Previous posts in two other threads might be read as the ravings of a crackpot, rather than someone who is advocating for improvement in Logos' BH transliterations. Further, the impression previously given in a prior thread of a mere four such “bugs” in the tc tool [and hence reproduced multiple times in Logos] might mistakenly imply there are only a few such mistransliterations.
So here I want to highlight just one construction that occurs hundreds of times in BH. It is mostly mistransliterated in Logos as one may see by a careful reading of a premier BH grammar (Jouon, and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 2006, Part One, #6) as a support and starting point. A few such mistranslations, with a bit of additional support is provided. (Because not many people follow Thomas a Kempis' advice, paraphrasing, “Consider what is said, not who may have said it.”)
Also, below is a reminder that this issue is indeed troublesome to users and has previously been addressed and ignored in this very forum.
Time would fail me to tell of many mistransliterations of Qal pf 3cp; waw-consecutive preterites of hollow verbs sometimes; some impfs + pro suffix, and inf cnst + other element; (cf. Seow Ia i), p.2); some imperatives or impv + pro suff forms; defectivo-written long vowels transliterated as short; silent shewa mistransliterated as vocal; non-representations of daghesh forte; word-stress errors for words with a post-positive accent or replicated accent, the directive -Ah at times; misreadings of metheq as always “indispensable” marking an increase in vowel length (cf. Blake, Frank R. The Hebrew Metheg. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 1912, Vol. 32, No. 1 (1912):78-102.); or rare forms mentioned in J-M #6 and commonly in introductory BH grammars.
So here attention is given primarily to one construction, but occurring very many times in BH, often mistransliterated in Logos: the Qal perfect/qAtal 3fs. See Jouon, and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 2006, Part One, #6m.
Some of these forms are indeed correctly transliterated in tc tool, IF the first open syllable is marked by a metheg. Where there is no metheg, tc almost invariably renders it incorrectly as I-C-qamets chatuph-II-C (=1 syllable, closed with silent shewa) + III-C + -Ah fs ending (= 2d syllable). The first two examples refer to a root specifically mentioned in J-M en loc.
2 Sm 18.8; Jb 15.34 (and many more times with this single root!) she|it-ate okhlah tc [This transliteration is actually a BH word for “food!”] should be 'akhelah
Lv 26.38 and-(she|it)-shall-eat we'okhlah; should be we'akhelah [a weqAtal form but same vocalization needed]
Rt 1:7 she-was-there; hoythah-shammah tc should be hayethah-shammah. cf.Schippers, Ruth, YAB, 93 [he has diacritics, but mutatis mutandis]
Rt 1.14 she-clung, davqah tc; instead of daveqah. cf. dAbaqA(h) Schippers, YAB, 109
Is 14:4 she-ceased, shovthah tc; instead of shavehthah [cf. "shAbehthAh, a qal perfect feminine singular from shbt ("she rested"; cf. Rudolph, 46.47)." Schippers, YAB 135
Rt 4:3 she-is-selling, mokhrah tc; Vs makerah. "the verb makerah ("offers for sale") is a qatal form" Schippers, YAB 181
Gn 1.2 she/it was hoythah in tc; should be hayethah cf. Blake, p.79 cites this as ex. [in traditional representation] of "indispensable metheg, with long vowel before shewa" ! even though the MSS behind LHI omits metheg!; cf. Correct transliteration in Ross Ans. Key ch5, #2, p.8.
On and on....
This issue apparently has been addressed and ignored previously. If you want to see how non-Hebraists struggle and how Logos contributes to the mistransliteration morass: review the tortuous, not always helpful thread at: https://community.logos.com/forums/t/83880.aspx
Here I merely reproduce from that thread four of the most germane comments (emphasis mine):
1. “I guess you really just have to memorize the lexical form in order to determine that, in those cases at least.
The example Matt put forth is so common and widespread (Qal perfect 3 plural like שמרו) that he cannot rely on the generosity of the Masoretes or the editors of his Hebrew Bible. He needs a rule that will assist him with the verb paradigms and common noun patterns. He is right that he needs to memorize the paradigms. Just as he would in any other language. “
[cf. Gesenius #9.10 .on dist. (qamets): the grammatical derivation ...[is] the only sure guide, p.31.]
2. “The transliterations in the Exegetical Guide are generated on the fly by code that just looks at the text, without reference to things like morphological tags. The transliterations are a little better in LHI, because the code was run ahead of time on whole graphemes instead of in real time on lexical segments, and (if memory serves me, which it may not - I didn't build the last version of LHI) the code used for LHI supports a longish list of 'exceptions to the rules' not found in the c# code run by Logos in real time. But even the better LHI transliterations are not hand-crafted. The code doesn't know by looking at a string that something is a qal perfect, for example.”
3. “It's not just qamets and qamets-hatuph: I can think of examples where the way to read a shewa comes down to whether a hireq is long or short... “
4. “I found the following section from Jouon/Muraoka helpful: Jouon, and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 2006, Part 1, Chapter 6, Section l, "Practical observations on the two kinds of qamets", page 42.”
And with this post, perhaps it will be another 8 years before anyone suggests Logos should make some improvements in BH transliterations - so as not to misinform the non-Hebraist, confound beginning Hebraists, or astound those with a basic knowledge of BH, by the manifold mistransliterations in Logos.
