Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Hebrew)/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

What can we agree on?

Below are a number of separate points that I think we can agree on. Please comment on each, saying whether you agree or disagree with it; and if you disagree, please give more information so we can work toward a consensus. —RuakhTALK 15:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. As you may be able to guess from the below, I think we should start by focusing on naming conventions — that is, how we decide the title of an article. I think in-article transliteration should be handled separately, because it's a bit more flexible.

I agree, though for the sake of consistency, I think the text in the article body should follow roughly the same rules (otherwise, the word may be spelled differently in the title and in the article body). Pronunciation aids is a different matter, of course. Anyway, yes, we should first agree on naming conventions.--Doron 13:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I actually think in-article romanizations should probably follow the exact same rules, but previously (see the archives) people have suggested romanizations that wouldn't work as article titles, and I didn't want to force my opinion on others by pretending they're a single discussion. —RuakhTALK 14:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Redirects

Each article can have only a single title, obviously, but there's no reason we can't have multiple redirects to that article, and such redirects should be encouraged. —RuakhTALK 15:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree.--Doron 13:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

When there's a standard Anglicized name

If there's a standard Englishized Anglicized name for a topic (Hanukkah, Moses, Haifa, Gaza, bris, Torah, rabbi, rebbe, Netanyahu, Jerusalem, etc.), then that name should be the title of the article, no matter how unlike the Hebrew that name is. —RuakhTALK 15:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

(Note: The below only apply when there's no such standard Englishized name.) —RuakhTALK 15:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree.--Doron 13:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree, but I don't think Hanuka has a standard Englishised name. For example in South Africa is often spelt with a C, perhaps because most South Africans can pronounce the Ch [x] sound. --Taejo|대조 07:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Someone seems to have decided that Mishnah is standard spelling. I really don't believe this; mishna (without final h) is very common. --Redaktor (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

When a topic pertains primarily to modern Israel

If a topic pertains primarily to modern Israel (e.g., a modern city that did not exist before, say, 1850), I see two possibilities:

  • We use the Hebrew Academy's romanization scheme, or our own simplified variant thereof.
  • We concoct our own scheme based on Modern Hebrew pronunciations.

(If you agree with this, please also mention your preference between these two options.)

—RuakhTALK 15:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be a mixture of both. The academy's official rules should be used as a basic, and we should agree on changes to make it viable for Wikipedia and for modern usage. Notably:
- K and not Q for Kuf, I think most users agree on that
- No diacritics or special symbols of any kind
But also other things.
-- Ynhockey (Talk) 16:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The five rules I have a problem with are:
  1. w for ו (when inappropriate) - according to the sign, I used to live in Newe Noy, but I'm sure people called it Neve Noy...
  2. h for ח (but only in the middle of a word; at the start it's fine) - it should be "kh", as to an English speaker's ear, there is no difference between ח and כ, but a big one between ח and ה. Some people argue for "ch", but this is a German/Yiddish hangover, and to an English speaker would look like 'צ
  3. z for צ - should be "tz" as in English there is a clear difference between צ (e.g. Ritz) and ז (e.g. zoo). Z for צ also seems to be a German/Yiddish thing.
  4. q for ק - q - should be "k" as q is only used in English for words that start "qu.."
  5. Using ' after every א or ע. I think apostrophes should only be used to separate double vowels, e.g. Modi'in or Ma'ale Adumim, but not between vowels and consonants (e.g. Kiryat Mal'akhi), as it just looks bizarre to the uninitiated.
One example is a road sign I have seen in Israel that contains three of these problems - "Petah Tiqwa". How would an English speaker pronounce this? Probably Peta Tikwa, but it should be Petakh Tikva. Though the name of the city is probably too entrenched to change, the names of less notable places can be corrected. Number 57 13:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I accept the apostrophe for ayin, but I cannot see its need for aleph. Actually Malakhi is a poor example as it is standard to write Malachi in English.--Redaktor 21:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
If you are referring to these rules, then yes, I agree they should be the basis for Wikipedia's naming convention. I can accept K instead of Q for qof/kof, and definitely V instead of W for vav and TZ or TS instead of Z for tzadi. KH instead of H for het, on the other hand, looks awkward to me. I think the Academy's rules w.r.t. apostrophe should be adopted without change, I don't think Mal'akhi looks bizarre, and it is more correct than Malakhi. By the way, the Academy approved a simplified(?) Romanization to be used in road signs in Israel [1], including K for kof, a decision that was criticized by linguists.--Doron 13:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Here are the recent simplified rules: [2]--Doron 22:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

CH all the way for a ches(I dont have hebrew keyboard functions and I am not dealing w/ html or character map), btw z for tzadi is stam, just german, not at all yiddish translit. --Shuli 01:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The word klezmer, in yiddish is spelled kuf lamed zayin mem raish, no tzadi. ---15:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

1 We are discussing Hebrew, not Yiddish.
2 Yiddish words need vowels. Klezmer is spelt (in Yiddish) either קלעזמער or כלי-זמר.--Redaktor 18:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I cannot see a consensus here for the widespread use of the apostrophe ' for aleph --Redaktor (talk) 12:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The apostrophe is for the shva (before a vowel sound, which can really only be Alef or Ayin), not the Alef. That is why the letter (Alef/Ayin) is not relevant. It's true that no one said that there should be a shva for Alef. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 12:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

When a topic pertains primarily to a certain subset of diaspora Jewry

When a topic pertains primarily to Eastern European Jewry (e.g., a rebbe from the 1700s), we should use a romanization that reflects Ashkenazic pronunciation and tradition. Similarly, when a topic pertains primarily to Oriental Jews (e.g., a Bukharan food) we should use a romanization that reflects Oriental Sephardic pronunciation and tradition. (And so on.) —RuakhTALK 16:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree in principle, though this rule is not so clear. The usage of CH, for example, does not stem from Ashkenazi pronunciation, but rather from German influence -- so should it be used?.--Doron 13:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree, but I didn't feel qualified to propose such a romanization myself, so figured it's easier to decide on a concept and then collaboratively figure out the details. —RuakhTALK 14:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
This just adjusts Ruakh's proprosal. Anything that is an ashkenazi zoch, stam the ashkenazi Havuroh. A sfardi zoch, sfardi havuroh, temoni zoch, teimoni havuroh. and for all around yiddishe zochen, the havuroh of the writer's mishpoche is the havuroh. If you use the sfardi havuroh when your ashkenazi, use the ashkenazi havuroh because that is your havuroh, not the zionist mix up of havuros. --19:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't suppose you could translate the Yiddish parts of your comment into English? Some words I can identify by their similarity to Hebrew (e.g. "mishpoche" must mean "mishpakhah", i.e. "family"), but some I can't. —RuakhTALK 03:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Not Yiddish, but Yeshivish. Shaul Avrom, this is the Engklish WP—please write in English. If you want to write in Yeshivish, please start a Yeshivish WP.--Redaktor 05:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Anything that is an ashkenazi zoch, stam the ashkenazi Havuroh. A sfardi zoch, sfardi havuroh, temoni zoch, teimoni havuroh. and for all around yiddishe zochen, the havuroh of the writer's mishpoche is the havuroh. If you use the sfardi havuroh when your ashkenazi, use the ashkenazi havuroh because that is your havuroh, not the zionist mix up of havuros.-Thats my original post.

Anything that relates to Ashkenazi Jews should be only the Ashkenazi dialect, S'fardim-s'fardi dialect, Yemenite Jews-Yemenite dialect. Anything that in general is related to Judaism, the Dialect of the writers family. If your family is ashkenazi use the ashkenazi dialect, etc. And don't use the zionist mix up of dialects which most un-educated people now a days thinks is the true s'fardi dialect. -Translated post. --Shuliavrumi 23:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC) (BTW, on a talk page, it doesn't matter how you write, its mutter to write in the yeshivishe shprach or the Mame Loshon.)

What?? Our goal here is to be useful, informative, and intelligible to as wide a range of people as possible. Your proposal to allow every form of Hebrew except the most widely understood runs completely counter to that. —RuakhTALK 00:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The most understood version of Hebrew is the perversed modern hebrew, which is Loshon Kodesh with curse words, words that are straight out describing perversions, and then using it for loshon yom b'yomo, and the idea that modern Hebrew was institutionalized on, that as a nation we, klal yisroel, must have a national language for every-day use, and caused loshon hakodesh to loose its kedushoh, and then to change the havuroh each person is comfortable with, their minhog, which if you look at the daas torah of the gedolei hador, is against halochoh. that is why my proposal ignores the perversion and goes with the heilige loshen. --Shuliavrumi 00:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Your logic seems backward to me. Wikipedia is not a holy forum; for example, we cover a lot of profane topics (see e.g. Wikipedia:Content disclaimer for some explanation of this). Insofar as mixing Hebrew with the profane makes Hebrew profane, it seems like you should rather we used the already-profane Modern Hebrew instead of the still-holy forms that many groups use liturgically? —RuakhTALK 03:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

When a topic originates before the Diaspora

When a topic predates the Diaspora (e.g., a king of Judah, except that those names probably all have standard English forms (?)), I think we should use a romanization that reflects ancient pronunciation, using e.g. th for dageshless tav. (I suspect that this one might be controversial, but I'm proposing it anyway. If people disagree, we can discuss it.) —RuakhTALK 16:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there a convention that is widely-accepted among scholars of this period that does not involve to much use of diacritics?--Doron 13:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think so, no; I guess we'd have to devise our own. :-/ —RuakhTALK 14:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The Society of Biblical Literature's SBL Handbook of Style (ISBN 1-56563-487-X) specifies both an academic transliteration with diacritics and the general-purpose transliteration that I have summarized as follows. Various options are allowed as long as each article is consistent with itself.

letter: א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ ל מ נ ס ע פ צ ק ר שׂ שׁ ת
translit.: ' or none b g d h v or w z ch, h or kh t y k l m n s ' p ts q r s sh t
translit. (option to show no dagesh) v gh dh kh f th

Most consonants that have dagesh hazaq should be doubled in transliteration, except for צ (ts) and שׁ (sh).

vowel: אַ עַ חַ אָ אָה אֶ אֵ אֵי אִ אִי אָ (kamets katan) אֹ אוֹ אֻ אוּ אֳ אֲ
translit.: 'a or a a' ah or akh a ah e e e i i o o o u u o a

Someone ought to write a Wikipedia article about kamets katan.

