exist in the script of various languages.
But from the outset, the academicians were well aware that no one apart from those specifically concerned with pointing would use this somewhat pedantic pe·dan·tic
Characterized by a narrow, often ostentatious concern for book learning and formal rules: a pedantic attention to details. transliteration. They therefore decided at that time on a "simple transliteration" into Latin letters. The main difference here was that they abandoned the distinction between short and long vowels and also the special signs for hatap's. In the precise transliteration, every point enjoyed a specific transliteration (except for hatap segol and swa [na.sup.c], which had a common symbol: e), while by contrast, the simple transliteration gives a common symbol to patah, qamatz, and hatap patah, namely a, and similarly for the other points. Yet in the simple transliteration, a common symbol is also given to both [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] and [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.], and another to both [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] and [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] what is stated in the introductory passage to the transliteration rules published by the Academy: the more precise transliteration is "nothing but an expansion of the simple transliteration." (18) This is indeed true in terms of the manner of publication of these documents, where the simple transliteration is presented first, and only then are listed the fairly few differences required by the precise transliteration; one would think, however, that the precise would be the foundation on which the simple is built.
4.3.2 "Simple" Versus "Accurate" Conversion
How did this committee, which in 1957 devised the precise transliteration rules, also decide on a simple transliteration, several of whose symbols clash with those of the precise transliteration? My revered teacher Professor Z'ev Ben-Hayyim explained it at a meeting of the Grammar Committee of the Academy on 6 Tishrei 1999 (October 16, 1999):
The committee that was appointed proposed one transliteration. But in the discussion reservations arose as to several of the symbols, on the grounds that the typewriter did not possess the distinguishing signs, so certain simplifications were accepted ad hoc. The scientific secretariat at the time formulated the transliteration rules for two versions, simple and precise, and it should not have done so. It should have set out the simplifications in footnotes. (19)
Now since the simple transliteration was born out of technical limitations of the typewriter typewriter, instrument for producing by manual operation characters similar to those of printing. Corresponding to each key on the instrument's keyboard is a steel type. , Ben-Hayyim asked:
Can it be said, at the end of the century, that there are no symbols, when everyone has a computer? The simple transliteration should have been declared dead.
Later in the discussion, the non-distinction between [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] and [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] in the simple transliteration was mentioned. When Ben-Hayyim remarked, "Today we are ready to abandon the difference between [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] and [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]," Moshe Bar-Asher noted at the meeting, "The Academy resolved on this grave matter then--in the simple transliteration." Ben-Hayyim responded, "Only when it is impossible, that is, when the printing machine lacks two symbols." He concluded:
True enough, there are diverse pronunciations down the generations and across the communities, but no one ever conceived of "eliminating" consonants ... To this day maps are published in this precise writing, and so will they be published in the future. Then out of the blue along comes a committee working on grammar and wants to give up consonants, especially the Semitic consonants.
Removal of the "Semitic consonants" and "eliminating consonants" were issues that likewise arose because of the limitations of the typewriter. Had there been two kinds of inverted commas inverted commas
same as quotation marks
inverted commas npl (BRIT) → comillas fpl
inverted commas npl (Brit on the typewriter, and had the typing of a dot under the t been easily done, it is highly unlikely that a respected committee of linguists A linguist in the academic sense is a person who studies linguistics. Ambiguously, the word is sometimes also used to refer to a polyglot (one who knows more than 2 languages), or a grammarian, but these two uses of the word are distinct. would simply have given up the distinction between [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] and [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.], and between [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] and [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]. The difficulty before a unfamiliar with pointing lies only in writing precise equivalents for the vowels, for the points, and not in writing letters corresponding to the Hebrew letters denoting the consonants, for he or she knows them, and does not err in their writing.
