There are literally thousands of transliteration errors for Biblical Hebrew in the MSS transliteration [MSSt] in Logos (similarly also in parts of the Word-by-Word section, as in the Exegetical or Passage Guides) and users need to beware. (Some sample types given below.) Of course, in one regard, this warning is merely a reminder that "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
Additionally, this is a call for complete revision/update of such transliterations in Logos, especially in the MSSt (and in the Word-by-Word section). (Also, to a lesser extent, elements within the text converter tool [tc].)
The very process of breaking up components to transliterate in the MSSt is not even an actual “manuscript” transliteration (full text-form) and that process has contributed to such abundant errors.
Biblical Hebrew [BH] is frequently a componential/compositional-type language. The ubiquitous addition of prefixes and suffixes, and even close linkages of words, create sound changes to the finished MSS amalgamation/compound word-forms within BH (re. the vocalized Masoretic text). This should be accurately reflected in transliteration.
To a beginning BH student, such attendant changes can seem odd (since similar changes in English, for example, occur almost unconsciously) and generate frustration. Soon, however, deconstructing a componential form becomes an intriguing and enjoyable experience, like puzzle-solving or detective work. This work is done for an English reader in parsings and by providing the lemmas/dictionary words. Later on, for the BH learner, the very sound changes – if accurately portrayed in transliteration -- make accurate parsings more automatic.
However, tearing apart the components within a MSS form and then representing them in isolation can ignore -- completely or partially or misleadingly-- the phonological processes which were involved in the creation of the MSS composition. The result produced may then be an incorrect transliteration, mongrel forms that do not exist as BH words, or a Frankenstein-type transliteration that represents neither the individual components nor the MSS compound-form, nor even any single lemma/dictionary form.
Three common analogies may demonstrate, even to someone without any knowledge of BH, the potential danger of using a "slice-and-dice" computer-generated method to produce a transliteration, such as is apparently reflected in the MSSt ribbon of the interlinears in Logos and, to a lesser extent, can be generated in the tc.
1) Anecdotally at least, there was an early Russian computer Bible translation program used for "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." The program spit out a word-for-word "translation" as "The vodka is strong, but the meat is rotten." For the individual elements, not so far off, but for the whole, unacceptable to most readers. In fact, the result is something of a knee-slapper to anyone familiar with the original and the intended meaning of both the whole and the parts.
2) Another analogy might be drawn to the fallacy of some etymological-type deconstructions. If the term "butterfly" is broken into its components, it results in something like "levitating dairy product!" Simply break apart the components, "butter" and "fly," no?
3) Finally, consider analogies from chemistry: If a friend said he had presented you with a container of hydrogen and another of oxygen – referring to a bottle of water --would he be taken seriously? Or, a misleading chemical formula listing elements of a compound while ignoring an essential catalyst?
Something of the sort is frequently misrepresented by logos in MSSt (and sub-divisions of compounded forms in the Word-by-Word sections) and can at times be replicated via the tc.
Now one of the main reasons any preacher/teacher/writer would speak/write a transliteration is to add credence that their message is based solidly on the Hebrew text (whichever text is the basis of the exposition). As a general guideline, such references should be quite limited. But, if such a citation is offered, an improper transliteration can actually undercut the credibility of the speaker/writer, being a public display of an actual lack of BH knowledge.
[To clarify, this has nothing to do with individual or dialectical or historically-influenced pronunciations, but rather any Hebrew MSS form under discussion. Transliteration of a text-form itself can be distinguished from, say, Ashkenazi vs. Sephardic Jewish pronunciation or Germanic-influenced vav vs. waw pronunciation. And a long A differs from a short o, no matter how these are represented in any transliteration system.]
Previously I pointed to multitudinous places of kol-, "all-of" [kaph-qamets chatuph-lamed in construct with maqqeph linkage; cf. GKC #9r and #9u1(c)] incorrectly in MSSt as kAl, with long A, Gn 1.21, etc; similarly in tc, unless the entire BH construct phrase is entered, then it is generally correctly transliterated with a short o.
Below are some additional types of constructions to give an inkling of the many misleading transliterations, perhaps most easily found in the MSSt.
[I use a simple transliteration system for the vowels, without diacritics, to represent vowels at issue: long a/qamets > A, vs. short o/qamets chatuph > o. Transliteration of actual full manuscript forms from tc are copied using the Simplified transliteration system there. However, where there is another distinct, long o vowel/cholem is represented as O, so as to distinguish that from short o which is at issue in many of the exx.]
