Re: resha/reisha


karenelizabeth3@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Lisa wrote:
> >
> > In any case, I've seen the spellings resha and sefa, and there's
> > nothing at all wrong with them, in principle. Yes, using
> > transliterations that are different than what most people are used to
> > seems like it would defeat the purpose. But you *know* that Jacko
> > transliterates differently. It's purely lame to pretend you didn't
> > know that.
> >
> Its clearly the problem with transliteration, and not one we're likely
> to solve easily. Nonetheless, in cases where the speaker could
> reasonably expect to be misunderstood, wouldn't it be logical to either
> follow the majority convention or to explain?

He's explained more than once in the past. And what gets me the most
is that in this particular case, people continued to claim that he
meant something even after he clarified. That's just rude.

> While you understand
> Jacko's style, and while you may well be right that Steve does as well,
> that's not true of the entire universe of readers of this group,
> including lurkers. If the purpose of this group is to communicate
> ideas, then it behooves each speaker to do so in as clear a manner as
> possible.

I've argued that myself in the past. Personally, I'm not even
consistent when it comes to transliteration. I'll write Torah, and
never Tora (unless I'm talking about the movie), but I spell my
daughter's name Tova, and never Tovah. I generally use "ch" for a het,
and "kh" for a khaf, but sometimes I use a "h" instead of a "ch", or a
"ch" instead of a "kh". Depends on what the readers are more likely to
understand.

> Nonetheless, the real reason for this post is to say how pleased I am
> to see you posting, and that I hope you are doing well.

Um... thanks. Don't you usually dislike me, though? It's hard to keep
track of my anti-fan club.

Lisa

.