Edition 1.3
26 January 2012
History of the Ancient and Modern Hebrew Language
By David Steinberg
David.Steinberg@houseofdavid.ca
Home page http://www.houseofdavid.ca/
http://www.adath-shalom.ca/history_of_hebrewtoc.htm
Phonemic Structure of Hebrew[1]
(part 2)
d.
Vowel Phonemes
N.b. a convenient way to learn to hear and articulate
vowel length is to listen carefully to: (a) recordings of a couple of spoken
Arabic dialects; or, (b) recordings
of Akkadian poetry.
d.1 Diachronic Development of the Biblical Hebrew Vowel System
|
Box
15 - Distinctive Features of Hebrew Vowels |
|
"A distinctive feature ... is a phonetic property that distinguishes groups of sounds in a given language. And by applying these features to Hebrew, it should be possible to divide the Hebrew vowels into phonetic groups, or classes of sounds. In ... (Hebrew) three features distinguish the vowels one from another. Two of these features reflect the position of the tongue. On a vertical axis, the degree to which the tongue is raised above or lowered below its neutral position characterizes vowel height.... When the tongue is raised, the vowel is high, when lowered it is low; the intermediate zone produces mid vowels.... On a horizontal axis, the presence of absence of lingual backward movement is also distinctive.... In retracted position, the vowel is back; without retraction, the phone is nonback.... The lips are responsible for the third distinctive vocalic feature. A sound produced by articulating the upper and lower lips (lip rounding) is labial. Without articulation, the sound is non-labial.... Thus, the articulation of lips, tongue height, and tongue retraction/non-retraction converge to differentiate Hebrew vowels one from another.... Quoted from Garr 1991 §2.0. See - |
Table 15
Proto-Semitic to Tiberian Hebrew
Vowel Phonemes[2] with Probable and Possible Allophones
|
*/PS/ (c. 3000 BCE) |
*PH (c. 1200 BCE) |
(c. 850-550 BCE) |
(c. 400 CE) |
(c. 850 CE) |
||||||||
|
Short Vowel |
Long Vowel |
Short Vowel |
Long Vowel |
Short Vowel |
Long Vowel |
Ultra-short Vowel |
Short Vowel |
Long Vowel |
/TH/+ |
*Ultra-short Vowel |
*[TH] Short Vowel |
*[TH] Long Vowel |
|
/i/ |
ῑ /iː/ |
/i/ [i] [ɪ] [ẹ] |
ῑ, î /iː/ |
/i/ |
[ĭ], [ă], [ĕ], [ŏ], [ŭ] |
/i/ [i] [ɪ] |
ῑ, î /iː/ |
/i/ |
/ә/ [ɐ̆] [ɛ̆] [ĕ] [ĭ] [ɔ̆]
[ŏ] [ŭ] |
[i] |
[iː] |
|
|
ē /eː/[5] |
ē ê [ẹː][ɛː] |
/e/ [ẹ] [ɛ] |
ē, ê [ẹː][ɛː] |
/ẹ/ |
[ɛ] |
[ẹː] |
||||||
|
/a/ [ɔ̝]? |
ā /aː/
[aː], |
/a/ [ɛ], [a] [ɐ]
[ɔ]? [ɔ̝]? |
/a/ [ɔ̝]? |
[ɛː] |
||||||||
|
ā /aː/? [aː] |
[aː], |
/a/ [a] [ɐ] [ɔ]? [ɔ̝]? |
/aː/ [aː] |
/a/ |
[ɐ] |
[ɐː] |
||||||
|
[ɔ] |
[ɔː] |
|||||||||||
|
/u/ |
/u/ |
ō /oː/ |
/u/ |
/o/ [o̞] [o] |
ō, ô |
/o/ |
[oː] |
|||||
|
/u/ [ʊ]
[u] |
ū, û /u:/ |
/u/ |
[u] |
[u:] |
||||||||
Note
- probable allophones are unmarked; possible allophones are marked with
"?"