Noun + pronominal suffix [pro suf] causing reduction:
1 Sm 20.30 long A, can be created in tc like MSSt; correctly as short o in full form tc levoshtekha “to your shame”
**1 Sm 22.8 same form 2x in text!; incorrectly as long A for 1st use; but correctly as short o for 2d use in the verse! [So MSSt contradicts itself!] Full form correctly in tc: eth-ozniy, “(opening) my ear”
Infinitive construct [Qal inf cnst]+ pro suf forms incorrectly as qamets/long A for the inf cnst base/theme vowel. [See for correct transliteration of such inf cnst forms + suffix as qamets chatuph/short o in Lambdin # 115 (pg 128).]:
Dt 6.7 incorrect "base" as long A in both; full form correctly as short o in tc: uveshokhbekha , “and in your lying down”
Jr 45.1 kAth; but * tc for full form correctly has short koth-bO, "in his writing"
1 Sm 13:1 mAlk but * tc for full form correctly has short mol-kO, “(in) his reigning”
Lv 7.36 mAsh' VS full form correctly in tc moshchO, “to anoint him”
1 Sm 19.11 long A, vs. correctly in tc for full MSS form leshomrO,”to watch him”
Similarly, when a noun/here the "subject," is attached by maqqeph to an inf cnst:
1 Sm 22.8 correctly short o in tc for full form, bikhroth-beni, “in my son's cutting/making”
Jussive when particle of entreaty is attached:
1 Sm 16.22 incorrectly as long A in MSSt; correctly short o in full form in tc: ya'amod-na*, “Let stand/serve”
"Imperfect"/wayyiqtol/waw consecutive + preterite form affixed with maqqeph to a following prepositional phrase:
1 Sm 17: 51 yikrAt in MSSt; can be created as same incorrect form in tc; correctly entire multi-form in tc: wayyikhroth-bah, “and he cut with it”
Reduction from cholem theme vowel to short o when a pron suffix is added to waw consec + impf/preterite:
1 Sm 15.17 long A in MSSt; correctly in tc wayyimoskha “and He anointed you”
Occasionally qamets chatuph preceding compound patach shewa; here in Qal inf cnst base:
1 Sm 15.1 mehshAch in both VS correctly in tc short o, limshohokha , “to anoint you”[For this and other exx of same as well as different types, cf. GKC#9v, p. 50]
Similarly, qamets chatuph before compound shewa qamets chatuph for a few nouns [cf. Furtato 9.9].
1 Sam 17.54 long A for cut-up form in both; correctly in tc for full MSS form as be'oholO [cf. "the majority of commentators are inclined to emend the text from be’oholo, “his tent,” to be’oholi, “tent [of Yahweh.”- Barber, The Books of Samuel, vol. One, 206n20"]
Directive [locative] suffix -Ah (Lambdin #58 w/many exx; Gkc #90i on the long A; sometimes incorrectly as -oh in both Mss Transl and in tc; other times correctly in both.)
1 Sam 15.12 hakkarmeloh incorrectly as short o in both! “to-Carmel” [But correct in other places:1 Sm 16.13, 19:18 haramathAh correct in both; 17.49 aretsAh correctly in both MSSt and tc.]
Similarly, -Ah ending on an adverb:
1 Sm 19.17 short o in both, incorrectly as kakhoh; yet correctly in Bible Word Study tool, and #3970 DBL ka·ka(h, and correct even in some places in the context menu.
Less consequentially, but certainly abundantly,and further grist showing the need for an update, daghesh forte conjunctivum is not even represented in transliteration for partis/components in both; but correctly doubled in tc when conjoined by maqqeph as the unified form :
1 Chr 29.18 zoth in both when separated; shomrah-zzoth as conjoined in tc
1 Sm 22.3 (conjunctivum 2x in single multi-form!) both represented for full form in tc: mah-yya'aseh-lli
These samples of some amalgamated forms – where transliteration errors-by-division may readily be produced – occur many times in biblical Hebrew and other types could be added. So, as per the Hill Street Blues admonishment, “Let's be careful out there” when using the transliterations in logos.
Until an update is forthcoming: In the Word-by-Word sections of the Guides, prefer the transliteration given for the full MSS text form. If using the MSSt or tc, copying and pasting the full MSS form into the tc is recommended to avoid some such errors.