Example transliterations: One article might refer to khanukkah, petakh, and tiqvah, while another refers to hanukkah, petah, and tiqwah.

Interestingly, SBL actually doesn't promote transliteration. It instructs its authors that ordinarily a Hebrew word should be given in Hebrew characters without vowel points and with an English translation accompanying the first use. Transliteration and vowel points are to be used only when they are particularly helpful. Example: פתח "opening, entrance", rather than petakh. Hoziron 03:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what people think is the best way to deal with a case like this - het or khet (as opposed to what I though should instead be used for khaf). What about unicode in the pronunciation section? TewfikTalk 05:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem with unicode is that it doesn't show up in a lot of browsers, and most readers will see a box, meaning the objective of trying to convey pronounciation has failed. Also, my edit summaries were incorrect - I was just referring to the pronounciation rather than the transliteration (which is why I did not move the page back). "kh" is about the closest you can get to the pronounciation of ח or כ in English. Number 57 06:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

When none of the above is the case

When none of the above is the case, either Modern-Israeli or Ashkenazic romanization is acceptable, but a Sephardic romanization is not (since few English speakers are familiar with Sephardic Hebrew except insofar as it has contributed to Modern Israeli Hebrew — and note that I'm a Sephardic Jew, so feel free to disagree with me, but don't accuse me of bias on this point.) An article created with a title reflecting one style should not be changed to a title reflecting another style (without a specific reason, anyway). —RuakhTALK 16:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. When we get to romanization within articles, I'll add the further point that within an article, a consistent style should be used, either all-Ashkenazic or all-Modern-Israeli, on topics where none of the above is the case. —RuakhTALK 16:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

What needs further discussions

It appears like there is a lot of common ground. However, there are a few minor issues that have always haunted this kind of discussion, so I think it would be better to separate the discussion on these specific topics.

ח and כ -- H, KH, or whatever?

For both transliteration and pronunciation aids, if diacritics are allowed, I think we had better use the Academy rules mentioned above. If diacritics are not to be used, I propose to use H for ח and KH for dagesh-less כ.

  • In my opinion, KH is not good for ח, because the uninitiated English reader is likely to pronounce it has K, which is very far from what we intend.
  • KH is more appropriate for כ, because it is closely-related to the K of the dageshed כ.
  • It is close to the Academy rules that use diacritics, only without the diacritics.
  • It is consistent with other semitic languages.

I believe this should be the rule for both Modern Israeli Hebrew and earlier periods.--Doron 09:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Kh for ח is incorrect Hebrew and only takes into account new pronounciation. Many Hebrew-speakers today, in Israel and abroad, still pronounce ח completely differently than כ. Also many words would be weird with Kh for ח, especially place names like Holon, Hadera (Kholon, Khadera?), and people's names like Hayim/Chaim (Khaim?). -- Ynhockey (Talk) 16:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
As I pointed out above, I believe H should be used at the beginning of a word, but kh in the middle. Number 57 18:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Well as I said, awkwardness is not the only argument for H, but it's a fairly strong one. Besides, I'm still convinced. Makhane Rabin? Gakhelet? Nakhshon? Kakhlon? Eek. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
But how else will you get across the difference between ה and ח if you use "h" for both? There is a clear difference between Petah and Petakh. Number 57 18:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
We just can't represent every sound of one language in every other language. There's no ח or כ in English, so we have to use a substitute consonant anyway. KH is not more likely to be read correctly than H for ח, it is very likely to be pronounced as K, like in khaki, Khrushchev and sheikh. At least we can be consistent with other transliteration systems, and approximate the correct pronunciation. By the way, is there some HTML trick we can use to produce an H with a diacritic when available, and simple H otherwise?--Doron 19:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Khaki, yes. Khrushchev, yes. But I pronounce sheikh as [ʃeɪx]. The thing is, KH and H are both wrong, but those who know are able to distinguish. If I saw Hayim, I'd pronounce it [hajim], whereas Khaim I know is [xaim] or [xajm] (the way I actually say it). Those who can't pronounce [x] are going to get it wrong anyway, so you might as well cater for those who can. --Taejo|대조 07:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The question is, which is closer to the true pronounciation? In some cases (such as ירוחם) "h" would be, but in others (פתח תקוה) I think "k" is closer, at least to the ears of a native English speaker. Perhaps a list could be drawn up of ones where a softer (h) and harder (kh) is necessary - certainly at the end of a word, "h" is just not enough to convey pronounciation. Number 57 07:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is unintuitive to have h as het at the end of words in some cases, but I don't think this alone is enough to override a general rule, or insert kh, which is equally unintuitive. We cannot write all Hebrew words in a completely English-speaker-friendly way, because then we'd spell names like Ouze (עוזי) and Ellie (אלי). We need to draw a line, and I think having h for het even at the end of the word isn't such a big deal. Petah Tikva is the most widely known spelling of the city (not on Wikipedia, but in general), and I don't think may pronounce it Peta-Tikva. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 13:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
עוזי would actually come out as Uzi for an English speaker (ouze would be עוז) and Eli is the common spelling (Ellie is a girl's name). I am not suggesting we change Petah Tikva, as it a well established name, but just using it as an example to show the problem with using "h" for ח. For instance, I have created the article on the political party Akhva (אחווה). Changing that to Ahva would change the pronounciation to something more like אהבה. Number 57 14:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
P.S. This is not a license to move the aforementioned article! As long as this debate goes on, may I suggest we use the compromise between British and American English that the article retains the spelling of the original author unless it concerns either country in some way, particularly as "kh" is a recognised/possible Israeli transliteration. Also, I have reverted your change to Romanization of Hebrew - FilipeS's edit was not a "unilateral change", it was a copy of a table (which he did not create) from Hebrew Alphabet. It would be silly to have the same table on different pages but with different contents. Number 57 14:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Moving to left:
Actually in English Eli is pronounced Ee-ly (אילאי). About Uzi/Ouze, it depends on dialect. But anyway, that's beside the point. I believe it's possible to compromise and use kh for het in extreme cases, but it should be considered that this is incorrect Hebrew, therefore it should never be used for major things like place names (unless official). About the table, I did not realize that it was taken from the article Hebrew alphabet, but a quick inspection of that will show that a fairly new Wikipedian not familiar with policy made the edit to Hebrew Alphabet in the first place ([3]), and another new user, who doesn't even claim fluent knowledge of Hebrew (Epson291), inserted it into the table.[4] I think we should put khet at the end of the list (or remove it entirely) from both tables. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 15:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I believe I have seen road signs in Israel for Mekhane XXX. The inconsistencies of sign writers in the country is amazing - there are streets in Be'er Sheva with different spellings at each end! Number 57 18:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey, my home town is Herzlia/Herzliya/Herzliyya...--Doron 19:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
H for ח and KH for כֿ is good if and when diacritics cannot be used. Please let us not have any pesakh and Yam Hammelakh (!)... -- Olve 21:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Passover already has "Pesakh" as its top transliteration! Number 57 07:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Concerning diacritics