5. TRANSLITERATION OR TRANSCRIPTION?
5.1 Details of Decisions of 1957
The precise transliteration set by the Academy in 1957 is therefore essentially transliteration of letters--it transliterates the Hebrew word written with pointing down to the finest detail. Every Hebrew consonant enjoys its own symbol, and if no simple letter is available in the list of Latin letters, the precise transliteration adds an accepted identifying mark, as is practiced in most European languages. The letter [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] is transliterated [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] (or ') and is different from the letter [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] which is [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.](or '). The letter [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] is transliterated k and the letter [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] is [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] is transliterated t and [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] is transliterated t. We recall that in Romanian t with a "tail" beneath it (as if with a cedilla--t) serves, and no one complains.
Because this is pure transliteration, [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] (aspirate) is signified sig·ni·fied
The concept that a signifier denotes.
[Translation of French signifié, past participle of signifier, to signify.]
Noun 1. with a different letter from that for [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] (hard=k): k. The letter [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] also acquires here transliteration as a single letter, s, above which is a hacek, s, as is common in certain East European languages. The precise transliteration does not denote any Hebrew letter through the combination of two letters. Its inventors were undoubtedly aware of the lack of clarity that would arise should one Hebrew letter be transliterated by such a combination, as most Hebrew words are constructed as a combination of root and pattern: inserting another letter into the transliteration would be liable to endanger en·dan·ger
tr.v. en·dan·gered, en·dan·ger·ing, en·dan·gers
1. To expose to harm or danger; imperil.
2. To threaten with extinction. the perception of the root also, not only the word's structure. (20) But in the simple transliteration, this principle of only one letter for any transliterated Hebrew letter was not applied. It has kh (and not k) for aspirate [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] and sh for [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.].
5.2 Remnants of Transcription?
Yet the transliteration underlying the Academy's 1957 decision was not blindly composed letter for letter. We have mentioned the two renderings of qamatz. Likewise [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.], and [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] functioning as matres lectionis are not transliterated. Indeed, in this transliteration, an additional note is heard. In the introduction, it is stated that the transliteration is intended "to convey the sound closest to the Hebrew word in the present day." We may recall that shortly before the decision of the committee was taken, Hayim Rosen's book appeared, entitled ha-ibrit sellanu, (21) and it is replete re·plete
1. Abundantly supplied; abounding: a stream replete with trout; an apartment replete with Empire furniture.
2. Filled to satiation; gorged.
3. with Hebrew words written in Latin script in transcription, according to the author's method. From the Latin rendering, it appears as if it was not required to accomplish letter-for-letter transliteration alone, but to also take the pronunciation into account. It is expected of the transcription that the reader might distinguish through it the sounds of the Hebrew word today.
5.3 ANSI (American National Standards Institute, New York, www.ansi.org) A membership organization founded in 1918 that coordinates the development of U.S. voluntary national standards in both the private and public sectors. It is the U.S. member body to ISO and IEC. Conversion
Consideration of the Hebrew pronunciation, not just the letters, is given in other conversion methods too. The respected American National Standards Institute (ANSI) published a document in 1975 entitled "American National Standard Romanization of Hebrew Hebrew uses the Hebrew alphabet with optional vowel points. The romanization of Hebrew is the use of the Latin alphabet to transliterate Hebrew words.
For example, the Hebrew name spelled ישראל ." (22) I have not been able to ascertain how long it took to prepare this document, but clearly, such a study must have lasted several years. Its authors determined that it was impossible to provide Hebrew with a single conversion method that would satisfy all the requirements, so they proposed four kinds of conversion of Hebrew letters into Latin letters. The first was called "All-Purpose Romanization Style," and it was offered for use not only for someone whose knowledge of Hebrew was minimal, and therefore could not use the more advanced transliterations contained in the document, but also for scholars, whose chief concern was to convey the Hebrew text without entering into all its details. Precision is steadily enhanced in the other three tables in the document. The principal transliteration, the first (and also the one following it), reflects, in the editors' words, the "Israeli pronunciation," that is, the quasi-Ashkenazi pronunciation of the consonants, and this pronunciation is sounded in Latin letters according to the usage of the English language English language, member of the West Germanic group of the Germanic subfamily of the Indo-European family of languages (see Germanic languages). Spoken by about 470 million people throughout the world, English is the official language of about 45 nations. . They suggest, therefore, a conversion of letters that in certain cases involves transcription.
