Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Ken Penner" <pennerkm AT mcmaster.ca>]

Hi Trevor,

I am interested in your proposed transliteration scheme, particularly
because I just produced a Hebrew Transliteration font (downloadable from my
website - see signature below).

Why transliterate rather than use the Tiberian script? I can think of two
reasons:
(1) Technological limitations: problems with rendering Hebrew script using
legacy (and some current) software.
(2) Reader unfamiliarity with Hebrew script.

For (1), technology, there are two levels of compatibility to be sought. 
(a) Must the transliteration survive text processing that assumes 7 bits
(ASCII) or 8-bits?
(b) Or is the limitation simply one of rendering Right-to-Left scripts?

For (2), unfamiliarity, what can the reader be expected to be familiar with
instead?
(a) English letters and their "normal" English pronunciation?
(b) IPA?

My Hebrew Translit font is intended to address the technological limitation,
so that my dissertation database may be manipulated on systems running
Windows 98.

I guess I don't understand why someone who (1) has the technology to use the
Unicode characters Peter suggested, and (2) is familiar enough with Tiberian
phonology and orthography to appreciate your system would use
transliteration rather than Hebrew script. 

Is your transliteration intended to bring out distinctions that are not
apparent in Hebrew script, for example, the difference between XfK:MfH as
"wisdom" and "she is wise" or the difference between waw as shureq and waw
with dagesh? But I gather from your proposal to use one symbol for both
classes of qametz that this is not your intention; you would rather have
one-to-one correspondence with the Tiberian symbols.

Is your transliteration intended for people who don't read Hebrew? I know
some dissertations about Hebrew written for linguists do not assume their
readers know Hebrew. The same goes for publications for a less specialized
audience (e.g., commentaries or articles in NT journals). But I gather from
comments about "Anyone who knows Hebrew should be able to recognize..." that
your readership does know Hebrew.

So, what's driving this proposal? As an analogy, the only accurate map is a
globe; any 2-D representation of the earth's surface will introduce
distortion of some kind, so different projections are needed for different
purposes. Similarly, the only accurate representation of the Masoretic text
is the Tiberian. Any transliteration introduces distortion, so different
schemes (be they MCW, IPA, one of the two SBL styles) are needed for
different purposes. What are the advantages of your proposed "projection"
that a "globe" doesn't do better?

Ken Penner, McMaster/DSS
http://s91279732.onlinehome.us

> I keep coming back to the issue of transliteration, mostly 
> because I'm not happy with any system I've come across so 
> far. Some of the things that bother me are
> 
> 1) the problem of representing matres lectionis in a 
> responsible manner
> 2) how to represent the vowels (according to a seven-vowel system)
> 3) balancing representation of the written signs with readability
...

> I think that's the gist of the system. Obviously, it doesn't 
> work very well in a plain-text environment, although it can 
> all be represented in a plain-text source file for LaTeX. And 
> that's fine for now. I've just about given up on finding a 
> system that I like for both plain-text e-mail and typeset media.