The Pesakh thing was added by an anon editor just 1 month ago.[5] In my opinion, it should not hold much weight in this discussion. I will place this transliteration at the end of the list for now. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 13:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with h for heth and kh for kaph. As for html tricks, I'm not sure, but does anyone oppose using the ḥ in the "pronunciation" section? TewfikTalk 06:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes because (a) most browsers just see a box and (b) how many people would understand what an H with a dot under it (I assume that's what the box is!) means. Number 57 07:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I say Ḥ or ḥ is an excellent solution. Maybe most browsers can't display it correctly, but then again, most people use the browsers that can, and I don't see why Wikipedia policies should take faulty software products into consideration. Plus even if you just see a box around the h, it makes that h clearly different from the normal h transcribing he, thus fulfilling it's function as a distinguishing diacritic in any case. For example: נהר would transcribe nahar, and נחר would transcribe naḥar. Whether you see an underdot or a box around it, ḥ clearly differs from h; problem solved. Dan Pelleg (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and p.s., if people don't know what it's supposed to mean, they can look it up: Ḥ. Dan Pelleg (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not an issue of faulty browsers - I use two different computers with XP and neither display it. I'm not sure what you mean about "a box around the h" - you don't see an h with a box around it, just a box, so for Nahar, all I see is Na[]ar. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry - my mistake. Might I inquire which browsers you use and whether you by any chance have some statistical information as to the scope of their usage compared to other browsers?
– May I also offer an alternative solution: the Academy of the Hebrew Language provides an underlined h (ẖ) as first option for transliteration of het (here), do any of these possibilities work on your browsers?
1. ẖ combining macron below (U+0331),
2. h̠ combining minus below (U+0320),
3. h̲ combining low line (U+0332),
4. h simple underline.
Dan Pelleg (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I use Internet Explorer 7, which together with other IE versions, has just over 75% of the market share; I also have most language packs installed as my home PC is Hebrew-enabled. The only one of the above which I see is 4, all the others are just boxes. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Strange, I use IE7 too, and no. 1 works on mine. Proves that IE7 is far from perfect. Would you (or anyone) have anything against using no. 4, "h", for transcribing het? It may not be an ideal solution but I think it's a reasonable one. It would look like this: Mahane Rabin, Gahelet, Nahshon, Petah Tikva, Hayim, Holon, Hadera, Kahlon. Dan Pelleg (talk) 23:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
(to Epson291's edit summery:) A consensus as to the transliteration of het in article titles doesn't have to be reached as a pre-condition for deciding how to transliterate within article texts. However the links or the article titles are spelled, redirect-pages can always point the readers to the article. To me, h/H seems to be a good solution for the transliteration of het within article texts, considering the discussion above. Dan Pelleg (talk) 06:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Just had another thought: how do these appear on your browser, пﮟოьεԻ?
1. ẖ / H̱ combining macron below (U+0331),
2. h̠ / H̠ combining minus below (U+0320),
3. h̲ / H̲ combining low line (U+0332),
  —or even
4 ḥ / Ḥ?
Dan Pelleg (talk) 06:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
They all display in one of my computers, but I did read the reply quickly on the Hebrew-enabled computer and not all did. I'll check later. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Right, on the Hebrew enable computer, only 2 shows up correctly (though it looks like an inverted circumflex rather than a line for some reason; 1 and 4 are boxes, whilst 3 is just an H with no formatting. The underlining is probably the best. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
1, 2, and 4 work for me, 3 is just an H. I wasn't fully aware of this issue with diacritics. So does the article on Had Gadya not work for you? How about at this unicode test, can you see the h with a dot? Epson291 (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Moving to left
Just a side comment - no matter how the above discussion turns out, I strongly oppose using the IPA template in case h with a dot is used, because the template auto-italicizes the letter, which does neet to always be done. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 16:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's decided that the unicode character with a dot under it is not feasible (which I think otherwise would be the best option) (and I'm interested to hear number57's result from the article I linked), a note of the reason sould be placed on the main page. As for Ynhockey's comment, the italic issue could be fixed simply with a new template. Oh, and according to the page I linked before, apparently the Arial Unicode font is included in Office XP but I assume not XP by default. Epson291 (talk) 01:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Strangely the text works in one but not the other; however, the h with a dot displays in the title bar of the browser of the one in which the text doesn't work, but doesn't in the other... пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
odd Epson291 (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Tzeirei and yud - e vs. ei

I don't believe this has been discussed yet, even in the archives (might've missed something though). I have already talked about it to several Wikipedians, but feel it should be brought up here.

The question is, when we have a letter with tzeirei and then the letter yud, should we write it just as an e (as it usually stands now), or as ei? Common examples are Bet/Beit (בית), Betar/Beitar (בית"ר), Hel/Heil (חיל), etc.

I personally strongly support ei for the following reasons:

  1. There's a letter there in Hebrew, and even though it's not a consonant, there's no reason to make it disappear - removing it will likely confused Hebrew-speaking readers, while keeping it does not harm anyone.
  2. The letter i is not a consonant in English, therefore the usage of ei for a long e is not incorrect. When it's not a long e but an e followed by an actual y sound (אֵיְ), it could be written as ey.
  3. Not having the i is very awkward in many cases, just like kh for het. Especially in the case of heil (חיל, corps - hel?), but also in bet.

Please state your opinions here. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 14:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with using "ei" on most occasions - just using "e" is not enough to get across the first vowel sound in בית"ר (it is not Bet-ar). I also agree with you on "heil", I just think it's a very unfortunate spelling given its well-known previous use (perhaps Hiyil is an alternative?). However, I tend to write Tzairi with an "a" rather than an "e". Number 57 14:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm OK with either always using E or allowing EI as suggested by Ynhockey, but certainly not AI...--Doron 22:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
First see my comment earlier on the page, second, I chill in the Beis/Bais Medrash, not the bes, bas, beiz, baiz, beys, bays, biez(I have seen that before) or any other variation. --Shuli 01:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
It would be completely incorrect to use the y in this case, because there is not consonant y sound. In any case, why do you 'chill' at the notion of having the i there? -- Ynhockey (Talk) 03:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand; he's saying that the "Beis/Bais Medrash" is where he chills ("chill" being U.S. slang for "relax", "hang out"). As in, he's pro-i. —RuakhTALK 03:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 03:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Font for Hebrew text

Note: The following is not about naming conventions, but I thought it would be a good idea to raise this issue here because it is relevant to Hebrew and Wikipedia and there's already a discussion going:

I've been thinking recently, and after seing a page use it, I thought this might be a good idea: why don't we use a font other than Arial for Hebrew text? The problem arises when you add nikud; Arial's treatment of nikud is fairly bad - the nekudot are small, the spacing between them and the actual letters is also small, as are the spaces between different dots. This means that you usually cannot tell between a tzeirei and patah, a shva and hirik, etc. In order to see the difference, the size can be increased to 12 points, but even then it doesn't look good, and kamatz looks horrible. My suggestion is to use a font which makes a clear difference between each nikud sign, even at small sizes. I have not been able to find a font which is perfect at 10 points, but many are good at 11. There are a few serif and a few monospace fonts good for this. The best I have been able to find, which are also common at least on Hebrew systems, are David (serif), Narkisim (serif) and Miriam (monospace).

A problem arises when you think about people all over the world who likely do not have these fonts. To that end, Microsoft Sans Serif (monospace) seems like the best font, although it's not perfect at 11 or even 12 points. Therefore, I suggest using the following order for fonts (in the {{Lang-he}} template): David, Narkisim, Miriam, "Microsoft Sans Serif", "Times New Roman", serif. The bad thing is that this encompasses both serif and monospace fonts, but I don't think there's a choice. The size should be set to 11 points.

What are your thoughts? I think this change is important, mainly because IMO nikud is underused, especially on HeWiki (but this carries over to EnWiki), and that for an encyclopedia, nikud is just as important as the letters themselves.

-- Ynhockey (Talk) 16:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree, and that is why I made a template a while ago — Template:Hebrew. But someone has “modified” it (and moved/merged it) since, so that it is now sadly useless. For its result in a Wikipedia version that hasn’t wrecked it, see nn:Zebed habbát. -- Olve 18:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I've just reverted the edit to the lang-he template. I think the new font looks dreadful - it is too large and looks out of place. I don't see any problems with the current size and font, which I think fits in nicely. Number 57 14:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I've left a comment on your talk page. Feel free to make suggestions, but please don't say that there's no reason to change the current font, which doesn't properly display nikud. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 14:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Can we see some suggestions of which font to use (i.e. a demonstration of how they look) in order to make an informed decision? Number 57 22:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Font demonstrations

Below are a few examples of fonts. All fonts are at the size of 125%. The string used is בָּבַּבֶּבֵּבֹּבְּבֻּבֱּבֲּבֳּ. Note that most fonts will only exist on Hebrew-enabled systems, Hebrew versions of Windows, MS Office, or in other cases where the user uses Hebrew text regularly. Actually from experience most people located in Israel will have these fonts, even those who use English versions of everything.

  • Arial (current at current size): בָּבַּבֶּבֵּבֹּבְּבֻּבֱּבֲּבֳּ
  • Arial (current at increased size): בָּבַּבֶּבֵּבֹּבְּבֻּבֱּבֲּבֳּ
  • David: בָּבַּבֶּבֵּבֹּבְּבֻּבֱּבֲּבֳּ
  • Miriam: בָּבַּבֶּבֵּבֹּבְּבֻּבֱּבֲּבֳּ
  • Narkisim: בָּבַּבֶּבֵּבֹּבְּבֻּבֱּבֲּבֳּ
  • Microsoft Sans Serif: בָּבַּבֶּבֵּבֹּבְּבֻּבֱּבֲּבֳּ

As you can see, David is the most crisp and clear, while Miriam is probably the best non-Serif one. The others all have problems, even though at 125% size even Arial looks a whole lot better and almost usable. Arial has a serious problem displaying holam, which looks like a space was added to it each time (this is IMO a significant drawback).

-- Ynhockey (Talk) 22:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

To be honest they all look the same to me at 125% except the Microsoft Sans Serif (which looks horrible). Another thing to consider is whether it will look ok in a sentence where the rest of the text is normal size, i.e:

Tel Aviv (<font-size:125%>תל אביב</font-size>), Israel's second largest city, is located on the Mediterranean coast.