|
Box
16 - Semitic Vowels and their Actualization |
|
"Common Semitic or Proto-Semitic has three short vowels (§ 10.5): low/open back velar a, high/close front palatal i, and high/close back velar u with strongly rounded lips. It also possesses the three corresponding long vowels ā, ī, ū. Although additional vocalic phonemes have arisen in various Semitic languages, there are no sufficient grounds to suppose that other vowels belong to the original core of the Semitic phonemic system.... However, the realization of the Semitic vowels a, i, u in actual speech can produce other vocalic sounds, mainly in the case of short vowels (cf. §10.11). There is a widespread tendency in Semitic to pronounce high and low vowels, especially when they are unstressed, as mid vowels [e], [ә], [o].... Thus short [i] and [u] tend to become [ә], as in Ethiopic (§21.30), and the same can happen with [a].... Besides, [i] can easily become [e] by lowering the tongue, [u] becomes then [o]. The lack of appropriate vocalic signs, especially for [ә] and [o], does often not allow determining the presence of these vowels in an accurate way, and "e" will then stand for [ә] and "u" for [o] (§21.3). On the other side, a stressed short vowel tends to become long, and its articulation may at the same time be lowered (e.g. i > ī > ē) or raised (e.g. a > ā > ō)[9]. Some of these new vowels may acquire a phonemic status in a determined language." Quoted
from Lipinski 1997
§21.1. "The short vowels (in Colloquial Arabic) are found in an unsystermatizable multiplicity of qualities; many if not all of them were probably already present in Classical Arabic and only hidden by the orthography, which is limited to three sort vowels a i u. This limitation is legitimate to the extent that, as in fact seems also to be the case in the modern dialects, all that matters for the meaning of the word is whether the vowel belongs to the a-, i- or u-group, while the gradation within the groups depends on accent, syllable structure, neighboring consonants. and also the vowels of adjacent syllables. [Note - Bergsträsser here applies the phonemic principle in the analysis of the minute phonetic detail recorded in his sources.] The a-group stretches from e to o, thus bordering the i- and u- groups on the two sides, and has borderline cases in common, which must especially kept in mind in the e direction. Even the opposition i : u, which for us is established by the contrary natures of the two vowels and in fact appears to be thoroughly realized in Classical Arabic, holds for the dialects only with qualifications: in part they have a full-fledged scale of transitions from i to u, within which the exact placement of the vowel is influenced by accent, syllable structure, and phonetic environment; but in part they make the DISTINCTION BETWEEN i and u dependant on such features. Colloquial Arabic thus reflects the proto-Semitic situation in this regard rather accurately, - Beyond fluctuations within the same quality group, switches from one group to another are common. The direction is usually from the a-group to the i/u-group " Quoted from Bergstärsser 1928/83 p. 188-189. "In numerous Lebanese dialects both vowel quality and quantity are affected by pause, i, u, and a becoming ē, ō and ā (or ä); thus, e.g., in Bišmizzin, contextual byínzil, "he goes down", byúktub "he writes", byíftaḥ "he opens" appear in pause as byínzēl, byúktōb, byíftāḥ." Quoted
from Morag 1989 (p. 102) |
In reconstructing the early Semitic and subsequent Hebrew vowel systems it is essential to keep in mind:
1.
the distinction at every stage between the probable phonemic structure of the
vowel system and the bundle of phones likely to have made up each phoneme. It is probable that the full natural
scale of the principal vowel qualities[10] - i, e, a, o, u - would
have been heard in the speech of Semitic speakers throughout the centuries though the specific qualities of these vowels is mostly unrecoverable
and would, in any case, have varied with time, dialect etc.
2. that Proto-Semitic is thought to have had a similar vowel and
stress system to that of Classical Arabic. The written vowel tradition of
Classical Arabic recognizes 3 phonemic qualities of vowel each of which has 2
phonemic lengths- i/ī, a/ā, u/ū[11], However, early Greek transcriptions[12] of Arabic names show that Arabic of the
period possessed the following vowels i, e, ə, a, o, u.
