(no subject)
Feb. 11th, 2002 11:24 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cellioI like the web. I don't love the web today, because it only gave me part of what I was looking for, but I still like it.
Our choir is going to do one of the Salamone Rossi pieces from a book I bought recently. I'm re-typesetting the music, though, mainly so I can redo the transliteration. I'm sure the transliteration in the book is perfectly intuitive for a French speaker (it's a French edition), but it's not intuitive to us. And people are intimidated enough by Hebrew without that complication, and I don't want them to be intimidated by Hebrew.
So the problem is that I have this French transliteration, and another ("English") transliteration in a CD booklet, and I can of course listen to the CD. But I'd rather work from the original Hebrew, which I don't quite have. But this particular text is a psalm setting, so I can get that, in theory.
So I searched the web for "psalm 146 Hebrew text" and got a useful hit here. It's a score, but it's not a complete score because it's missing the vowels. (The site's main page is here.)
(Dani actually has a Hebrew-language bible with really teeny tiny type. I wanted to avoid working from that copy as my baseline, but I think I can use it and a good magnifying glass to fill in the vowels on the copy I printed from the web.)
And then, I can do my own transliteration without any risk of compounding someone else's ambiguous Ashkenazi-inspired interpretation, thank you very much. :-)
Our choir is going to do one of the Salamone Rossi pieces from a book I bought recently. I'm re-typesetting the music, though, mainly so I can redo the transliteration. I'm sure the transliteration in the book is perfectly intuitive for a French speaker (it's a French edition), but it's not intuitive to us. And people are intimidated enough by Hebrew without that complication, and I don't want them to be intimidated by Hebrew.
So the problem is that I have this French transliteration, and another ("English") transliteration in a CD booklet, and I can of course listen to the CD. But I'd rather work from the original Hebrew, which I don't quite have. But this particular text is a psalm setting, so I can get that, in theory.
So I searched the web for "psalm 146 Hebrew text" and got a useful hit here. It's a score, but it's not a complete score because it's missing the vowels. (The site's main page is here.)
(Dani actually has a Hebrew-language bible with really teeny tiny type. I wanted to avoid working from that copy as my baseline, but I think I can use it and a good magnifying glass to fill in the vowels on the copy I printed from the web.)
And then, I can do my own transliteration without any risk of compounding someone else's ambiguous Ashkenazi-inspired interpretation, thank you very much. :-)
Vwls r ptnl n nglsh?
Date: 2002-02-12 02:13 pm (UTC)Ok, I think I proved my point. I'm not sure what it was. Maybe it was that you can leave vowels out in English and still have some legibility. If I'd left, say, 23% of the vowels in, the above would be much more legible:
Ar vwls optnl in nglsh? Wll, srt of. Bt nglsh s mch lss logcl thn Hbrw -- no rts, no rglr vrb frms...
I meant the above to be: Are vowels optional in English? Well, sort of. But English is much less logical than Hebrew -- no roots, no regular verb forms...
Re: Vwls r ptnl n nglsh?
Date: 2002-02-12 02:22 pm (UTC)Sure, if you know a language you can deal with corrupted text. Someone who doesn't know the English language would have just as much trouble with your examples as I have with vowel-less Hebrew; you can only parse corrupted text when you have an idea of what the candidate words really are. I didn't mean to imply that text without vowels is universally bad -- just hard for those not fluent to cope with, is all.