For example, the "Israeli accent," as they hear it, makes no distinction between [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] and [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]. The letters [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] and aspirate [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] are b same letter pair ch (and two more Hebrew letters are transliterated by letter pairs: [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]--ts; [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]--sh). The letters [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] and [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] are both k, [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] and [TEXT are both t, and all the vowels are marked as in the Italian way, without distinction of short and long vowels, or hatap's.
5.4 British Royal Navy Conversion
The transliteration that was usual in the study of Hebrew, and which served as the basis for the Academy's 1957 transliteration, caused certain circles, even before the publication of the ANSI transliterations, to want to introduce into it certain elements of transcription. At issue were cases where different consonants are pronounced alike, and more especially sound alike to people who do not know Hebrew, and it is convenient for them to apply the writing usages of their own language to express a similar pronunciation. As early as 1943, the book Palestine & Transjordan was published by the Intelligence Division of the Royal Navy. (23) The following appears on p. 7:
All diacritical signs have been omitted ... the letter k, except in 'Iraq', has been preferred to q; the terminal h has been appended after e (e.g. Huleh, not Hule or Hula).
This book too, which was published in an impressive series of geography and history books, was an official British publication (see the foregoing section on the British committee); still, this series was intended for British Naval Intelligence Naval intelligence refers to the gathering and distribution of information relevant to a nation's navy. It is used to predict an enemy fleet's movements and intentions, and how to counter their plans. officers in their surveillance across the British empire British Empire, overseas territories linked to Great Britain in a variety of constitutional relationships, established over a period of three centuries. The establishment of the empire resulted primarily from commercial and political motives and emigration movements , and at first the book's distribution was restricted to them only. Naturally, this community owed nothing to the Hebrew language Hebrew language, member of the Canaanite group of the West Semitic subdivision of the Semitic subfamily of the Afroasiatic family of languages (see Afroasiatic languages). . It made no difference to them if their transliteration could be reconstructed into Hebrew script or not, if the Hebrew phonemes were not differentiated, or if they were jumbled. They were not bothered if the Hebrew letter was rendered by an "English" letter cluster or not.
5.5 What is a Proper Conversion for Us
In considering the proper conversion standard to serve us today, we must take into account our needs in view of the different properties of the two conversion methods. On the one hand, it is important that we preserve the Hebrew source of the converted word, and that the transliteration guarantees it since this permits full and complete reconstruction to the Hebrew source and does not entail any change in the language. Incidentally, we may note that the condition for acceptance of any conversion system by the ISO is that it always be reconstructable in the source script. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that the very creation of a conversion into Latin letters involves the expectation of its aiding the pronunciation of the Hebrew word, and this requirement may well lead us to choose transcription.
However, transcription raises difficulties in essence and in practice alike. First, it necessitates choosing one particular accent in the language and giving up any possibility of recognizing another accent. The "quasi-Ashkenazi" transcription, for example, blocks and excludes the Sephardi or Yemeni accent. This transcription creates practical problems for us: should we distinguish [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] from [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] in the transcription, or should we bypass the difference between them (even though in writing no one mixes them up)? Should we distinguish [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] from aspirate [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] or not? Any choice of pronunciation aggrandizes the chosen one and belittles all the others.
