The statement in HCM (p. 23) that "a distinctively
Yiddish name in a Hebrew context may be romanized as Yiddish"
occurs in a section headed "Hebrew personal names in
Yiddish," and is intended to refer only to forenames, as the example shows.
LC does not romanize *surnames* a la Yiddish unless they occur in
Yiddish contexts, as the next example on p.
23 (Rozenshteyn vs. Rozenshtain) shows. The next edition
of HCM will probably use the terms "forename" (not "personal name") and
"surname" (not "name") to make this clearer.
-------------------------------------------
LC practice for romanizing Yiddish personal names is given on
p. 23-24 of *Hebraica Cataloging." The section begins, "If a Hebrew
personal name appears in a Yiddish source, it
is romanized according to its Hebrew form ..."
As when dealing with such names in Hebrew contexts, we romanize
in accordance with the list of vocalized forenames in the fourth
volume of Even Shoshan's *Milon he-hadash*. So
the forename sin-mem-het-heh is romanized as Simhah (acute accent on the
s, subscript dot under the h) in both Yiddish and Hebrew contexts.
-----------------------------
The alef special character is not part
of the Yiddish romanization table, and these things have
to be romanized "as Yiddish," with all the troubles that
entails. Thus, for example, "vav-vav-alef-vav-lamed-peh" would
have to be
romanized as "Voulf" (no alef diacritic).
No doubt one can find counter-examples in the database where LC has
put alefs and 'ayins in, but according to modern thinking those
are wrong and should be fixed.
Furthermore, if "vav-vav-alef-vav-lamed-peh" is a forename,
it's characteristically Yiddish, and is romanized
as Yiddish in any context, even if it appear in a Hebrew context.
too late. If the name "Volf"
(or "Voulf") occurs with
"Binyamin," it should definitely be considered a
forename (just as when "Lipman" occurs with "Eliezer," it's a forename
too).
If it's a surname, and in a Hebrew context,
it should be romanized as Hebrew, i.e. as Vo'ulf (like
Landa'u).
How should "Tehilim" be romanized when in a Yiddish context? In LC Yiddish romanization, a consonant such as "he" can't be omitted, so "Tehilim" vs. Weinreich's "Tilim" is problematic. Maybe "Thilim" would be better. However, in this case the cataloger chose to consider the title Hebrew, as with the many Yiddish books whose titles begin with "Sefer" followed by what appear to be normal Hebrew words. In such cases we usually romanize as Hebrew and provide an alternative-title entry with "Seyfer" and as close an approximation as possible to Yiddish for the other words.
-----------------------
On Nov. 6, 1998, the Hebraica Team at LC authorized "Yiddish" spelling for place-names of Hebrew/Aramaic origin in Yiddish contexts. That means that tsade-yod-vav-nun in a Yiddish context will be romanized as "Tsiyen" (not "Tsien," because we haven't changed our romanization practice for vowel clusters yet). The same practice will hold for derivatives of place-names like "Tsiyenizm" and so forth. Other examples are: "Yerusholayim" and "Tel-Oviv".
---------------------------
A book in Hebrew had a surname "alef-yod-yod-gimel-'ayin-si".
The NUC (pre-56) cited the author as "Eiges."
The standard romanization of this name, under the given circumstances,
is "Aiges (acute accent over the s)."
There's a temptation to consider such a name "distinctively Yiddish"
because of the characteristic "Yiddish" vowels yod-yod and 'ayin.
But according to HCM, p. 23, the directive that "distinctively Yiddish"
names should be romanized according to the Yiddish romanization table
even in Hebrew contexts applies only to forenames. As the same page explains,
surnames with identical spelling are romanized as Hebrew in Hebrew contexts
and as Yiddish in Yiddish contexts. So with the name "Aiges," the
yod-yod and 'ayin are treated as imot keri'ah expressed as "ai" and
"e" in Hebrew text.
--------------------------
The possible uses we might make of the work *Jewish Personal Names* by Shmuel Gorr.
The work is an alphabetical listing of "Jewish" (that is, mostly Hebrew and Aramaic-derived, but also some German, Latin, etc.) personal names, with etymological comments and Biblical citations where appropriate.
