[Mesorah] Why is the guy's name Bigsan and not Bigtan?

[via Mesorah]

My inclination is that this is the most correct of the suggested answers  
and the one that came to my mind as well.  It does also reinforce the  
contention that the correct pronunciation of the thav is not "s."  Had "s"  been 
acceptable, the transliterated name would have been written with a  samech.
 
 
In a message dated 3/23/2016 6:04:23 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
micha at aishdas.org writes:

On 2016-03-23 12:16 am, via Mesorah wrote: 
My husband, Michael Katz, wants to know why Bigsan in the Megillah  isn't 
Bigtan.  Why isn't there a dagesh in the sav/tav of his  name?  My husband 
thinks that after a shva nach (under the gimel) the  next letter should have a 
dagesh in it, as for example in the name  Ester.  To me this seems a very 
Litvishe concern, where others might be  wondering something more 
interesting, like who was Bigsan anyway and why did  he want to bump off Achashverosh?  
But never mind, we'll just stick to  Mesorah territory.  Anybody know why 
Bigsan isn't Bigtan?  Thank  you.
 

First reaction: Do transliterations need to conform to the rules of  
grammar? Maybe the original simply had a thav sound there, for  reasons of its own 
language norms. 

Tir'u baTov!

-Micha



-- 

Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission

micha at aishdas.org        on Earth is finished:

http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.

Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Richard Bach


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/mesorah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160323/1da4944c/attachment-0004.htm>