3. that
ancient Semitic languages, and most modern Arabic dialects,
phonemically distinguished between short and long vowels. The long vowels were
usually quite distinct but the short vowels easily interchanged. To give an
example from Egyptian Arabic[13], a language
that parallels Ancient Hebrew in numerous ways, there are three short vowels i, a, u and 5 long
vowels ī, ē, ā, ō, ū [14]. However, the actualization of /a/ includes [a] and [ɔ]; that of /i/ includes [i] and [e]; that
of /u/ includes [u] and [o]. The allophone
pronounced depends on such factors as: the nature of the surrounding
consonants; whether the syllable is long or short, closed or open; stress;
dialect; speed of speaking and even the sex of the speaker[15]. In Palestinian Arabic /u/ is pronounced
[o] and /i/ [e] before the (non-geminated) final consonant of words[16]. Thus /ʾuktub/ is
pronounced [ʔuktob] and /kātib/ is pronounced [kāteb]. It is
interesting to note the similarity of result, regarding the final vowel, to the
qal imperfect יקטל (TH יִקְטֹל;
EBHP /yiqˈtul/ [yɪqˈtʊl] or [yɪqˈto̞l]), and SC כבד (TH כָּבֵד; EBHP /kaˈbid/ [kɐˈbɪd]
or [kɐˈbɛd]) and the qal active participle קטל (TH קֹטֵל; EBHP (constr.) [qoːˈtɪl] or [qoːˈtɛl]).
Unlike
the living Arabic dialects, we can never recapture the rich reality of the
sound of EBHP. A possible indication of the missing dimensions is given by Rice
and Sa'id in their book Eastern Arabic (p. 5) -
In addition to word stress, Arabic also has another system
of prominence that works independently of stress. We call this vowel
prominence. Like stress, it too is automatic. A long vowel has more sonority (amplitude,
loudness) than a short vowel ....
A short vowel immediately followed by a double consonant is
more tense than a short
vowel elsewhere.... This tenseness is preserved even when the double consonant
is not followed immediately by a vowel...
As a result of these three features of word stress,
sonority, and tenseness, the acoustic impression of Arabic is quite different
from that of English.
|
Table 16 - Long Vowels in EBHP by Origin |
||||
|
|
Irreducible Long Vowels |
|
||
|
Long Vowel |
Primitive Long Vowel |
Vowel
Lengthened Through Contraction |
||
|
[iː] |
ῑ |
íwy >úːy >íyy >î [íː] e.g e.g. */ˈkiwyu/ > */ˈkûy/ > */ˈkiyy/ > */ˈkiy/
> /ˈkî/ íy > î [íː] e.g e.g. */ˈyíybašu/ > */ˈyîbašu/ > /yîˈbaš/ */ˈkalyu/ > */ˈkaly/ (/EBHP?/) > */ˈkaliy/ (/EBHP?/) > */ˈkalî/ (/EBHP?/) (TH כְּלִי *[kәˈliː]
(contextual) or כֶּלִי *[ˈkɛːli] (pausal) [17] 'tool' */ˈyihyay/ > */ˈyihy/ (/EBHP?/) > */ˈyihiy/
