I checked and compared with Bibleworks database about this issue.
I also checked the theoretical aspects of how to distinguish between qames and qames hatuph.
Surprisingly, all the cases I checked are wrong.
This is a very serious problem.
Welcome to the forums. There are several schemes for transliteration. While I've still no received my copy, I would suggest that you check the front matter to see what transliteration scheme Lexham uses. (Which is why I'm a fan of the International Phonetical Alphabet).
Hi Chulhyun, welcome to the Logos forums!
I have the Lexham Hebrew-English Interlinear Bible, and I checked the front matter, and it doesn't disclose what transliteration scheme it uses. Most other books I've checked use ā for qamets and o for qamets hatuph. Some have â for qamets and others have a. But they all do seem to distinguish between the two.
I'm certain that such a glaring error would not have made it into this Bible accidentally. I can only surmise that a conscious decision was made to transliterate both the same way, perhaps because, as Davidson's Introductory Hebrew Grammar says, "the Masoretes pronounced what have been described above as ā and o in exactly the same way (probably o), since they use the same vowel sign for both."
Could you give a couple of examples of verses where you've found it to be wrong?
The issue is that the code written for transliteration was designed to work on accented Hebrew as the first drafts of LHI were done with an accented text, but then the text was swapped out for licensing reasons with a text that didn't have accents, so the code no longer could identify which syllables were accented or not. The next build of LHI will have accents back in the text, so the transliterations will be improved (there may still be a few issues with words that have prepositive or post-positive accents where the human reader is expected to know where the normal accent falls, and I believe that the next build was made with a version of the transliteration code that doesn't handle a few unusual 'exceptions to the rules' as gracefully as the original code, but overall it should be a significant move in the right direction).