To me this looks a little bit awkward. Number 57 14:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
It looks awkward because you're using the Arial font. Use David and you'll get something very decent:
Tel Aviv (תל אביב), Israel's second largest city, is located on the Mediterranean coast.
-- Ynhockey (Talk) 16:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Is there a difference? I can't see one. Number 57 16:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Just realised why - I don't have David font on my computer. Now given that I have standard home XP, how many people are likely to be able to see a difference? Most people might see what I do (which is Arial at 125%). Number 57 16:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
There are no fonts I know of which exist on every system and look good with Hebrew. However, as I said before, any font at 10 points does not display nikud well, an issue you have not addressed. The further problem with Arial is that the size of the nikud does not increase with the font size, so people willing to temporarily enlarge the font to see nikud (ctrl + mouse wheel up) won't be able to do it. I think it's much more important to have an understandable encyclopedia than something that looks perfect (and even Arial at 125% doesn't look terrible, just a bit out of place). -- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
What about making a separate template for displaying Hebrew with Nikkud then (something like {{lang-he| }}? That could be at 125%, but normal non-nikkud Hebrew would remain at 100%. Number 57 17:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
That is a decent compromise, however, I think it should only be temporary. The reason is that as an encyclopedia, we should strive to include nikud in every Hebrew word displayed here, as I've said earlier. Therefore, the goal is to eventually move all Hebrew to the nikud template. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I have now created the template, {{Lang-he-n}}. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, good work. It's just a shame that Microsoft Sans Serif is so damn ugly and no other font works properly with the holam! Number 57 19:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

(returning to left margin) Keep in mind that the point of font-lists is to provide fallback after fallback, so that someone who doesn't have the first font will just default to the second, or third, or however far down it takes. I see all of Ynhockey's fonts, and agree with his assessment of them; Number, can you maybe look through your own font files, and find what fonts work best for you? (One relatively quick way to do this is to go to "All Programs"→"Accessories"→"System Tools"→"Character Map", select "Advanced View", set "Group by" to "Unicode Subrange", select the "Hebrew" subrange, and scroll from font to font.) We can collaborate (this is a wiki, after all!) and try to find the ideal ordering of fallback fonts. —RuakhTALK 20:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the only two others that work with Hebrew on mine are Courier (which leaves an even bigger gap for the holam) and Times New Roman, which is too stylish. Number 57 21:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
For those who have it, the SBL provide a nice font by John Hudson:
בָּבַּבֶּבֵּבֹּבְּבֻּבֱּבֲּבֳּ

JCSalomon (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Solution for Cholam Chaser in Arial

Check out how tagging the Cholam Chaser with <span style="margin-left=-0.1em; margin-right=-0.1em;"> corrects the problem:

normal: מְקֹרָב — מְבֹרָךְ — כֹּל — לֹא
corrected: מְקֹרָב — מְבֹרָךְ — כֹּל — לֹא

Notice the special case of Sin (Shin with a dot at the top left) + Cholam Chaser in the word מִנְּשֹׂא:

normal: בראשית ד,יג: "וַיֹּאמֶר קַיִן, אֶל-יְהֹוָה: גָּדוֹל עֲו‍ֹנִי, מִנְּשֹׂא."
corrected: בראשית ד,יג: "וַיֹּאמֶר קַיִן, אֶל-יְהֹוָה: גָּדוֹל עֲוֹנִי, מִנְּשֹׂא."

It's a little laborious to encode, but maybe a template can solve the problem? Dan Pelleg 18:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but your "normal" and "corrected" look identical to me; both have excess space. (I'm guessing this depends on browser and whatnot.) —RuakhTALK 20:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Strange, the css margin properties should accept negative values (see for example w3schools site). Are you using a standard browser? Maybe you have css turned off in your settings? Anyway, I added a line with different css tagging, does this work on your browser? Both have the identical (desirable) result on mine (ie7). Dan Pelleg 15:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
normal: "וַיֹּאמֶר קַיִן אֶל-יְהֹוָה: גָּדוֹל עֲו‍ֹנִי מִנְּשֹׂא."
corrected with <span style="margin-left=-0.1em; margin-right=-0.1em;">: "וַיֹּאמֶר קַיִן אֶל-יְהֹוָה: גָּדוֹל עֲוֹנִי מִנְּשֹׂא."
corrected with <span style="margin-left=-2px; margin-right=-2px;">: "וַיֹּאמֶר קַיִן אֶל-יְהֹוָה: גָּדוֹל עֲוֹנִי מִנְּשֹׂא."

I don't think such a complication is necessary, but feel free to somehow try and incorporate it into the {{lang-he}} template. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 15:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.7 with CSS turned on. The W3C spec says in part, "Negative values for margin properties are allowed, but there may be implementation-specific limits."[6] To me this suggests that Firefox is not misbehaving; it simply has an implementation-specific lower bound of zero for margins on niqud. —RuakhTALK 16:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid the limitation isn't only with niqqud—it's for Hebrew generally. The following produces the same effect for Hebrew as for English on IE, whereas the Fox produces the Hebrew text always unchanged. Shall we write Mozilla a letter? :-P
one two three אחת שתיים שלוש
one two three אחת שתיים שלוש
one two three אחת שתיים שלוש
one two three אחת שתיים שלוש
So if you use firefox I suppose you just have to accept its incapacity to deal with Hebrew. But since most internet users still use IE (don't they?), and the vast majority of users in the world really just have Arial, Times and Courier to produce Hebrew, wouldn't it be worth while to implement this little correction? In any case, Cholam Chaser doesn't occur so often in Wiki. Dan Pelleg 19:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Just checked this page using ie7 on vista. The Cholam Chaser Problem seems to have been solved here. The examples I didn't tamper with look great, the ones adjusted with css are too squashed. Dan Pelleg 00:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
New suggestion

Check this out, why not use the Overdot diacritic (Unicode combining diacritic "combining dot above" U+0307  ̇ ) instead of the defective holem?

Holam haser: מְקֹרָב מְבֹרָךְ כֹּל לֹא
Combining dot above: מְק̇רָב מְב̇רָךְ כּ̇ל ל̇א
Holam haser: בראשית ד,יג: "וַיֹּאמֶר קַיִן, אֶל-יְהֹוָה: גָּדוֹל עֲו‍ֹנִי, מִנְּשֹׂא."
Combining dot above: בראשית ד,יג: "וַיּ̇אמֶר קַיִן, אֶל-יְה̇וָה: גָּדוֹל עֲו‍̇נִי, מִנְּשׂ̇א."

It works well on my IE7, how about other browsers? Dan Pelleg (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I get a few boxes in the second and fourth rows, but there is a space left everytime there is a ֹ пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Shame Dan Pelleg (talk) 11:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks fine for me, but I don't think this workaround is really necessary. The main problem with Hebrew is the font size anyway, and the Hebrew/lang-he-n templates solve this. Beyond that, anyone with the required fonts can see David 125%, which is excellent-looking with nikud. For those without them, and who actually care about the Hebrew (I think there aren't many such users), I guess the workaround will improve things. However, if as Number 57 says, it might display as a box on any configuration, then it's definitely a no-no. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Awat/Aouate

Slightly off topic, but I am trying to get Dudu Aouate moved to Dudu Awat (see Talk:Dudu Aouate) based on transliteration/common usage in Israel. Feel free to add your comments. Number 57 10:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Spelling -h for silent final letter ה