The next difficulty is that such a transcription in fact creates a different language, devoid of difference between "consonants similarly pronounced" like those listed above, and other consonants. Some do in fact argue the existence of a separate "Israeli language," which actually evolved from an ancient language known as "Hebrew" but is not identical with it. Such a claim was implied, it is recalled, by Hayim Rosen, and there are others who still hold this view today. But the Academy of the Hebrew Language, including all its members, as well as the great majority of the Hebrew-speaking public and students of Hebrew worldwide, treat the Hebrew language as one, extant ex·tant
1. Still in existence; not destroyed, lost, or extinct: extant manuscripts.
2. Archaic Standing out; projecting. since the first Hebrew inscriptions were written at the beginning of the first millennium B.C.E. or earlier. We also think of the Hebrew we speak as an innate and essential part of the Hebrew language. The Academy itself does not agree with those who see our Hebrew as some new language called "Israelese," nor does the intelligentsia in·tel·li·gent·si·a
The intellectual elite of a society.
[Russian intelligentsiya, from Latin intelligentia, intelligence, from intellig regard "Israelese" as anything but one of the expressions of Hebrew.
As is clear from this discussion, taking transcription into account will always be at the expense of transliteration. Can we keep hold of the one yet grasp the other too? Can we compromise between the need to preserve one Hebrew, received, through the generations as "transliteration" permits us, and the wish to move toward easing pronunciation according to "transcription"? Such a compromise is offered by conversion of the word's structure.
6. PRINCIPLES OF CONVERSION OF WORD STRUCTURE
6.1 One Phoneme--Several Performances
For over a century now, the discipline of linguistics has developed the concept of the phoneme. This concept is part of the general perception in science that holds that theoretical concepts are to be distinguished from observational concepts. The observational concept is based on what our eyes see or what our ears hear, or what our instruments sense. Every observational concept is the performance of the theoretical concept to which it belongs. Or rather, it is one of the performances of this theoretical concept. The theoretical concept does not exist except in theory. Any attempt to realize it turns it into an observational concept. The notion of the phoneme explains how speakers of a certain language who hear a word spoken by another understand it even if the other's accent is different from that of the listener. Each sound of the word is performance of one of its phonemes, and when we know the language, we are alert to the possibility that the pronunciations of the same phoneme, the sounds, will not always be identical. A person understands what is said to him or her in his or her language even when it is spoken by someone with a "foreign accent," by people who perform this phoneme considerably differently from the accepted performance by native speakers.
6.2 Two Layers of Knowledge
Two layers of knowledge, then, join in the communication process of speech: the layer of observational concepts, which the hearer receives (these are called "phones" or sounds) and the layer of theoretical concepts, which the hearer understands: he or she relates every sound that he or she has received to the theoretical phoneme that the sound belongs to. This layer in the language is principally the phoneme layer. On the basis of this picture the rules of structure conversion are divided into two:
a. Writing the conversion is accomplished based on writing rules. Through the writing rules we determine the list of letters of the conversion and the match of every letter to the source letter of the language. The writing rules are needed by one using the conversion to convey the source word to the recipient.
b. Reading the conversion is done by the recipient, who receives a converted word that he or she has to read. The reader of the conversion must know the reading rules. An explanation of the nature of the reading rules is given in the following section. (24)
6.3 The Nature of the Reading Rules
In every street in Oslo, the street name is written, followed by the word gate. I visited this city, and I was curious to know if gate in Norwegian indeed means "street." I asked a passerby in English, and he confirmed it: "Yes, in Norwegian it's 'street.' But," he added with a smile, "we don't pronounce the word as in English, but ga-teh." Exactly the same written word, but it is pronounced differently in Norwegian and English. A look at the Latin letters raised a general question: hundreds of languages with a wide range of different pronunciations are written with the same letters. How is it possible to pronounce, with the same thirty or forty letters, many hundreds, or thousands, of different sounds?
