A question about transliteration schemes

[squee100]

This author variously writes Sephardi ת (without דגש) as either "t" or "th." He also writes Sephardi צירי as "ai" except in the names of the letters ב, ח, ט, מ. Likewise, for Ashkenazi pronunciation he always writes "ie" for צירי except in the name of the letter ב. Would I be using his transliteration scheme correctly if I wrote "bhait" for בֵית? What about "bhaith"?

[Jason]

Why not learn a purely academic transcription system and avoid something outdated and messy like this? The word בֵית would be ḇêṯ according to the academic system. You should learn to understand messy, antiquated systems of transliteration, but using them will do you no favors in the wide world, where no one on either side of the question will understand what you're intending them to read.

[squee100]

Why not learn a purely academic transcription system and avoid something outdated and messy like this? The word בֵית would be ḇêṯ according to the academic system. You should learn to understand messy, antiquated systems of transliteration, but using them will do you no favors in the wide world, where no one on either side of the question will understand what you're intending them to read.

I'm interested in transliteration systems that intuitively reflect the actual pronunciation, and can also handle the differences between Sephardi, Ashkenazi, etc. traditions. You do make a fair point, but I'd still like an answer to my question.

[Jason]

I don't know how bh would represent anything that is really pronounced. It would be pronounced as v. It's written as bh in older sources to try to represent that it is b (bet) that is turned into a breathy sound. It's not really how it's pronounced. But, yes, many old sources used bh for vet and th for aspirated tav, etc.

[squee100]

I don't know how bh would represent anything that is really pronounced. It would be pronounced as v. It's written as bh in older sources to try to represent that it is b (bet) that is turned into a breathy sound. It's not really how it's pronounced. But, yes, many old sources used bh for vet and th for aspirated tav, etc.

I'm talking specifically about that particular book. It's almost perfectly consistent, but not exactly so. Does that mean that the spellings that would have appeared in it if it were perfectly consistent are correct according to its scheme?

[Jason]

I don't know how bh would represent anything that is really pronounced. It would be pronounced as v. It's written as bh in older sources to try to represent that it is b (bet) that is turned into a breathy sound. It's not really how it's pronounced. But, yes, many old sources used bh for vet and th for aspirated tav, etc.

I'm talking specifically about that particular book. It's almost perfectly consistent, but not exactly so. Does that mean that the spellings that would have appeared in it if it were perfectly consistent are correct according to its scheme?

Anything that is internally consistent is correct when judged by itself. That's sort of a tautology, so I don't see what I'm contributing by saying so. If he consistently transliterates בּ with b and ב with bh (and so on), then he is consistent and "correct" by his own standard. I think it's a bad standard, though. I think the system is problematic.

[squee100]

I don't know how bh would represent anything that is really pronounced. It would be pronounced as v. It's written as bh in older sources to try to represent that it is b (bet) that is turned into a breathy sound. It's not really how it's pronounced. But, yes, many old sources used bh for vet and th for aspirated tav, etc.

I'm talking specifically about that particular book. It's almost perfectly consistent, but not exactly so. Does that mean that the spellings that would have appeared in it if it were perfectly consistent are correct according to its scheme?

Anything that is internally consistent is correct when judged by itself. That's sort of a tautology, so I don't see what I'm contributing by saying so. If he consistently transliterates בּ with b and ב with bh (and so on), then he is consistent and "correct" by his own standard. I think it's a bad standard, though. I think the system is problematic.

The issue is this: while he is consistent, he isn't 100% so. What should I make of that?

[Jason]

I'd just abandon it. I don't know what you want me to tell you. It's inconsistent. It isn't the standard academic system. People were trying to figure things out. The standard system is better.

[Jason]

No. There is nothing that transliterates, as far as I know.