Hi, it bothers me that Wikipedia is so inconsistent about this issue. Searching with one spelling for any particular Hebrew word will unpredictably redirect to the other spelling. In my opinion, "Halakhah," "Mishnah," "matzah," et al. should be spelled with an h at the end. I've done a little searching, and am surprised that I can't find a previous discussion on it. Is it just plain interchangable? Can we discuss this?  —Rafi Neal |T/C 04:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe we did talk about this - and because only one user (IIRC it was Gilgamesh) proposed actually using the h at the end, the issue was dropped. Anyway, as you may guess, I strongly oppose the use of h at the end. Not only is it not supposed to be pronounced in most words, but even in those where it is, most people (even native Hebrew speakers) won't know it. Many Hebrew speakers don't even know what a mapik is. This is IMO similar to the issue of using a double consonant for dagesh hazak - for the sake of simplicity, I say drop it. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 04:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I believe none of the words you listed even have a mapik. For this kind of word, the final h should definitely not be used, as this is incorrect Hebrew and misleads both those who speak Hebrew and those who don't. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 05:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The Academy rules state that alef, he, vav and yod that are used as vowels and are not pronounced should be omitted (thus, as Ynhockey correctly notes, none of the words Rafi Neal gave should have an H at the end). A he with mapik, on the other hand, is a consonant, and should not be omitted.--Doron 06:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Rafi. Me again.
I think the first question to ask in these cases is, are we dealing with an English word borrowed from another language or a transliteration? There are some words, like "kosher", "yarmulke", "matzo" and others that began life in another language and have since been appropriated into English with their own common English spellings. These spellings may or may not be faithful transliterations from Hebrew (or Yiddish). Since this is English Wikepedia, the common English spelling should be used.
As an example, consider the capital of mainland China. My 1959 edition of the World Book Encyclopedia calls the name of that city "Peking". That was, in fact, the English word for that city at the time. In the decades since, most editors and writers have agreed that a different spelling is appropriate and the city's name is now almost universally rendered in English as "Beijing" However, it was not the job of an encyclopedia editor in 1959 (or now) to decide that the common spelling at the time was "wrong", or to innovate a better spelling, only to present his readers with the generally accepted information available at the time.
By contrast, there are other foreign-language words that have not established themselves in English. Some examples might be "Yetzia bish'eila" and "Torah SheB'Ksav". In these cases a transliteration (a phonetic rendering of Hebrew into English) is used. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Manual Of Style, all transliterations should be italicized.
So, here's where it gets a bit sticky; is "chametz", for instance, and English word borrowed from Hebrew, or a transliteration of a Hebrew word? I don't really know. I suppose one logical way to find out woul be to open an English dictionary and see if the word is there. I just looked in dictionary.com and found it, albeit spelled "hametz".
Incidentally, one of the words you're concerned about has been debated recently. Look here. Oh, and I just noticed that the matzo article has inconsitencies in spelling and capitalization.
Of course this is all subject to consensus, and there might be times when editors agree that a word or spelling should be used that's not consistent with common English usage. For instance, in my own personal view, "phylacteries" and "yarmulke" are much more recognizable words to English speakers, but a consensus seems to have developed around "tefillin" and "kippah", and as long as the redirects are there, the user will find the information he's looking for, so I have no argument with either word.
Perhaps it would be worthwhile to develop a list of 50 to 100 common Hebrew/Yiddish/Jewish words and their preferred spellings on Wikipedia. When we get a significant list we can copy them onto the main page.
Here, I'll start:
  • chametz
  • Hanukkah
  • Haggadah
  • Halakha or halakha?
  • halakhic
  • kashrut
  • kippah, not yarmulke
  • kosher
  • sukkot
  • tefillin, not phylacteries
--Steven J. Anderson 06:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
This issue falls under the section above, and it is not related to the question of how to transform ה at the end of a word.--Doron 11:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
To return to the issue of the final silent (vocalized) ה, I concur with those who would omit it in the English transcripton—after all you cannot transcribe a silent letter! However there have to exceptions for some words commonly spelt in English with —h, such as Torah. However, most Hebrew words are not really in common use in English, so the spelling without —h is to be preferred. We certainly want to avoid such nonsense spellings as gemarah, which does not even have a ה in the Hebrew (Aramaic).--Redaktor 18:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
How about gemara'? :-) Tomertalk 21:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
What is the question?--Redaktor 22:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Very tongue-in-cheek, I was proposing to transliterate gemara with a trailing apostrophe. Tomertalk 00:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought you guys wouldn't like the final h, and I guess the Academy has ruled against me, but I'll try to stand up for it anyway:

  1. I highly doubt that any non-Hebrew speaker who sees the word "matzah" will think it should be pronounced "matzahhh" as though the ה had a mapik. English speakers know "ah" as representing the pronunciation "ä" as in "father," as opposed to "ă" as in "bat" or "ā" as in "late." Not that "matza" could be mistaken for "mătză," but in my humble opinion your concern over pronunciation confusion is unwarranted.
  2. I suppose the Academy's logic was that leaving the h off of a silent ה is necessary to differentiate it from a ה with a mapik, which would use a h. That's a fair system for the Academy's purpose, but unnecessary for Wikipedia. Can you think of a single example of a mapik-ה being transliterated on Wikipedia? Mapik-ה is almost always a suffix for singular feminine possessive, and a Wikipedia article that would need this form is probably technical enough to use the full-blown Hebrew Academy romanization scheme anyway.
Not necessarily. The first exception that comes to my mind is the name Nogah (נגה), which may certainly appear in Wikipedia.--Doron 22:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  1. As long as we're talking about differentiating, the final h helps tell apart words ending in hey from words ending in alef, as noted by Redaktor. This is a more practical differentiation for Wikipedia than between silent and mapik ה.
  2. Ynhockey, you raised a desire for simplicity, and I agree about the dagesh hazak. However, the h for silent ה does not endanger simplicity, as it preserves the consonant-to-vowel ratio of the original Hebrew word. For example, MaTZaH has three consonants and two vowels, in both Hebrew and the h-inclusive transliteration. I suppose this argument falls apart when you bring up a final alef or vav, but those letters are more commonly silent, even when inside words.
  3. This is a little wierd, but including the h might help non-Hebrew speakers emphasize the right syllable. "Kippa" looks like it should be pronounced "KIPP-a," whereas "kippah" would sound more like the modern Israeli way of speaking.
  4. Most Hebrew words that have made it to English have preserved the final h, as noted by Steven and Redaktor. A lot of people are also used to Artscroll transliteration, which does use h (excuse my weasel words). I'm a fan of that transliteration except for the s for a tav. So as you can see, many before me have felt the final h worthy of inclusion.

In short, the Academy's romanization scheme seems to me to be an overly technical way of accurately describing the grammer of a Hebrew word in English, not as a way to explain modern pronunciation. As Number 57 said above, "Petah Tiqwa" doesn't cut it for pronunciation. Artscroll, on the other hand, seems to be looking for a method of cleanly writing Hebrew words for those who already know how to pronounce them, hence ch and h. Wikipedia should have something in the middle, and I say the h should stay.

Okay, I've presented my case. It's open season on me now. :)  —Rafi Neal |T/C 03:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem w/ using a final h when a word ends in Hebrew with ה, and hh with mapiq. As for the other "h-sounds", ch for ח and kh for ך are my preferences (and not simply for pedantic or academician reasons as some have charged when this has been discussed in the past—for some of us, they are entirely different sounds). Redaktor makes a very good point, however, that ending words with -h should not be used as a pronunciation-assist. His example of gemarah* (for גמרא) is a good one, but a much better example of just how ridiculous the "prounciation-assist" use of -h could become, is rah* (for רע), which should be either rang or ra` (and yes, the `ayin is pronounced). As for "Petah Tiqwa", that should be "Petach Tiqva" at the very least (since כּ is not pronounced the same as ק)... Cheers, Tomertalk 05:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I've never heard of ng for ע. I kind of like it for pronunciation help, but as transliteration it's a little bizarre for English speakers. The ע sound is also more gutteral than the ng sound, and "rang" looks like it would be pronounced "raing" ("He rang the bell"). I like your ch vs. kh and k vs. q distinction too, except that using a kh and q is a little wierd in English. I guess a priority for me is that transliterations be comfortable-looking for English speakers, which Artscroll's system is.
Back to the point (we should be discussing final h here): I also 100% condemn "gemarah" and "rah" as poor transliterations. However, I would transliterate פתח תקוה as "Petach Tikvah." As for ק=k, note that HaTikvah, Israel's national anthem, is almost unanimously spelled with a k. Interestingly, as for HaTikvah's final h, a Google search of either spelling is split almost 50-50. And symbolically, Wikipedia's article on "Hatikvah" is internally incosistent with the spelling, though the transliteration of the lyrics consistently uses the final h. Any final-h dissenters want to input?  —Rafi Neal |T/C 03:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Ng for Hebrew: ע is perfectly normal for Spanish and Portuguese Sephardi, Italki and some Western Ashkenazi dialects (Netherlands, formerly also SW Germany). In these dialects, the ע‎ is actually traditionally pronounced as a velar nasal (with some variation as to the exact position of the tongue). This pronunciation was formerly frequently used amongst English-speaking Jews, and there are some examples of spellings like “Shemang” (שְׁמַע‎) in historical sources.[7] It has the added boon of being a good point of departure for practicing the more guttural varieties of this phoneme. -- Olve 17:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I think I have been misquoted. I am not in favour of final -h. There is no need in English to distinguish between alef and hei in final position. That is a misunderstanding. English Wikipedia is not the place for people to learn how to spell in Hebrew. Anyway, if it is that important, the relevant article can, and usually does, display the word in Hebrew. I would also like to point put that Modern Hebrew has taken words from Aramaic which end in alef and unilaterally changed the spelling to end in hei, so the difference is often arbitrary.
Thanks to Tomer for mentioning words ending in ayin. It is a particular bugbear of mine seeing people spell them in English with a final -h.--Redaktor 15:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I concur. There is no difference between a silent alef and a silent he, and there's no reason why they should be distinguished in transliteration.--Doron 22:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Rafi, you raise some interesting points, but I think you are not taking the following 2 things into account:

  1. Your argument is based on the assumption that ch or kh is used for het. While some support this, I believe it's at least ruled out for words with the het in the beginning, like Holon (Cholon? Kholon?), Hadera, etc. Therefore for consistency, it is also useful to use h for het at the end of words, even though it's sometimes unintuitive. Therefore, as long as there is no consensus to use ch or kh for het (and I doubt there will be), it would be very confusing to also use h for every hei, even when it's used as a vowel.
  2. We are discussing the transliteration of Hebrew words, not the transcription. It is not our job to teach non-Hebrew-speakers Hebrew. As long as there's a uniform transliteration, any non-Hebrew-speaker who has no idea how to pronounce what we've displayed, can always click a little question mark near the transliteration which will talk him to this page. This works for {{Nihongo}}.