The secret is that, apart from the writing rules, every language has "reading rules" too: even if the words are spelled similarly or identically, their reading is different. For example, in two similar languages such as Italian and Spanish, a written word such as chi is read like the English chee in Spanish and like kee in Italian. Likewise a Hebrew text may be read aloud in several pronunciations. For example, the word [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] (kanita) is koniso in Ashkenazi pronunciation. The written language is not a "simple" rendering of the sounds of the language. To pronounce a language properly, all its reading rules have to be learned. In Hebrew too, if we want to imitate im·i·tate
tr.v. im·i·tat·ed, im·i·tat·ing, im·i·tates
1. To use or follow as a model.
a. an Ashkenazi accent, we shall have to devise reading rules of Ashkenazi Hebrew Ashkenazi Hebrew is the pronunciation system for Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew favored for liturgical use by Ashkenazi Jewish practice. Its phonology was influenced by languages with which it came into contact, such as Yiddish and various Slavic languages. , which are different from our usual Israeli reading rules. Anyone used to the English language who tries to read a Norwegian text aloud without knowing the rules of reading Norwegian will emit TO EMIT. To put out; to send forth,
2. The tenth section of the first article of the constitution, contains various prohibitions, among which is the following: No state shall emit bills of credit. something that is not Norwegian.
The reading rules of some languages are brief and clear, and this allows foreigners to pronounce the words reasonably well. Italian and Spanish are examples. German too has clear reading rules, and even French, although they are longer. By contrast, the reading rules in English apply only to groups of words, and in fact every word has its own "rule." The vowel sound Noun 1. vowel sound - a speech sound made with the vocal tract open
speech sound, phone, sound - (phonetics) an individual sound unit of speech without concern as to whether or not it is a phoneme of some language of but is dissimilar from that of put, that of root from that of door. Or let us look at the sounds of ou: country--journal--journey. A popular English-Hebrew dictionary (25) warns:
Not every consonant always represents a fixed consonantal sound; and not every vowel always represents a fixed vowel sound ... Hence, we cannot always know a word's pronunciation from its spelling ... Therefore [in this dictionary] we rewrite the word in symbols.
No special rewriting is necessary in Italian, Spanish, French, or German dictionaries, because in a language that has reading rules that apply to all the words, the word's spelling is also the guide to correct pronunciation. The preface to every dictionary gives the reading rules of the language, so any foreigner too can say each word properly.
6.4 Non-Latin Scripts
Nevertheless, dozens of languages exist in the world whose national script is not Latin. Greek is an example. I heard a story of a Greek who had lived in France for many years and had official papers from France. One day he received news that he had inherited a fortune from a distant relative in Greece, but his name on the Greek documents (which had been officially transliterated in Greece into Latin letters) was not spelt spelt
Subspecies (Triticum aestivum spelta) of wheat that has lax spikes and spikelets containing two light-red kernels. Triticum dicoccon was cultivated by the ancient Babylonians and the ancient Swiss lake dwellers; it is now grown for livestock forage and used in baked the same as his name was written in France; for many years at least he was unable to obtain the bequest bequest: see legacy. (the delegate from the Greek Standards Institution, who told the tale, to drive home the need for an official conversion system, did not know what happened in the end). This all occurred because there was no official conversion system from Greek that was binding on all concerned. The ISO has undertaken to adapt a recommended conversion system into Latin letters for all languages whose national script is not Latin. The point of this under-taking was to foster greater communication among the various nations. This applies especially to recording of library catalogues worldwide, official documents, geographic maps, and the like.
6.5 Neither Methods Fit for Hebrew
The problem of ISO is how to convert. The simple way, at a glance, would be to convert "by the sound," that is, transcription. But if two different letters pronounced the same way were conversed by the same Latin letter, it would be impossible to know by the conversion what the source word was (this is what happened to the Greek, whose name the French clerk registered in Latin letters according to what he heard!). For example, if the two letters [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] and [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] were rendered by the same letter k, how would we distinguish between two words such as [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] and [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]; or [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] (the village)--[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]? Another way is to convert "by the writing"--transliteration. Had the French clerk known Greek, and rendered a separate Latin letter for every Greek letter, the foul-up with the bequest would never have occurred. From Russian script too it is possible to transliterate letter for letter. But the "letter-for-letter" method is not suitable for transliteration from Hebrew or Arabic or other languages written in Arabic script (e.g., Persian) because in these scripts not all the elements of the word are written; in particular, a large portion of the vowels are not written. For example, if we transliterate the name [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] letter for letter--mlkh--we will not know if this is malka ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]) or milka ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]); likewise [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]--sinay or sini.
