Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT ozemail.com.au>]

Trevor, your long contribution should be helpful in general, but it
seems to miss out one important category which is the one Al puts
himself in: those learning Hebrew. I am thinking mostly of those
learning biblical Hebrew. I would also put myself in this category,
though perhaps more advanced than Al. But I still find that the major
difficulty which I have with Hebrew is the script, more so than the
grammar or the vocabulary. Indeed for some time I was regularly using a
transliterated Hebrew Bible text (in my computer) for my studies and
translation work. To put it simply, it is much easier (for English
speakers) to learn Hebrew using transliteration than using Hebrew
(rather, Aramaic square) script. And for many purposes this is adequate;
also if one has mastered the basics of grammar etc in transliteration it
may then be easier to transfer to Hebrew script.

So the question is, what kind of transliteration scheme is suitable for
such cases? It probably needs to make all the main distinctions of the
actual script so that there is more or less a one to one mapping in both
directions, so the SBL standard transciption is probably good though it
does need some improvements including the ones you allude to. I did work
for a time on a simplified scheme which was reversible in context, and
produced a corresponding transliterated Bible text, but there were some
problems with it.

The SIL Hebrew font system (available from www.sil.org) includes a
transliteration scheme, similar to the SBL one, and software and fonts
to support it. This may be of interest.

