the Berasit Hebrew Dictionary

In the interest of consistency, it is our aim to ensure that each Hebrew word is interpreted as a single word with a single spelling. Only in this manner can an accurate analysis of any given word occur.

To this end we have developed a bilaterally transliterative alphabet which has a one-to-one correspondence in both Hebrew and English, and as a side benefit, is relatively readily pronounceable to an English speaker, without straying too far from the probable Hebrew pronunciation.

We use this alphabet for dictionary entries, so that they are searchable using an English keyboard. It may be helpful to think of these transliterated words as mnemonics rather than being purely translative or representational.

(This alphabet is not intended to address any inherent pronunciation issues that exist withing the Hebrew language, whether modern or ancient. Nevertheless, we refer to “sounds” and “pronunciations” here as a sort of shorthand for spelling standards.)

With this bilateral alphabet it is possible to flip back and forth between Hebrew and English with single characters, thus avoiding two common problems with Hebrew transliteration:

1. the problem of multiple (non-unique) Hebrew letters that map to a single English sound
2. the problem of complex Hebrew sounds that map to character pairs such as “sh”, “ch”, “tz”

Consider an example containing both problems. The Hebrew letter צ is pronounced “tz”. It is a complex sound. On top of this, the “t” sound is used for two Hebrew letters; ת and ט. Therefore, the word pronounced 'itza' does not uniquely map back to Hebrew, but instead can be correctly mapped back three different spellings: יתזא, יטזא, or יצא. Clearly this is problematic for translators as it is impossible to know which Hebrew word is referred to.

Both of these problems can be avoided by utilizing a one-to-one character mapping.

Most of the transliterated letters are pronounced intuitively for the English speaker, but a few minor caveats should be noted:

• both כ‎ and ק‎ map to a “k” sound. The transliteration of כ‎ is 'k' and of ק‎ is 'q'
• both שׁ‎‎ and ס‎‎ map to a “s” sound, although sometimes שׁ‎ tends to shift toward “sh”. The transliteration of שׁ‎‎ is 's' (based on phonetic /ʃ/) and of ס‎‎ is 'c'. (think of a soft c as in cycle or cent)
• both ת‎‎ and ט‎‎ map to a “t” sound. The transliteration of ת‎‎ is 't' and of ט‎‎ is 'f'. The letter f was chosen because it was unused, and vaguely resembles an upside down 't'. It should not me mistaken for פ‎ which sometimes is pronounced “f” in other Hebrew transliteration schemes.
• the letter צ‎ is pronounced “tz”. The chosen transliteration of צ‎ is 'x'

We acknowledge that this choice comes with a moderate level of degeneration to the level of pronunciation usability, and consider the increase in written clarity a higher priority.

This alphabet also clarifies the use of vowels in Hebrew, by highlighting that all vowel sounds are present natively without any requirement for diacritics. The exception is the letter “e” which is simply inserted as a default in the lack of any other explicit vowels (“a”, “i”, or “o”)

• All consonants are followed by a vowel unless at the end of a sentence. The default vowel is “e” unless otherwise specified
• an ending ה‎ results in an “ah” sound. However, in order to satisfy the specifications that the transliterative alphabet be 1-to-1, we do not write the “a” as the presence of an “a” would imply a matching א in the Hebrew.
• the process for transliterating from Hebrew is as follows:
  1. ignore diacritics and affixes
  2. map all letters using the chart above
  3. add “e” after each consonant that is not already followed by another vowel
  4. map pronunciation from the transliteration as required
  5. if the pronunciation ends in “h” replace this with “ah” in the pronunciation only, not the transliteration
• any transliterated word can be mapped back to Hebrew by a two step process:
  1. ignore all “e”s
  2. map all other letters using the chart above

There are several known shortcomings inherent in this transliterative alphabet system.

As with any linear algebra mapping, it is desirable for a system to be both one-to-one and onto. This sytem does not appear to be so; at least we can easily prove that it does not entirely map onto the set of (Modern Hebrew + Ancient Hebrew).

Certain scenarios exist where the possible pronunciations allowed within the system appear to fall short of actual pronunciations used in the verbal language. However, the intention of this mapping is to cover Ancient Hebrew only. We are not attempting to cover Modern Hebrew. Thus, it is important to differentiate between the Ancient and Modern versions; a task which is stymied by the fact that only the Modern pronunciations can truly be known. We are forced to perform some guesswork when it comes to the pronunciation of the Ancient Hebrew, based on the extant written evidence and informed (but not necessarily limited) by the Modern pronunciations, even though we know there to be significant differences.

Ultimately though, the goal of this transliterative alphabet is not to provide consistent pronunciation but rather, to provide a tool capable of aiding in the discovery of semantic consistency within the Ancient corpus.

Since the discussion has necessarily turned to linear algebra, it should be stated also that shortcomings are not one-to-one and onto with problems. That is to say, that the admitted shortcomings reveal only potential problems. They may or may not materialize into actual problems, dependent upon how they affect our ability to achieve our goal of semantic consistency. Each case must be evaluated by its specific impact. So what are the possibly problematic cases?

• leading and trailing a vs e are indistinguishable
• the “J” sound appears to be represented in the verbal but not the written language
  • the “Judah” problem
• the “V” sound appears to be represented in the verbal language but is inadequately represented in the written language
  • the “Levi” problem

Other strange cases:

• the “Sabbath” problems(s)
• a few other weird pronunciation topics

Each of this cases will be assumed to be problematic, then examined to determine whether any real problem exists in terms of our stated goal.

The word “Judah” is exemplary of a number of issues. In Hebrew, it is spelled יהודה. We transliterate this into 'ihodah'. Exactly how the “ih” pattern becomes a “j” sound is unclear. We do not know if the “j” sound was present in the ancient oral language, or if it developed later.

Furthermore, we do not know how the “o” turned into a long “u” sound. It should be noted that even in English an o often takes on this sound, although we are accustomed to double the letter visually to form “oo”.

Other words (for example 'gihon') use the same “ih” letter pattern and do not imply a “j” sound.

• the “j” sound appears to be represented in the verbal language but is inadequately represented in the written language. Did this sound exist in the ancient language?
• the “u” (or “oo”) sound appears to be represented in the verbal language but is inadequately represented in the written language. Did this sound exist in the ancient language?

The word לוי transliterates to 'loi'.

At first glance this may appear to be an example of a rather common occurrence of the Hebrew letter ו seeming to perform multiple duties. It happens quite regulary that the ו, though generally sounding like “o”, will often take on a trailing consonant sound and become “ov”. That may explain the presence of the “v” sound. But does it? If this were the case, we would have “lovi”, not “levi”. The usual pronunciation of “levi” emphasises the long e sound, which we would normally spell using “ee”. However, this is an additional problem. The Hebrew alphabet does not include such a sound. The closest we get would be a short 'i' which is represented by י. But in this particular word, that letter appears only at the end, and is supposedly pronounced as a long i, something fairly atypical for the letter י.

• the “v” sound appears to be represented in the verbal language but is inadequately represented in the written language. Did this sound exist in the ancient language?
• the “ee” appears to be represented in the verbal language but is inadequately represented in the written language. Did this sound exist in the ancient language?
• the “long i” sound appears to be represented in the verbal language but is inadequately represented in the written language. Did this sound exist in the ancient language?

o oo/u v

“shabbat” or “shabbos”?

double “b”

where's the “th”

leading a vs e are indistinguishable

trailing a vs e are indistinguishable