6.6 A New Method for the Conversion of Hebrew Script
The Standards Institute of Israel (SII SII Servicio de Impuestos Internos (Chile)
SII Seiko Instruments, Inc.
SII Strong Interest Inventory
SII Standards Institution of Israel
SII Securities and Investment Institute (UK) ), which is also a member of the ISO, was asked to submit a proposal for a conversion system. The institute came up with a system suitable for Hebrew: not "by hearing," nor "by writing." The SII system is conversion of the word's structure. (26) This proposal solves the problem of conversion from the Hebrew script without the drawbacks of the two methods: first, the conversion is not meant for a specific form of sound accepted nowadays ("Eastern"? "Israeli"?). So no controversy arises; as in any case, reading rules have to be formulated for every language and every accent. Second, this conversion does not follow the Hebrew spelling, as many elements present in the Hebrew word are not found in Hebrew script. Moreover, the Hebrew word's structure has remained uniform through the years, so conversion according to the structure suits all the periods of Hebrew. That way, the conversion preserves our important statement: Hebrew has been the same language in all its years, and only its "reading rules" have changed from period to period and from community to community. Accordingly, biblical names : A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
This is a list of names from the Bible, mainly taken from the 19th century public domain resource:
6.7 Structural Conversion Fits Everyone
You can read the SII structural conversion in your own way. If you distinguish [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] from aspirate [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.], you will of course maintain the distinction when reading the converted text. But even if you do not distinguish them in speech, you will do so in writing, and thus will not be hard pressed to understand their differentiation in the conversion. The same applies to the pair [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]. The letter [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] is rendered k and [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] appears as q. Such a conversion, if it is accepted and if everyone who needs conversion--the librarian in the library, the road sign maker, or the clerk in the interior ministry--follows it, will not cause confusion or dismay, because it will always be possible to reconstruct the Hebrew source word according to the converted formulation. (27)
Obviously, the reading rules can be composed only after the writing rules are set. Obviously too, these writing rules can have diverse reading rules devised for them. By formulating several reading rules for the same conversion, we can offer with one system a precise description of the different pronunciations current or known in our language society.
Structural conversion, thanks to the distinction it makes between writing rules and reading rules, therefore makes accord possible between the need to preserve our one Hebrew by means of conversion faithful to the source and the desire to permit expression in different accents, expression right for every speaker, whether in ancient times or in the present day. Structural conversion thus has both transliteration and transcription, and you have no better compromise than this for giving everyone everything he or she desires.
8. APPENDIX: WRITING RULES OF STRUCTURAL CONVERSION (28)
8.1 Conversions of Consonants
The suggestion of c for the conversion of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] was raised frequently at meetings of the Academy and in other circles. It has an advantage in that this letter is not taken for any other purpose, and in that the connection between the Hebrew letters [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] is maintained in the conversion also. To facilitate the grasp of this sound we prefer c to c.
8.2 Conversion of Vowels
The five Latin vowels are a, e, i, o, u. However, to allow automatic reconstruction of the Hebrew source word, we use the combination ei to convert long tzere (in the reading rules we comment on the pronunciation of long tzere).
Apart from this instance, the letters [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] when they do not denote a consonant are not converted at all. [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] is always converted, but it can be dropped when it is at the beginning of the word.
8.3 Additional Notes on the Writing Rules
Function particles--[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]--are written with a short dash to separate them from the following word: ha-, mi-, se-. Their vowels are not changed and the geminate consonant at the beginning of the word is not written double. The function particles that are not followed by a geminate letter--[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]--are written without any vowel after them, as the vowel is produced from the performance of l-, k-, b-, v- according to well known reading rules.