(/EBHP?/) > */ˈyihî/ (/EBHP?/) > (TH /yˈhi/) "may he
be" úy > î e.g. /wayˈyúyśam/ > |
|
|
|
[eː] |
TH מֵת - see next column. |
Word-final
áyu > ê [éː] e.g. */šamōˈnayu/
(PH) →
(/EBHP/+) */šạmōˈnê/ > (TH) /šmōˈnê/ Word-final
íyu > ê [éː] e.g. */bāˈniyu/ → */bōˈnê/ ('building' qal a.p. ms.) מת (TH מֵת) 'dead' (adj.) - the origin of the long eː is unclear i.e. it might have been */ˈmêt/ or */ˈmēt/. In either case we should see מֵת the 3ms. SC as having a stress lengthened, and hence reducible,
vowel i.e. */ˈmeːt/. In transcriptions of EBHP I will use */ˈmêt/ |
Unstressed
diphthong contracts ay > ê [eː] e.g. */bayt/ > /bêt/ (TH בֵּית) 'house of-' |
*/kaˈbidu/ > */kaˈbeːd/ (TH כָּבֵד) 'heavy' (adj.) |
|
[aː] |
TH קָם - see next column. |
Word-final
áya > [áː] e.g. /baˈnaya/ (PH)
> /baˈnay/
> /baˈnâ/
(/EBHP/+) קם (TH קָם) 'standing' (qal ms. ap.) as an example of the large class of II-w and II-y roots. The origin of the long aː is unclear i.e. it might have been */ˈqâm/ or */ˈqām/. In either case we should see קָם the 3ms. SC as having a stress lengthened, and hence reducible,
vowel i.e. */ˈqaːm/. In transcriptions of EBHP I will use */ˈqâm/ for the participle and |
|
*/ˈyadu/ > */ˈyaːd/ (TH יָד) 'hand' |
|
[oː] |
ō (ō < ā)
e.g. |
בוש (TH בּוֹש) 'ashamed' (adj.) - the origin of the long oː is unclear. */ˈbôš/ áʾ not immediately followed by a vowel shifts to â [áː] e.g /ˈraʾšu/ > /ˈrâšu/ → /ˈrôš/ (/EBHP/+) 'head'. |
Unstressed
diphthong contracts aw > ô [oː] e.g. */mawt/ > /môt/ (TH מוֹת) 'death of-' |
*/gaˈdulu/ > */gaˈdoːl/ (TH גָּדוֹל) 'big' (adj.) |
|
[uː] |
ū |
úw > û (TH הושַבְתֶּם) 'you were made to
dwell' íw > û e.g. /ˈyíwkalu/ > /ˈyûkalu/ → /yûˈkal/ (TH יָכוֹל ) 'he will be
able'. |
|
|
4.
that while there two phonological vowel lengths there often (always?) are at
least 4 phonetic vowel lengths i.e.
o
short vowels are longer when stressed
particularly in closed syllables. In addition word final short vowels, as often
in Arabic[18], were probably shortened
long vowels in quality rather than lengthened short vowels. Thus
for /i/, the short vowel within the word was likely pronounced as the laxer
vowel [ɪ]
while the short vowel at end of word as the tenser vowel [i].
Cf. to the parallel long vowel pronounced [iː].
o
long vowels e.g. /iː/ are longer
when stressed [iːˑ].
In the
history of Hebrew prior to the middle ages it seems to me that the appearance
of new long phonemic vowels may have stimulated a reanalysis of the short
vowels to parallel the long vowels[19].