Please consider these 2 points. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry Redaktor, I wasn't assuming your view on h, I was only referring to the examples you brought up. I have to think about Ynhockey's points, but here are my meantime thoughts: Wouldn't transliteration promote an h for hei more than transcription? And as for your first point, aren't words beginning in hei spelled with an h? So there will still be chet/hei confusion, no matter where you draw the line. I am most comfortable using ch for all het's (or chet's!) and h for all hei's, as most Americanizations of Hebrew have done (eg. challah). So yes, I guess my argument is based on the assumption that het is not h. But I see where you're coming from.  —Rafi Neal |T/C 02:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Rafi is right in that we are aiming for something approaching transcription rather than transliteration (which is awkward from an abjad to an alphabet). Yes, there is an issue about hei and chet at the beginning of words, which is very difficult to resolve satisfactorily. Some people transcribe (or transliterate—it doesn't matter which here) chet as x, which is a clean method of distinction, but it would just confuse 99% of English readers. Strictly speaking one ought to distinguish hei and chet, although, as the above discussion shows, that turns out to be difficult. I would be willing to agree with Rafi that ch is often used for chet, so there is an acceptable case for running with that. It is not an issue of right or wrong. One could in theory choose any symbol. Whatever is agreed though should include a link to a pronunciation table. In this case it should explain that ch is merely a placeholder for a letter whose pronunciation is .... in various dialects.--Redaktor 14:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Bad bad bad bad bad, and you're all wrong. [!]Nuff said [for now...more later, just didn't want to let my silence pass as acquiescence... :-)]... Tomertalk 04:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
You make a good point, Redaktor. I pronounce chet similar to a chaf, while many dialects pronounce it (probably more correctly) closer to hei's sound. That makes a big difference how you transcribe. In some dialects the hei is not even pronounced at the beginning of a word, and this whole discussion would be ridiculous.  —Rafi Neal |T/C 04:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
This discussion has strayed somewhat from its subject. Do we have a consensus in favour on not transcribing final silent ה?--Redaktor 12:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
My vote goes for no, except in cases where it is already established (e.g. Hatikvah and Hanukkah). Off-topic, but I was shocked to find Matza at Matzo. Who calls it Matzo? Number 57 13:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Final silent ה  : I agree. Matzo? about half a million Google hits!!!--Redaktor 06:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Just to make sure we all understand what we're voting for -- this does not include he with mapik, which, by definition, is not silent.--Doron 07:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Vowels in transliterations

Before I go "correcting" things, I just found several uses of "ay" (in Tallit) to represent what I believe is supposed to be [eɪ], [e], or [ɛɪ], rather than [aɪ]. I don't want to step on someone's toes in case whoever put those transliterations in there really pronounces tzere that way. Tomertalk 21:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw just one example. Be that as it may, yes, Polish Jews do pronounce tsere as diphthong [aɪ]. But that does not have to influence how tsere is represented on WP. --Redaktor 17:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Methodology

Perhaps a bit late, but I think we should really start by agreeing on a set of principles. Everyone here has his favorite transliteration and we won't get anywhere if we keep discussing each letter of the alphabet (luckily there are only 22!). This has always been the problem -- the discussion focuses too much on each letter and eventually everyone loses track and loses interest. I think we should take a break from the H/CH/KH debates for a moment and decide first what are the principles. We need to discuss:

  • Conformity: should we base our transliteration on an established system (which? how closely should we follow it?) or should we make up a completely new one?
  • Consistency: should we allow the same vowel or consonant to be written in several different ways, or should we restrict it to just one?
  • Relation to spelling and pronunciation: Since spelling does not reflect modern pronunciation, which should be the base for our system?
  • Complexity: should we sacrifice accuracy for simplicity?
  • Special characters: should diacritics be allowed, and when?

Let me just remind you that we are discussing a general scheme for transliteration of Hebrew words, not including words whose origin is Hebrew such as Moses or Hanukkah and have already became English words, and not including Hebrew words that already have an established transliteration.--Doron 22:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding special characters, I don't believe they should be used; Unicode characters don't show up on a lot of browsers and we should be aiming for character simplicity.
Also, what do you mean by sacrificing accuary for simplicity? Could you give an example? Number 57 10:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

My 2 cents, point by point:

  • Conformity: I don't think it's even really possible to create a completely new transliteration system; it will inevitably be based on another. I suggest taking a academy as a basis, but changing many principles (see next points).
  • Consistency: Definitely. There are a lot of contexts where different spellings are relevant. Just like other languages, Hebrew has many dialetcs, plus it's an old language with many words out of use today which are usually transliterated in a certain way. I'm not talking about established English words (Jerusalem, kippah, etc.) but for example Talmudic words wouldn't usually be transliterated as modern Israeli terms. In short, context is important, just like with variations of English.
  • Complexity: I think so, as long as all the most widely used dialetcs agree on it. For example, no common Hebrew dialetct today differentiates between Kuf and Kaf, therefore they should be the same. Not so with Het vs. Khaf (sorry for going into that debate again!)
  • Special characters: Only in expanded transliterations, infoboxes and such. They should never be used in titles, headings and primary transliterations (first transliteration in the lead section). I think this is what naming conventions are really about, therefore the short answer is no.

-- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Different conventions?

After being part of this discussion virtually from the beginning, I have come to the conclusion, like Doron, that some points are very difficult to resolve. I propose making several different context-based conventions which will all be on this guideline page. Most importantly, I'm proposing to separate transliterations for place names (cities, towns and villages mainly, except Israeli Arab ones, which should use Arabic transliteration). There are a few obvious things about place name transliteration which aren't for other things. This not only goes back to the H vs CH vs KH for het argument (in place names, het is never spelled with anything but an h), but also other things like vav (waw?) vs. vet, etc.

Basically, for example, we can decide the transliteration for places names, then for Ashkenazi-related text transliteration, then for Talmudic, etc. There needs to be one general standard, but it will only apply to very vague cases where the context is unclear, or there are several possible contexts.

-- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Well said.  —Rafi Neal |T/C 04:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't have sufficient time presently to address this in depth, but he, cheth, and khaf are all three very different sounds. Cheth is only vaguely closer to he than it is to khaf, but eventhough they are often confused in the speech of Ashkenazim is no reason to obliterate reality in favor of Ashkenazic mispronunciations (due, in large part, to the reduced phonology of Ashkenazi Hebrew, due to no fault of Ashkenazim, just a matter of happenstance of two millennia among people whose languages had no capacity to differentiate the sounds, much less pronounce them properly...)... Cheth is like a he, but pronounced with the same throat restriction as when pronouncing `ayin [properly!], khaf is the voiceless equivalent of the way most Ashkenazim [who don't use the English "r" sound] pronounce resh...which for those of us who still distinguish all the bg"d kp"t letters, sounds far more like a "gh" than anything else [the "Resh", that is]... W vs. V for vav/waw is a far more restricted [but still valid] differentiation, since /w/ is used by Egyptian and Teimani Jews (Egyptian Jews don't have a /v/ at all, in fact, since they don't differentiate between beth and veth, but pronounce vav as waw...my Hebrew, on the other hand, has both /b/ and /v/, but doesn't differentiate, phonologically, between veth and vav...) This kind of dialect-specific "problem" with how to handle transliterations is why I've long supported what IZAK calls "academician" standards. I support differentiating q and k (since I pronounce ק very differently from כ [with dagesh]), etc., and so for me Kaddish should, without room for equivocation, be at Qadish. Posek should be at Poseq, etc. Oooh, look where the redirects go now, regardless of where the articles started out! OK, enough griping from the Ashkenazi-dominated wiki-oppressed minority for now...I really should be working on my program... Tomertalk 06:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Tomer, I'm a firm advocate of v'ahavta lerei'acha kamocha (excuse my own transliteration style) and have close Sephardic family, so I'm well aware of the "correct" pronunciation of Hebrew and have no intention to "dominate" or "oppress" you whatsoever. I have been advocating a non-"academician" transliteration because many words, especially religious terms like "Kaddish," have made it to English through American Ashkenazic use, and have followed a transliteration method similar to Artscroll's that I am sure you find reprehensible. These are the spellings that many are used to, check Google for proof. If it helps at all, most articles do introduce Hebrew terms with an IPA key of the various ways the word is pronounced, but after that the articles use the Anglecized version that is used by many on a daily basis.
I understand your objection to having your pronunciation being "sidelined" in many cases, and agree that your pronunciation is more accurate and deserves prominence in Wikipedia. But think how if you got your way across the board, the Ashkenazic majority would feel "sidelined" instead. That's why I agree with Ynhockey that we should have several conventions for different contexts, which, inevitably, will be inconsistent with each other for hei, chaf, and het/chet, etc. I say that Ynhockey has proposed a fair compromise. Wikipedia should be a model for how differently different Jews speak etc., yet still have so much in common!  —Rafi Neal |T/C 02:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I really shouldn't be looking at WP, but I'm still not done with this subject... I just wanted to pop in and say that I think the redirect from bris→brit milah is acceptable, although I'd rather see brith milah. OK, it's doubtful I'll have time to even show up here tomorrow/Friday, so Shabath Shalom, or, to reduce arguments about spelling, שבת שלום.  :-) Tomertalk 07:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

IDF corps naming conventions

I think we're forgetting that Hebrew naming conventions apply not only to transliteration, but also to the way in which we should name articles which are about Hebrew things. In any case, I have started a discussion here, please take a look in case you're not part of WP Israel. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Rewriting the 'draft'