Conversion of the vowels is fairly free. The converter who wishes to adhere to adhere to
verb 1. follow, keep, maintain, respect, observe, be true, fulfil, obey, heed, keep to, abide by, be loyal, mind, be constant, be faithful
2. phonemic principles will not convert non-phonemic vowels such as swa, furtive fur·tive
1. Characterized by stealth; surreptitious.
2. Expressive of hidden motives or purposes; shifty. See Synonyms at secret. patah, an auxiliary vowel in segolate words, and the like. But if he or she cannot distinguish these, or wishes to make things easier for the reader, he or she is permitted to convert non-phonemic vowels also. It is desirable to convert the hatap's, unless the conversion is needed for processing a text in complex computer programs.
Gemination of consonants is to be converted by two identical letters of the consonant, including theoretical gemination of the consonants that are not doubled in pointed text [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]. By marking their germination, we retain the word's structure, including its pattern. It is especially worthwhile properly converting gemination at the end of the word. But for ad hoc For this purpose. Meaning "to this" in Latin, it refers to dealing with special situations as they occur rather than functions that are repeated on a regular basis. See ad hoc query and ad hoc mode. conversion, without any intention of saving it (such as in an email message abroad), conversion of gemination can be skipped, and writing the letter once is enough; the exception is gemination of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] which must be rendered and not one letter alone may be written. Otherwise only their aspirate pronunciation will be obtained!
(1) U. Ornan, "Latin Conversion of Hebrew: Grammatical, Full and Deficient," HS 44 (2003), pp 185-202.
(2) Thanks to my friends Rachel and Prof Shmuel Katz Shmuel "Mooki" Katz (Hebrew: שמואל "מוקי" כץ, born Samuel Katz on 9 December, 1914) is an Israeli writer, historian and journalist. who reviewed my English.
(3) In view of the millions of new converts to Islam, points were added at that time to the Quran also.
(4) U. Ornan, "Representation of Word Structure in Latin Conversion Versus Traditional Vocalization," (in Hebrew) Lesonenu 69 (2007): 139-160.
(5) U. Ornan, [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] (The final word; Haifa: University of Haifa About 16,500 undergraduate and graduate students study in the university a wide variety of topics, specializing in social sciences, humanities, law and education. The University is broadly divided into six Faculties: Humanities, Social Sciences, Law, Science and Science Education, Social , 2003), pp. 142-143. See Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar This article or section needs copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone and/or spelling.
You can assist by [ editing it] now. (ed. E. Kautzsch; trans. A. E. Cowley; second ed.; Oxford, 1910), [section] 10d for a similar explanation.
(6) U. Ornan, "The Mysteries of Waw Connective," ZAW (Zero Administration for Windows) An umbrella term from Microsoft for enhanced network administration features such as automatic distribution of new software and upgrades. First implemented in Windows NT, such features have migrated to other versions of Windows. See ZAK. 115 (2003): 241-255.
(7) See also U. Ornan, [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] (Grammar of mouth and ear; published in Detention Camp, Gilgil, Kenya Gilgil, Kenya is a town in the Rift Valley Province of Kenya. The town is located between Naivasha and Nakuru and along the Nairobi - Nakuru highway. Gilgil has a population of 18.805 (according to the 1999 census) . , 1947) pp. 20, 58.
(8) See U. Ornan, [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.], p. 17. "[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] that closes a final syllable whose vowel is hiriq is silent in speech, and is not heard. The letter [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] is not written in this case either. The noun [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] is of the pattern [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.], and originally it was [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]. This is attested to by the fact that when we add a syllable to the noun [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] that does not have to be uttered [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] (i.e., consonant) at its end, voiced [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] appears after the vowel hiriq: [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] (parallel to [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.])." For a similar formulation see U. Ornan, [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.], (Grammar of mouth and ear for students; Tel Aviv Tel Aviv (tĕl əvēv`), city (1994 pop. 355,200), W central Israel, on the Mediterranean Sea. Oficially named Tel Aviv–Jaffa, it is Israel's commercial, financial, communications, and cultural center and the core of its largest : Bronfman Publisher, 1951-1979).