|
Table 17 - Shifts in Proto-Semitic
Vowels as Hebrew Developed |
|||||
|
*/PS/ (c. 3000 BCE) |
*PH (c. 1200 BCE) |
(c. 400 CE) |
(c. 850 CE) |
(present) |
|
|
/a/ |
/a/ - /šaˈlaːmu/ “peace” |
/a/ - /šaˈlōm/ |
/aː/ - /šaːˈlōm/ |
/å/ - שָׁלוֹם |
/a/ - /šaˈlom/ [ʃɐˈlom] |
|
/a/ - /qaˈtalat/ “she
killed” |
/aː/
- /qaˈtạlâ/ |
/aː/
- /qaˈtalaː/ > /qaːˈtalaː/ > /qaːtәˈlaː/ |
/å/ - קָטְלָה /qåṭәˈlå/ [qɔːṭәˈlɔː] |
/a/ - /qaṭˈla/ [kɐtˈlɐ] |
|
|
/a/ - /ˈdabaru/ |
/a/ - /daˈbaːr/ [dɐˈbaːɾ] |
/aː/
- /daːˈbaːr/ |
/å/ - דָּבָר /dåˈbår/ [dɔːˈvɔːɾ] |
/a/ - /daˈbar/ |
|
|
/a/ - /ˈqatalat/ “she
killed” |
/a/
- /qaˈtạlâ/ |
/ә/
- /qaˈtalâ/ > /qaːˈtalâ/ > /qaːtәˈlaː/ |
/ә/
- קָטְלָה /qåṭәˈlå/ [qɔːṭәˈlɔː] |
/∅/
- /qaṭˈla/ [kɐtˈlɐ] |
|
|
/a/
- /ˈkattaba/ piel
SC 3ms. |
/i/ - /kitˈtib/ [kɪtˈtɪb] |
/i/
- /kitˈtẹb/ |
/i/
- כִּתֵּב /kitˈtẹb/ [kitˈtẹːv] |
/i/
- /kiˈteb/ [kɪˈtɛv] |
|
|
/a/ - /ˈkattaba/ piel
perf. 3ms. |
/i/ - /kitˈtib/
[kɪtˈtɪb] |
/e/
- כִּתֵּב /kitˈteb/ |
/ẹ/
- כִּתֵּב /kitˈtẹb/ [kitˈtẹːv] |
/e/
- /kiˈteb/ [kɪˈtɛv] |
|
|
particle
attached to the direct object |
/a/ -/ˌʾat/ [ˌʔɐt]? [ˌʔɛt]? |
/e/
- /ˌʾat/ > /ˌʾet/ |
/ẹ/
- אֵת /ˌʾẹt/
[ˌʔẹːθ] |
/ʾet/
[ɛt]
or [t] |
|
|
/a/ - /ˌʾat/ [ˌʔɐt]? [ˌʔɛt]? |
/e/
- /ʾat/ > /ʾet/ |
/ɛ/ - אֶת־ /ʾɛt/
[ˌʔɛθ] |
|||
|
/aː/ |
/aː/ - /šaˈlaːmu/ “peace” |
/oː/ - /šaˈloːm/ [ʃɐˈloːm] |
/oː/ - /šaːˈlōm/ |
/oː/ שָׁלוֹם /šåˈlom/ [ʃɔːˈloːm] |
a - /šaˈlom/ [ʃɐˈlom] |
|
/aː/ - /ˈṭābu/
“good” |
/ō/ - /ˈṭōb/ |
/ō/ - /ˈṭōb/ |
/o/ - /ˈṭob/ טוֹב [ˈṭoːv] |
/o/ - /ˈṭob/ [ˈtov] |
|
|
/i/ |
/i/
- /ṣiˈrāru/ “bag” |
/i/
- /ṣiˈrōr/ [ṣɪˈɾoːɾ] |
/ә/?