I will attempt to rewrite the entire page/draft of the naming conventions today, so that we can finally make it an 'active guideline' on Wikipedia. It seems like all the major points have been touched on and the only disputed one right now is het/chet/khet, where I will leave an explanation. I will base the rewrite on consensus reached here as well as the already-accepted transliterations on Wikipedia which everyone seems to use without objections. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 16:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have re-written the draft as promised. It seems to be quite complete as of right now. If there's no opposition, I will officially upgrade the draft's status into a guideline, the result of almost 3 years of work! If there are objections, please open a new section or sub-section on this talk page for each objection and we will try to resolve the issues by compromising, as quickly and painlessly as possible. I will inform a few more involved users (in hopes that they are active) of this discussion. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me. TBH, I think I'm ready to accept H for Het, as due to one of our recent conversations, I've realised that using the IPA is probably the best method for showing pronounciation as opposed to transliteration. As I was pretty much the only one opposing "h" before, perhaps we can accept that as consensus too? пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

He at the end of words

Actually, there is one other issue which is not covered - the transliteration of ה at the end of words. Obviously for cases such as רַמְלָה it would just be an a (rather than "ah"), but in cases such as ראמֶה, sometimes just leaving an "e" on the end can be confusing (e.g. Rame as opposed to Rameh); the magic "e" in English may make people think Rame rhymes with fame or game, whereas with the alternative transliteration of Rameh, it is clear that it sounds like Ram-ay. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Formatted comments if you don't mind
I thought this issue was resolved a long time ago, but in any case, I can definitely see your reasoning. However, at the same time it's very hard to draw the line, and introduce a clear guideline for this issue, therefore, I think it's best to just keep the he off the ends of words period. There is however the issue of Arabic words in Hebrew, which could be an exception (although there are Hebrew words with this issue too). I remember having a debate about this with Shuki over the word mat(t)e(h). I proposed using matte, which won in the end, but now that I think about it, it might not have been the best of ideas. However, I still don't support using mateh. A compromise could be to use accents in in-line transliterations as used in Israel Defense Forces ranks. Thus, mateh would be maté, leaving no doubt. It wouldn't work for article and section names though, obviously. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there aren't many examples thankfully; Matte is a good compromise as the double letter negates the "magic e", but doubling wouldn't work everywhere. Your point about Arabic names is a good one (Reineh and Kamanneh are other examples), so perhaps there should be a note to the effect that ה at the end is always "a", except where the source of the name is Arabic (i.e. ending in ه), in which case it becomes "eh". пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem with Arabic is that we're treading on foreign territory here. I haven't yet read that long proposed guideline for Arabic anyway (since where is it proposed? I remember it being active a while ago), and will comment again as soon as I do. For now though, there's still the issue of similar Hebrew words. As I said, I don't think matte is a generally good idea. It represents a double standard for dagesh usage, plus, not all similar words have a dagesh. How about kane (gun barrel)? (קָנֶה‎) There needs to be another option. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 21:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess -eh does have some currency and acceptance with things like [Yitzhak Sadeh]] and Mashabei Sadeh, so as far as I can see it may well be the best solution for Hebrew-origin הֶ. -ay is a similar sound, but I don't think we could justify using it. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

New suggestion

I have been carefully reading the discussions on this issue on this page (between making maps), and thinking, and came to the following conclusion:
There's really no reason to use he at the ends of most words, because it's silent and there's no way anyone could get confused as to the transcription for words like Hanna (instead of Hannah). However, there's one combination which could get potentially confusing, which has been discussed numerous times on this page - the eh at the ends of words (mate(h), sade(h), kane(h)). At the same time, it is very rare that het is placed at the end of a word right before an e sound (I believe that the only cases are Arabic-derived names like Salleh (סלאח), which could also be Sallah). Therefore, it is actually not harmful to allow h for he at the ends of words only when the combination is eh. For other cases, the he should be omitted. If there's no objection, I will add this to the draft and consider this case closed. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 13:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Me too. I have one issue though. When there is a commonly accepted translation/transliteration, (ex. Torah), then the inline transliteration should be the same as the article title to avoid confusion to non-Hebrew speakers. Epson291 (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
For common words such as Torah, which have a very similar transliteration, there's probably no need for an in-line transliteration, and the Anglicized version can be used at all times. However, technically I think that if someone decides to introduce a direct transliteration, it should be according to the table. For example, Torah (תּוֹרָה‎ Tora). -- Ynhockey (Talk) 08:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, for a direct established English (Anglicized) transliteration, the transliteration WP provides should match that, provided the established one is clear, for consistency sake within the article. Epson291 (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
What you do suppose is the harm in displaying a one-time copy of the transliteration per this guideline, as outlined above? It is already done in Jerusalem, and doesn't seem to hurt consistency there. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

אותיות השימוש

Just pointing out, someone should write a concise article on this so it can be referenced to from this article. Epson291 (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I could write it, but wouldn't know how to name the article anyway. This guideline is only useful to Hebrew-speakers anyway, or those with a basic understanding of Hebrew, so a link can be given to the Hebrew wiki article for now. What do you think? -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The most accessible would be a quick translation at Letters of use, though the quick and dirty aproach of a link to the Hebrew article would work too. Epson291 (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Abbreviations

I completely forgot that we have had practically no discussion on abbreviations. What little discussion we've had only established that they should not be capitalized. However, there's much more to abbreviations in Hebrew than that. My main suggestion is to treat abbreviations completely like regular Hebrew words, because they are just that. For example, some abbreviations (especially military) can be treated as verbs, adjectives, etc. ("Simple soldier": Hayal Pashut - Hapash (חפ"ש); Hapshan (חפש"ן) - "lazy", literally, acting like a simple soldier; Lehithapshen (להחפש"ן) - "to act lazy", literally, to act like a simple soldier). There are many more examples. Thus, all regular transliteration rules should also apply to abbreviations, IMO. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 09:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, they are treated as words in Hebrew, so they should be in English as well. Epson291 (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
There is one exception, which does not pertain to Israel, but is Hebrew nonetheless, and that is Honorifics for the dead in Judaism, they are abbreviated in a a different way in Enlglish. (ex. ז"ל as z"l). Epson291 (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. It has been put into the article. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Epson291 (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Major organizational problem

Per above, I am realizing more and more that the organization of this page is problematic, although my proposed solution is actually very simple, to the point of changing just one section title and a few minor clarifications. However, it's kind of a major issue and I'm not sure there is consensus for it.

Let me explain: it appears that most users agree that inline transliterations which come right after Hebrew text (for example: Peace (Hebrew: שלום Shalom) should follow the same transliteration guideline, regardless of diaspora subset, time period, etc. This is the guideline currently titled 'pertains to modern Israel'. However, for actual subject (article/section) naming, there definitely have to be several guidelines.

My suggestion is to make a very clear difference between the two (for many languages, there are actually two guidelines for this! The first is called Manual of Style (language), while the second is called Naming conventions (language).) In practice, I'm suggesting the following:

  • Renaming 'When a topic pertains primarily to modern Israel' to 'Standard transliteration'
  • Clarifying that in-line transliterations unrelated to the subject article/section's title, which follow the Hebrew writing, should follow the guideline in question, and the other time the guideline should be followed is in naming, when the subject pertains to modern Israel
  • In the 'definitions' section, define clearly the differences between this in-line transliteration and actual article/section naming
  • Introduce a simple change to the consonant table (for the long-talked-about het): when naming articles/sections pertaining to modern Israel, it should always be h, while in in-line transliterations per above, it should always be h with a diacritic or underline (like h)

This is possibly the most important change still left to make on this page, and after it is made, we can finally call it a guideline. Any thoughts?

-- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

What I am confused about the most (for how it is now), is shouldn't all these article naming 'rules' also apply to inline? Epson291 (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Both right now, and in my proposed version, article and section naming is slightly to significantly different from in-line transliterations, for the following reasons:
1) Technical reasons - article names should not have diacritics, like for het (h), while there's no such problem for in-line.
2) Existing all-Wikipedia naming conventions, namely WP:ENGLISH and WP:COMMONNAME dictate that Anglicized names should be preferred for article naming. However, this does not mean that the name is anywhere close to the Hebrew transliteration. In fact, the article name may even be a translation (e.g. Israel Border Guard (מג"ב Magav)).
3) Transliterations should be uniform and (at least mostly) follow a single guideline, in order to avoid confusion. For example, gazetteers always have uniform transliteration guidelines. However, article names do not need to do this, again, per WP:COMMONNAME (an example you yourself provided is Torah, which would be transliterated Tora, also for example Beersheba (באר שבע Be'er Sheva)).
I'm sure there are many more reasons to have a uniform transliteration guide, which would apply to all instances of Hebrew regardless of origin. However, this would not influence actual article and section naming, or even the use of the word in an article (Torah would still be Torah, except in an italicized in-line transliteration after the Hebrew in the lead), except (in this case) in subjects pertaining to modern Israel.
-- Ynhockey (Talk) 23:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, but I assume you need more input then me. Epson291 (talk) 04:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, just with a minor thing that I think there should be a comma between the Hebrew and the transliteration, i.e. Hebrew: באר שבע, Be'er Sheva. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Where it says, Carmel City (עִיר הַכַּרְמֶל‎ Ir HaKarmel), should it not be Carmel City (Hebrew: עִיר הַכַּרְמֶל‎ Ir HaKarmel)?