For Hebrew/Aramaic names, the "articles" are entered under more-or-less standard romanizations; Hebrew-character equivalents are provided in article headings. The author includes variants in both romanization and vocalized Hebrew script--not always providing versions in both scripts for each. The variants often resemble what we might think of as "Yiddish" forms of the name, though the romanized ones don't follow our standard romanization table. Such a listing help us make appropriate "Yiddish" references when we're establishing Yiddish authors, before the publication of the authorized list of equivalences, but it won't be a simple matter.
DCM Z1, in the section on the 670 field, p. 5, lists the circumstances
under which references can be made that are not
"justified" in the 670s of the record--that is, references that can
be made though their exact form is not cited in a 670. The only
circumstance that I think is relevant to the present discussion is the
second one, "References made on the basis of the cataloger's awareness
of different romanizations or orthographies.
For example, Gorr gives "Elhonon (subscript dot under h)" as his first romanized equivalent for Biblical "Elhanan (subscript dot under h)." That's fine--there's no discrepancy between the "Yiddish" form and the Hebrew consonants. A reference from "Elhonon (subscript dot under h)" can be considered "a different romanization of which the cataloger is aware."
But consider another example from Gorr: under "Hanokh (Enoch),"
he lists "Henekh, Henikh, Heynikh, Henel, Henli, Hendl, Hendel, Hendil,
Enikh, Eynikh." He gives these in vocalized Hebrew script,
most of them with characteristic Yiddish vowel characters such as
'ayin, tsvey yudn, and so forth; note also that where I've transcribed
"H", it's he not het. In the list of variants for "Hanokh (subscript dot
under H)", there is none which is compatible with the Hebrew consonants--none
accounts for the het or the vav in the consonantal spelling.
So none can be considered "a different romanization or orthography."
So none qualifies as suitable for a reference by the provisions of
Z1.
In using works like Gorr's, we'll have to keep in mind this distinction between permissible and impermissible references.
------------------------
Regarding the two different romanizations for
"lamed-kaf-bet-vav-dalet" in two editions of Weinreich's
Yiddish-English dictionary.
Both romanizations (lekoved and likhvoyd)
actually appear in both editions, with different translations:
lekoved
is
defined
as "in honor of, on the occasion of" and likhvoyd
is defined as "dedication (of a book etc.)"-- it's used as a noun, it seems.
So the lesson to be learned is not necessarily that the two editions
romanize differently, but that one
shouldn't be
satisfied with finding *one* relevant entry, but look a
little bit up and down the column in the dictionary.
-------------------------------
The word alef-resh-bet-yud-yud-tet-ayin-resh, meaning "worker" isn't mentioned in Weinreich's dictionary in this spelling, but the common Yiddish form alef-resh-bet-ayin-tet-ayin-resh "arbeter" (subscript dot under t) is cited. LC has varied in the past between transliterating the longer form as "arbeyter" or "arbayter."
Zachary Baker recommends "arbayter". Although "arbeyter" may sound closer to the genuine Yiddish form, his view is that the spelling with double-yud is intended to evoke the standard German pronunciation, better-represented by "arbayter." l LC database is regularized for this one, as far as possible.
---------------------------
The romanization of the name "shin nun ayin ayin bet alef lamed gimel" should be Shneebalg: the two 'ayins come out as two e's, with nothing in between (i.e. no 'ayin diacritics whatsoever). It is romanized "as Yiddish," and there should never be any 'ayin diacritics in Yiddish, only e's.
----------------------------
Should the standard romanization of "bet-yud-bet-lamed-yud-(kamats)
alef-tet-'ayin-kuf" be bibliotek or bibliyotek?
In LC's interpretation of the ALA-LC romanization table for Yiddish,
the combination yud plus alef-kamats comes out
"iyo," so "bibliyotek" is the preferred
form. The vowel combinations which include yud
as the first letter are probably
the ones where you'll see most variety
of treatment in the database, but LC has tried to be consistent as
stated.