/Ø/?- /ṣәˈrōr/ |
/ә/
- צְרוֹר |
/∅/
- /ṣ∅ˈror/ [tsˈʁ̞oʁ̞] |
|
/i/
- /ˈsiprahu/ “his
book” |
/i/
- /sipˈrahu/
> /sipˈrô/ [sɪpˈɾoː]
|
/i/
- /sipˈrô/ |
/i/
- סִפרוֹ |
/i/
- /sipˈro/ [sifˈʁ̞o] |
|
|
/i/
- /i/ |
/i/
- /i/ - /ʾilˈleːm/ [ʔɪlˈlẹːm]
"deaf" |
/i/
- /e/
- /ʾilˈleːm/ |
i
- ẹ
- אִלֵּם /ʾilˈlẹm/ [ʔilˈlẹːm] |
/i/
- /e/
- /ʾiˈlem/ |
|
|
/ciwˈweːr/ |
/ciwˈweːr/ |
עִוֵּר /ciwˈwẹr/ [ciwˈwẹːɾ] |
/ciˈver/ [iˈvɛʁ̞] |
||
|
/i/
- /ˈʾāsiru/ qal
a.p. “one who
ties” |
/i/ - /’ōˈseːr/ [’oːˈsẹːɾ] |
/e/ - /’ōˈseːr/ |
/ẹ/ - אֹסֵר /’oˈsẹr/ [’oːˈsẹːɾ] |
/e/
- /’oˈser/ [oˈsɛʁ̞] |
|
|
/i/
- /ˈʾilu/ “god” |
/i/ - /ˈʾeːl/ [ˈʔẹːl] |
/e/ - /ˈʾeːl/ |
/ẹ/ - אֵל /ˈʾẹl/ [ˈʔẹːl] |
/e/ - /ˈʾel/ [ˈɛl] |
|
|
/ī/ |
/iː/ - /’aˈsīru/ “prisoner” |
/iː/
- /’aˈsiːr/ |
/iː/
- /’aːˈsiːr/ |
/i/ - אָסִיר /’åˈsir/ [’ɔːˈsiːɾ] |
/i/ - /’aˈsir/
[ɐˈsiʁ̞] |
|
/ī/ - /ˈmīnu/ “kind,
variety” |
/ī/ - /ˈmīn/ [ˈmiːn] |
/ī/ - /ˈmīn/ |
/i/ - מִין /ˈmin/ [ˈmiːn] |
/i/ - /ˈmin/ [ˈmin] |
|
|
/u/ |
/u/
- “it was
said” |
/u/
- /dubˈbar/ [dʊbˈbɐɾ] |
/u/
- /dubˈbar/ |
/u/
- דֻּבַּר /dubˈbar/ [dubˈbɐɾ] |
/u/
- /duˈbar/ |
|
/u/ - /ˈruḥābu/
> /ruˈḥōbu/ "plaza
inside city gate" |
/u/
- /rụˈḥōb/ |
/ә/?
/Ø/?
- /rәˈḥōb/ |
ә
- רְחוֹב /rәˈḥob/ [ɾәˈħoːv] |
/ә/
- /rәˈḥob/ [ʁ̞әˈxov] |
|
|
/u/ - “his
greatness” |
/o/
- /gudˈlô/ |
/ɔ/ - גָּדלוֹ /gǫdˈlo/ [gɔðˈloː] |
/o/- /godˈlo/ [godˈlo] |
||
|
/u/
- /ˈyaqum/ “let him
stand” |
/u/
- /ˈyaqum/ [ˈyɐqʊm]? [ˈyɐqo̞m]? |
/u/
- /yaːˈqum/ |
/o/- יָקֹם /yåˈqom/ *[yɔːˈqoːm] |
/o/
- /yaˈqom/ [yɐˈkom] |
|
|
|
/u/
- /wayˈyaqum/ “he
stood” |
/u/
- /wayˈyaqum/ [wɐyˈyɐqʊm]? [wɐyˈyɐqo̞m]? |
/u/
- /wayˈyaːqum/ |
/ɔ/
- /wayˈyåqǫm/ *[wayˈyɔːqɔm] |
/waˈyaqom/ |
|
/ū/ |
/ū/ - /yaˈqūmu/ “he will
stand” |
/uː/
- /yaˈqūm/ [yɐˈquːm] |
/uː/
- /yaːˈqūm/ |
/u/
- יָקוּם /yåˈqum/ *[yɔːˈquːm] |
/u/
- /yaˈqum/ [yɐˈkum] |
|
/uː/ - /ˈṭūbu/ “goodness” |
/uː/ - /ˈṭūb/ [ˈṭuːb] |
/uː/ - /ˈṭūb/ |
/u/ - טוּב /ˈṭub/ [ˈṭuːv]
|
/u/ - /ˈṭub/ [ˈtuv] |
|
|
/aw/[22] |
/aw/ - |
/aw/ - /ˈmawt/ [ˈmɐwt] |
/awe/ -- /ˈmaːwet/ |
/åwɛ/ - מָוֶת /ˈmåwɛt/ [ˈmɔːwɛθ] |