(9) This is evident from the poem's meter. See J. Schirmann, [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] (Hebrew poetry in Spain and Provance; Jerusalem and Tel Aviv: Bialik Institute and Dvir, 1961), pp. 79, 210. (a) [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] (p. 79: Schirmann assumed a meteg under the [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]). (b) [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]/ [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] (p. 210; I have deleted the dagesh in the [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] in [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]).
(10) On "floating shwa" see section 184.108.40.206 above, on dagesh lene.
(11) On this see U. Ornan, [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] (New approach to describe the verb) in Kamrat Volume (ed. Sh. Qodesh; Jerusalem: Council on the Teaching of Hebrew, 1971), pp. 32-44.
(12) U. Ornan, "Theoretical Gemination in Israeli Hebrew," in Semitic Studies in Honour of Wolf Leslau Wolf Leslau (November 14, 1906 - November 18, 2006) was a scholar of Semitic languages and one of the foremost authorities on Semitic languages of Ethiopia.
Photo from 2004 Life
Born in Poland, he studied Semitology at the University of Vienna and Sorbonne. on the Occasion of His Eighty-Fifth Birthday (ed. A. S. Kaye, II; Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1991), pp. 1158-1168.
(13) It is of interest to note that in the PCGN PCGN Permanent Committee on Geographical Names transliteration (Permanent Committee on Geographical Names Permanent Committee on Geographical Names may stand for one of the following:
(14) See U. Ornan, "The Mysteries of Waw Connective," ZAW 115 (2003): 241-255.
(15) See ISO 259-1984(E), published by ISO/46 (Conversion of Scripts).
(16) And see Example 2 in section 3.2.2 above.
(17) This distinction between the different sounds for the same pointing symbol also contains an element of the transcription approach. See below.
(18) See transliteration rules. I draw the reader's attention to the strange rendering of the Hebrew words in the address of the Academy's site and to the presence of English words in it, as if the use of Latin letters necessitates writing in the English language.
(19) From the report of the committee meeting; transcribed [from a tape recording] by Ronit Gadish. Emphasis added.
(20) See U. Ornan, "Latin Conversion of Hebrew," p. 187.
(21) H. Rozen, [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] (Our Hebrew; Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1956).
(22) ANSI = American National Standard Romanization of Hebrew, ANSI Z39.25-1975, Secretariat: Council of National Library Associations International
(23) Palestine & Transjordan = Palestine & Transjordan, B.R. 514, Naval Intelligence Division The Naval Intelligence Division (NID) was the intelligence arm of the British Admiralty before the establishment of a unified Defence Staff in 1965. It dealt with matters concerning British naval plans, with the collection of naval intelligence. , Geographical Handbook Series, December 1943.
(24) According to an essay published on a private site http://sites.2all.co.il/ornan and in the literature section of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]. See U. Ornan, "[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]" (Reading rules) [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] (Sept. 20, 2006).
(25) Sh. Zilberman, English-Hebrew Hebrew-English Dictionary (Jerusalem: Loni Cohen cohen
(Hebrew: “priest”) Jewish priest descended from Zadok (a descendant of Aaron), priest at the First Temple of Jerusalem. The biblical priesthood was hereditary and male. , 1990).
(26) ISO 259-3 = Conversion of Hebrew Characters into Latin Characters, Part 3: Phonemic Conversion, 1999. It can be seen at www.cs.technion.ac.il/~ornan/maamarim/taatiq-latini/ISO.doc.
(27) Up to here, this is a translation of the essay in [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.].
(28) Reading rules and reconstruction rules are published in my earlier paper. See note 1.
Uzzi Ornan Uzzi Ornan (עוזי אורנן; frequently spelled as Uzi Ornan; b. June 7, 1923 in Jerusalem) is an Israeli linguist and activist.
The Technion, Haifa