Peter Kirk
peter.r.kirk AT ntlworld.com
http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Trevor Peterson [mailto:06PETERSON AT cua.edu]
> Sent: 19 January 2003 10:25
> To: Biblical Hebrew
> Subject: [b-hebrew] RE: Transliteration Schemes
> 
> >===== Original Message From AL Cantley <acantley AT meer.net> =====
> >Ken (or others),
> >
> >I am just learning Hebrew and need some help; regarding
transliteration
> >schemes:
> >
> >1) Where can I find the b-Hebrew scheme referred to below;
> 
> at the bottom of http://www.ibiblio.org/bhebrew/
> >
> >2) What are the most popular schemes;
> 
> Think of two possible objectives in transliterating Hebrew--one is so
that
> a
> person can read with minimal effort and pronounce the words easily;
the
> other
> is so that a person can derive from the transliteration as precisely
as
> possible how the text would read in Hebrew script. (This whole thing
is a
> pet
> issue of mine, so please bear with me, as I provide more answer than
you
> probably wanted.) Think also of the reasons a person might want to
> transliterate:
> 
> 1) for the benefit of readers who do not know Hebrew at all.
> 2) for the benefit of readers who speak but do not read Hebrew.
> 3) for the benefit of readers who read Hebrew but do not know the
script.
> 4) because of technical restrictions that prevent the use of the
script.
> 
> There might be more possible scenarios, but these are probably enough
to
> get
> us started. The first category might apply to novelty use. Some people
> like to
> be able to throw around a word or phrase in a foreign language for
> whatever
> reason. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. It might be that a
technical
> term
> in Hebrew is best discussed without trying to provide a conclusive
> translation. But it's a motive with fairly limited applicability.
Since
> this
> sort of reader can't work directly with the Hebrew text, the
> pronunciation-focused objective probably applies best.
> 
> The second category is probably not terribly large, since I suspect
just
> about
> anyone who's a fluent speaker of any Hebrew dialect can probably read
it
> (and
> if we're talking about illiterates, there's no point providing them
with a
> transcription). This might apply in a limited sense to those who have
> picked
> up some Hebrew by casual contact or by following along in a synagogue
> service.
> For this group as well, I would think that a pronunciation-focused
> objective
> makes the most sense.
> 
> The third category also seems rather restricted, since we would have
to be
> talking about someone who has learned to read Hebrew from
transliteration
> only. One scenario I can think of that approximates this category is a
> trained
> linguist who sits down and studies the language but never bothers to
learn
> the
> script. For this sort of person, the IPA transcription system should
be
> the
> standard, and there's no reason to go inventing a new system. Another
> scenario
> is a Semitist trained in other languages with other scripts, who
dabbles
> in
> Hebrew without learning Aramaic square script. For this person, a
system
> that
> identifies clearly the consonants, and to a lesser extent the vowels,
is
> probably more helpful than one that provides quick and easy
pronunciation.
> Arguably, we could write this person off as too lazy to trouble with,
but
> that
> doesn't seem to be the usual response of publishers.
> 
> The fourth category used to be an issue in publishing, but now that
> publication works from digital files, the cost that used to be
involved
> with
> printing non-Latin fonts has been significantly reduced. It should no
> longer
> be an excuse. Where it remains an issue is in e-mail, since there is
not
> yet a
> universal convention for producing non-Latin fonts. It is hoped that
> Unicode
> will remedy this situation, but we still have some time to wait before
> everyone is on a system that fully supports Unicode and all the fonts
we
> need
> are freely available. In the meantime, the need is still present to
come
> up
> with some sort of transliteration system that can replace as precisely
as
> possible an actual Hebrew text. Well, maybe. Consider the similar
issue of
> pronunciation systems. Because there are multiple pronunciation
systems
> (chiefly the somewhat flattened system popular among Western scholars
and
> the
> pronunciation used for Israeli Hebrew, but also reconstructed
Masoretic),
> and
> because some people who work in the field are never taught to become
all
> that
> proficient at using any of them, it is necessary to assume that
listeners
> will
> have access to a printed text from which they can read. On e-forums we
> tend to
> make the same assumptions when we transliterate. Yes, there are
> recommended
> standards, but generally the easiest option is that the reader open up
a
> Hebrew text and read it in the appropriate script.
> 
> OK, having said all that, here's my take on the issue. There is a
rather
> widely accepted standard of transcription that you can find published
in
> the
> SBL Handbook of Style or by the CBA at
> 
> http://cba.cua.edu/cbq07.htm and
> http://cba.cua.edu/cbq08.htm
> 
> The objective here is to provide as accurate and reversible record as
> possible
> of the actual consonants and vowels in the Hebrew text, while also
being
> moderately readable. In this respect, it is somewhat less mechanical
(and
> a
> good deal more aesthetically pleasing, I think) than the system
> recommended
> here on the list, but it is not available for our use because of the
> special
> diacritics required. On the other hand, it is more precise than what
the
> SBL
> Handbook calls the general-purpose system, which basically just tries
to
> give
> each sound as pronounced in Hebrew its best Latin equivalent. The
standard
> system does have its drawbacks, however. It is not completely
reversible,
> since it occasionally uses the same sign to represent more than one
> possible
> combination in the Hebrew script (e-circumflex, for instance, at the
end
> of a
> word, can represent tsere-yod, tsere-he, or segol-he). It is also not
as
> readable as it could be, since it represents the so-called shva mobile
but
> doesn't normally represent fricative begadkefat consonants. Basically,
any
> transcription system that strives for precision is in some sense
doomed
> from
> the start because of the way the biblical text formed. Because the
> consonants
> and the vowels are not a perfect fit with each other, it is difficult
to
> produce a system that can account for everything in the text.
> 
> Still, the standard system is a standard, and you should at least know
it.
> You
> will still find it used in scholarly articles and books, and if you
ever
> try
> to get published yourself, you may very well find that you have to use
it.
> Personally, I prefer to use the general-purpose system for most
functions.
> (Comparative situations, where I'm dealing with more than one Semitic
> language, would be one exception.) For anyone who uses Israeli
> pronunciation,
> it's very easy to read and rather intuitive to produce; and if anyone
uses
> a
> different pronunciation and finds the convention to be a struggle,
they
> can
> always turn to the passage in a printed text, which is what they would
> probably do in most cases, even if I did use the more precise system
on
> this
> list.
> 
> Of course, the best answer, whenever it is available, is that people
learn
> the
> scripts necessary for the work they want to do. But it does seem like
> we're
> still stuck with transliteration, at least for a while.
> 
> Trevor Peterson
> CUA/Semitics
> 
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as:
[peterkirk AT ozemail.com.au]
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-hebrew-
> 149219L AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.