/awe/ - /ˈmawet/ |
|
/aw/ - /mawt/ “death
of” |
/aw/ - /ˌmawt/ [ˌmɐwt]/[ˌmo̞wt] |
/o/
- מוֹת /ˌmot/ [ˌmoːθ] |
/o/
- /ˌmot/ [mot] |
||
|
/ay/ - /ˈbaytu/ "house" |
/ay/ - /ˈbayt/ [ˈbɐyt] |
/ayi/ - /ˈbayit/ |
/ayi/ -
בַּיִת /ˈbayit/
[ˈbɐːyiθ] |
/ayi/ - /ˈbayit/ [ˈbɐyɪt] |
|
|
/ay/ - /bayt/ "house
of" |
/ay/ - /ˌbayt/ [ˌbɐyt]/[
ˌbɛyt] |
/ệ/
- /ˌbệt/ |
/ẹ/
- בֵּית /ˌbẹt/
[ˌbẹːθ] |
/e/ - /ˌbet/
[bɛt] |
|
Table
18 - Vowel Length Minimal
Pairs in EBHP and their
Transformation in Later Hebrew |
||||
|
Consonantal Phonemes |
(c. 850-550 BCE) |
(c. 400 CE) |
(c. 850 CE) |
(Present) |
|
/a/
- /ā/ |
גלה |
/gaːˈlaː/ |
גָּלָה [gɔːˈlɔː] |
[gɐˈlɐ] |
|
גלה |
/gaːˈlaː/ |
גָּלָה /gåˈlå/ [gɔːˈlɔː] |
||
|
/u/
- /ū/ |
תמת [ˈtɐmʊt]? [ˈtɐmo̞t]? |
/taːˈmot/ |
תָּמׁת [tɔːˈmoːθ] |
[tɐˈmot] |
|
תמות |
/taːˈmuːt/ |
תָּמוּת |
[tɐˈmut] |
|
|
/i/
- /ῑ/ |
מן |
/min/ |
מִן־ |
[min] |
|
מין |
/ˌmiːn/ |
מִין |
[ˌmin] |
|
|
בן absolute
stressed form |
/ˈbẹːn/ |
בֵּן /ˈbẹn/ [ˈbẹːn] |
[ˈbɛn] |
|
|
בן [bɪn-]? [bɛn-]?[1] |
/bɛn/ constr.
unstressed form) |
בֶּן־ |
[bɛn-] |
|
|
בין |
/ˈbīn/ |
בִּין /ˈbin/ [ˈbiːn] |
[ˈbin] |
|
|
/ῑ/
- /ay/ |
סוסי |
/sūˈsiː/ |
סוּסִי /suˈsi/ [suːˈsiː] |
[suˈsi] |
|
סוסי |
/sūˈsay/ |
סוּסַי /suˈsay/ [suːˈsɐy] |
[suˈsɐy] |
|
|
/aː/ - /aw/ |
שר |
ֺ/ˈšaːr/ |
ֺשָר
/ˈšår/ |
[ˈʃɐʁ̞] |
|
|
שור /ˈšawr/ [ˈʃɔ̝wɾ] |
/ˈšôr/ |
שׁוֹר |
[ˈʃoʁ̞] |
Table 19
Vowel
Phonemes Minimal Pairs */EBHP/
(c. 700-600 BCE)
|
a |
aː |
i |
iː |
u |
uː |
oː |
eː |
ay/aːy |
aw/aːw |
|
a |
/gāˈlâ/: /gaˈlâ/[24] |
/ˌʾil/: /ʾal/[25] |
/qaˈṣar/: /qaˈṣῑr/[26] |
/qaˈtal/: /quˈtal/[27] |
/ˌcūl/: |
/ˌʾab/: |
|
|
|
|
|
aː |
/ˌbin/: /ˌbān/[30] |
/sūˈsâ/: /sūˈsῑ/[31] |
/ˌtār/: |
/qaˈtalâ/: /qaˈtalū/[33] |
/sūˈsâ/: /sūˈsō/[34] |
|
/sūˈsâ/: /sūˈsay/[35] |
/sūˈsâ/: /sūˈsâw/[36] |
|
|
|
i |
/ˌbin/: /ˌbῑn/[37] |
|
|
/*kaˈbōd/: /kaˈbid/[38] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
iː |
|
/ˈqūmῑ/: /ˈqūmū/[39] |
/sūˈsῑ/: /sūˈsō/[40] |
/yirˈṣê/: /yirˈṣū/[41] |
/sūˈsiː/: /sūˈsay/[42] |
/sūˈsῑ/: /sūˈsāw/[43] |
|
|
|
|
|
u |