----------------------------
Regarding the problem of romanizing HEBREW words in YIDDISH contexts:
There are few hard-and-fast rules about this, because fortunately it
doesn't come up very often. The only real RULE is
that, if the Hebrew word is listed in Weinreich's dictionary, we follow
the pronunciation he gives, modifying it a little to fit our
romanization rules (for instance, we differentiate "het" and "khaf"
though he doesn't, we represent final "he" though he doesn't). If
the Hebrew word is NOT in Weinreich, we do the best we can, following conventions
based on the romanizations Weinreich does provide--which give us seyfer,
koydesh (subscript dot under the k), milhomeh (subscript dot under the
first h), zikhroynes (acute accent on the s), and so forth.
--------------------------------------------
In standard Yiddish ("YIVO") orthography, a yod-hirik is equivalent to the vowel "i." The hirik is inserted in certain instances so as to differentiate the vowel "i" from the consonant "y." One especially frequent example is where yod-as-vowel is followed by another vowel, as in "tsien" ("to pull" tsade-yod-'ayin-nun). Without the hirik under the yod the word would be (incorrectly) romanized as "tsyen."
In non-standard Yiddish, hiriks do not always (or even often) appear under yods, in which case it is necessary to check Uriel Weinreich's MEYYED to see how words are spelled there. Then again, in many pre-World War I Yiddish imprints redundant hiriks (and other Hebrew vowels) frequently appear within words.
One particularly problematic area is the yod-kamats-alef combination, as in the Yiddish words for "biography," "biology," "bibliography," and "library."
Weinreich does not include hiriks under the yods in these cases, logically leading to the following romanizations:
byografye
byologye
biblyografye
biblyotek
I believe that Soviet Yiddish dictionaries (to which I do not currently have access) insert hiriks under the operative yods in those cases; in any case hirik-yods do appear within those words in many, many Soviet Yiddish imprints, leading to the following romanizations:
biografye
biologye
bibliografye
bibliotek
Zachary Baker
______________________________________
Yod Alef at the End of a Word
This came up once before in my career--I think it was during the lifetime of Heb-NACO--and Zachary Baker provided a reference source referring to this way of spelling certain "Yiddish-style" surnames andplacenames. But as I recall, all it said was that they're sometimes spelled like this, with final yod-alef--not how to pronounce > romanize them!
1). Regarding the work consulted, it was stated that these are transliterations, and in transliterations, there are no silent letters.
I say, well, this is not exactly accurate, especially with regard to
alef, which in Hebrew we don't romanize at all (I assume Bob's
"transliterate" = "romanize") under certain conditions, like when it's
at the beginning or end of a word. I think not romanizing it at all
is what is meant by "treating it as silent." On the other hand, a
final alef in Yiddish in cases other than these particular names is always
romanized, either as "o" or as "a." The name of Breslau is already
"Yiddish" in style because of the 'ayin = "e" and the vav-yod = "oy" where
German would have "au," and I think it's fair to say the same of the others
(another common one is "Bilgorai/y" plus final alef).
2). The re-rendering of the proper nouns into the roman script should be informed in no way by the spelling conventions of the original source outside of the obvious ... we are ... trying to describe the hebraicized form, not the original on which the hebraicized form is based.
I say, well, this is a knotty problem. If we were only trying to describe the "hebraicized form," life would be so much simpler! But we do have to interpret, or "convert," data in Yiddish contexts all the time, when "Hebrew-style" words and names are involved. If we didn't, we'd romanize mem-'ayin-sin-yod-vav-tav as "mesiyus" instead of "mayses." So the question is, are these names in "Hebrew style"? See above under my reply to 1).
3). The spelling convention used in these two proper nouns seems to follow the convention of Yiddish ... since this alef is at the end of the word, I would give it full vowel status.
I say, yeah! That's what I think too. Because of what I said in 1), I would apply Yiddish conventions and come out with "Bloya" and "Bresloya" and "Bilgoraya."
But I await the comments of Zachary or anyone with more information on the pronunciation. If we knew for sure that people say "Bresloy" and not "Bresloya," we could write into our extended Yiddish romanization rules that "oy" (or "ay") at the end of some names is spelled with final alef.
Joan