Fixed. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 23:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Israeli-centric guideline

Why is this abbreviation policy only on the "Israeli" section, it would apply to any people with abbreviations, like Rambam, even if it pertains to situations before or outside Israel. It should be moved for all Hebrew. Opinions? Epson291 (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess it reflects the flawed way in which this page is organized. I organized it this way because there was consensus over time that each Jewish subset/historical period should have a slightly different guideline. However, in my personal opinion, there should only be an explanatory paragraph + list of differences for every such thing. I agree with you for this particular section though, and will make it a higher-tier section. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good Epson291 (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments regarding guideline

  1. I added information on adding IPA inline
  2. I added a paragraph to be filled in once there is consensus on a final he.
  3. I added a table for a pre-Diasporic Jewry format, though I'm not sure if there has been a consensus made on it.
  4. Should diacritics for chet and tsadi not be with a dot underneath
  5. Should a tzeire not sometimes include the transliteration 'ei'
  6. I added letters to avoid, i.e., q for kuf, th for tav, s and z for tsadi

Epson291 (talk) 01:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

As per the discussion above, underlining the "h" of het is a possibility. However, for tsadik there is no point, as there was consensus for "tz" - a dot is only needed if it's a Z or S. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
1) I re-added the IPA section, no problem there
2) See comments below
3) No consensus at all, plus you should probably have formatted it differently (Hebrew template and comments field, at least). This isn't a very important issue as I see it anyway, and there are very few disputes about transliterations from that time (there are usually widely-accepted English translations of the text with the appropriate transliterations)
4) We've had this discussion (see above)
5) Consensus already reached
6) That's not really a problem, although I think it still shouldn't be in the guideline because it's more confusing and there needs to be a clarification about Arabic names in Hebrew, which will have many of those transliterations
In reply to your general edits and comments: We could've re-factored this page a million times and made it ridiculously complicated, all in the spirit of a proposal, as you put it on my talk page. However, as I noted in my paragraph called "Rewriting the 'draft'", this is supposed to be a stable draft, completely based on consensus, and indirectly asked other editors not to edit the page, but talk it out. This is because, from about 2 years experience in this particular page, I have come to understand that the only way to resolve the problem is by proposing a draft and not making incremental edits which will be reverted anyway by disagreeing users. This is also why: 1) I didn't appreciate your changing everything without talking about it first, and 2) I have not included a few minor details for which there's no clear consensus (like he at the ends of words), in order to avoid having to do incremental upgrades to the page. When an issue is sorted out, I will add a section for it without the need for minor edits, or if there's strong opposition, I'll introduce a new draft based on the new consensus.
Finally, I apologize for not replying to this particular talk section earler. I didn't notice it, and thanks for bringing it up on my talk page.
-- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. The guideline, whether it's a draft or not, should say there is no consensus on a final position he, because without it, according to the table above, there should be an additional h (as he is transliterated with an h), and its as good as endorsing it.
  3. The table for Diasporic Jewry, was gotten from this talk page (above), so I did not format it. And the way I see it, there should be no Naming convenion guideline on the Hebrew language unless something is worked out for Ancient Hebrew and the like.
  4. You commented that consensus was already reached, but it was not in the article before my edit so I assume it was forgoten then
  5. I also disagree with you on that, because the Offical Academia's transliteration system, which is mentioned as the modified source, uses q for all kuf's, and w for consanant vav. It really needs to be mentioned that this use is discouraged, and clearly a note on Arabic usage could be made, but really fully Arabic derived names should be transliterated according to an Arabic naming convention.
And not to rehash, but your "indirect asking other editors not to edit the page, but talk it out" is an odd thing to say, as clearly I had no way to understand or witness this 'indirect' response. Until I read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel and the noticeboard I thought this project was inactive. Epson291 (talk) 12:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies Epson. I think we are close to reaching a conclusion to the argument about he at the ends of words; feel free to comment on the issue. I am also prepared to accept your additions about avoiding certain diacritics (on k, z, etc.) and will add it to the draft shortly.
However, I will have to completely disagree with your position on ancient Hebrew. As I said before, the cases where ancient Hebrew words don't have widely-accepted English transliterations are minimal, and therefore I don't see it as a problem at all and don't think we even need to come up with a guideline about it on Wikipedia. However, if you strongly feel that we do need such a guideline, I think the issue should be discussed much more in-depth before anything is done, because it has had very little discussion before, and it is not clear whether consensus has been reached about any of it (ancient Hebrew is very problematic also because there are many versions, depends on what you call 'ancient').
-- Ynhockey (Talk) 13:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I made two small changes, as you can see, to clarify what you wrote above, hopefully these you won't revert. ;) Epson291 (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I see you removed "kh" from het, what about khaf? Epson291 (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The edits are good. I believe kh is the standard transliteration for khaf; I've seen it as ch in some cases, but really it's a x (IPA) sound, which is usually kh in English. No one has raised an objection so far for kh as khaf. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The ch is from Yiddish/Ashk. Hebrew/German for either chet or chaf. I wouldn't use it for modern Hebrew places/names [excluding bibical names]. (And het is also x in IPA) Epson291 (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm willing to forego a particular guideline on ancient Hebrew as to put this to rest and to get this policy ready to be upgraded. Epson291 (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Good, that only leaves a couple minor issues. What is your opinion on my proposal for he at the end of words? By the way, the issue about het is a common misconception. In correct Hebrew, it is clearly ħ (like in Arabic) and not x in IPA. Unfortunately there is only a minority of Hebrew-speakers today who say it like that, but I'm not too concerned because the majority of Hebrew-speakers make grammar and pronunciation mistakes in almost every word/sentence in simple speech. This shouldn't affect this guideline anyway. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I commented above already on the he at the end of words, and as for het/khaf, you're right, but I was aware that this particular pronunciation (IPA: x) originated from an Ashkenazi consonant merger (among others). Epson291 (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Application of the rules

Talk:Meitar#Spelling may require some input. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit on italics

Check out my edit on the italics section, there was a slight mistake that gave examples of words like bris [which is really taken from the Yiddish though] and rabbi as ones to italicize. The truth is these are the ones that shouldn't be italicized, considering they're already English. Epson291 (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually quite confused by this line "proper names in in-line transliterations ... will be italicized", Doesn't this go against the MOS? I won't make any more edits, and if this was established by consensus, point me to it please, because I've never head of proper names being italicized. Epson291 (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understood the previous version. It gave examples of bris (which is from Hebrew, even according to Webster, read the linked page again) and rabbi as words not to italicized. I will now clarify about that, factoring in some of your additions.
About names in in-line transliterations ... will be italicized - this does not go against the MOS at all, because it's not regular text used in prose, and is widely accepted on Wikipedia. Off the top of my head, see this example.
-- Ynhockey (Talk) 02:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
You're correct I didn't understand it Epson291 (talk) 07:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

How about something like this below, it unconfuses it for me. Epson291 (talk) 08:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


Note: None of the following sections apply to article or section namings.

When to use italics

In in-line Hebrew the word should be italicized, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Foreign terms if the following conditions are met:

  1. It is not a proper noun (unique place or a person's name).
  2. Is not an English word taken from Hebrew. That is, it is not in an English dictionary (words such as rabbi, bris, etc...).

Also:

  1. Proper names in in-line transliterations coming directly after Hebrew text will be italicized.
Examples
Examples Comment
beit he'avot (Hebrew: בֵּית הֶאָבוֹת, lit: "home of the patriarchs") Italicized because the first two conditions were met (i.e., it is not a proper noun or found in an English dictionary).
Beit HaKerem (Hebrew: בֵּית הַכֶּרֶם beit hakrem, lit: "House of the Vineyard") The first "Beit HaKerem" is not italicized because it is a proper noun. The second "Beit HaKerem" is italicized because it is a in-line transliterations coming directly after Hebrew text.
Carmel City (Hebrew: עִיר הַכַּרְמֶל, Ir HaKarmel) "Carmel City" is not italicized because it is the standard English name for the city. The word, "Ir HaKarmel" is italicized because it is a in-line transliterations coming directly after Hebrew text.
menorah (Hebrew: מְנוֹרָה, menora) The word "menorah" is not italicized because it is in the English dictionary. The word, "menora" is italicized because it is a in-line transliterations coming directly after Hebrew text.

The suggestion sounds good to me. It is certainly very clear and informative. Go ahead and add it. However, you should remove the italics after Beit HaKerem (the Hebrew), because the direct transliteration is also Beit HaKerem, so it's a bad example. The example of this rule is visible in Ir HaKarmel anyway. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, also capitalize menora in the transliteration, that was also a mistake of mine, but all transliterations after the Hebrew should be capitalized because this is the standard on Wikipedia for all transliterations. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
What would be the reason to capitalize a transliteration that is a non-proper noun? Epson291 (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
As I said, this seems to be a standard on Wikipedia. There's no technical or grammatical reason to support this, although it does look aesthetic at least. And we shouldn't introduce inconsistencies anyway. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sepharadi/yemenite ches

In some sepharadi kehillos they say "ch" and not "h", in particular the Spanish Sepharadi Kehillos.--Shuliavrumi (talk) 13:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone actually pronounces the sound as 'ch', if that's what you mean. About transliteration, it is hard to believe that any Sephardic transliteration would include ch for het, since ch is a German (Ashkenazi) spelling of the h sound. Can you please clarify what you meant by your post? -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Hebrew)/Archive_4&oldid=1140384380"