- Anyone know the source of transliteration for nouns in the translation ring of the context menu (and in EG), whether accessed from an English (ESV) or Hebrew Bible (LHB)?
2. Also, is it possible that the Logos version of some resources add this translation ring transliteration (that is, the hard copies do not contain it)?
(If so, which, perhaps from a certain year on/publisher?)
So )ok-lA, food in Ezk 34.5 is transliterated in the ring as Ak-lA – contra both RI and TC transliteration – and in three of my Logos lexical resources (DBL, AnLexHeb, and LXHOTLEX) [VS. )ok-lA in four (TWOT, LTW, NASB Dictionaries, Strong's CD)].
Any chance this transliteration was supplied in Logos versions of those resources from Logos' translation ring transliteration?
[Very early in Hebrew study students are introduced to this common noun, )ok-lA, food, and warned to distinguish it from another, albeit verb, form with qamets, long A.
Ex: Lambdin, XXVIII: )ok-lA food VS. )A-keh-lA she-ate. (Lambdin distinguishes Qal pf 3fs from the noun with chatuph, short o, by always marking the verb form with a metheg).
Notice a root/base Noun, in both context menus, )O'-kel is shown with cholem, long O, accented, in the first syllable. This reduces, within vowel class, to short o, chatuph when a suffix is added and takes the accent at the end of the noun form.
Then there is the dictum that a vowel in a closed, unaccented syllable should be short, which is contrary to the transliteration in the translation ring (and three of my resources).
Text converter gets it right as )ok-lA, whether for the full constituent form/prep ph or as the individual component/obj. of prep.
Even the RI transliteration gets this noun right here – because the RI here considers the full noun as an analyzed segment (slice of the MSS form) with the included accent on the final intra-segment unit (dice), thus marking the first unit as closed, unaccented, and therefore short o, chatuph.]