*/muˈtῑ/: /mūˈtῑ/[44] |
/yaˈkōl/: /yaˈkul/[45] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
uː |
/ˈqōm/: /ˈqūm/[46] |
/raˈṣê/: /raˈṣū/[47] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
oː |
/raˈṣō/: /raˈṣê/[48] |
/sūˈsô/: /sūˈsay/[49] |
/sūˈsô/: /sūˈsâw/[50] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
eː |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ay/aːy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
aw/aːw |
|
Box
17 - Distinctive Features of TH Vowels |
|
The .. (TH) vowel system is primarily quality-sensitive, arranged in a four-tier structure of vowel height. The upper three tiers contain pairs of vowels, internally differentiated by backness and labiality. On the lowest tier lies the nonlabial, back [ɑ]. i u e o ɛ ɔ ɑ Each vowel sign represents
a unique vowel quality. This system also accommodates
vowel length. Yet since length is not intrinsic to any one vowel, this
feature must be uncovered by grammatical investigation. Whereas vowel quality
is overt in ... (TH), vowel quantity is covert (GKB §10d ). Quoted from Garr 1991 §10. See - |
Table 20
Vowel System Tiberian
Hebrew (TH)
[51]
1.
Full Vowels
(See Were there Long
and short vowels in TH and, if so, were they Phonemic?)
|
Tiberian Vowel
Sign |
Traditional
Name |
/TH/+ |
|
|
|
Short Vowel |
||||
|
בָּ |
å (IPA [ɔ]) |
|
åː (IPA
[ɔː]) |
|
|
כָּל־ |
Qāmeṣ ḥāṭûp/ qāmeṣ qāṭān |
ǫ (IPA [ɔ]) |
ǫ (IPA [ɔ]) |
|
|
בַּ |
a (IPA [ɐ]) |
a (IPA [ɐ]) |
||
|
בֶּ |
Sĕgōl |
Ɛ (IPA [ɛ]) |
ɛ (IPA [ɛ]) |
|
|
בֶּי,
בֶּה, בֶּא |
Sĕgōl mālê |
|
||
|
בֵּ |
Ṣērê |
ẹ (IPA [e]) |
|
|
|
בֵּי,
בֵּה, בֵּא |
Ṣērê mālê |
|
||
|
בִּ |
Ḥîreq |
i (IPA [i]) |
i (IPA [i]) |
|
|
בִּי |
Ḥîreq mālê |
|
|
|
|
בֹּ |
Ḥōlem |
o (IPA [o]) |
|
|
|
בּוֹ |
Ḥōlem mālê |
|
||
|
בֻּ |
u (IPA [u]) |
u (IPA [u]) |
|
|
|
בּוּ |
Šûreq |
|
||
2. Šwa and Ḥaṭep
or Ḥaṭaf Vowels
(See What are the Šwa and Ḥatef Vowels and How
were they Pronounced?)
|
Tiberian Vowel
Sign |
Traditional
Name |
/TH/+ |
*[TH] |
|
בְּ |
Mobile or Vocal Šwa |
ә |
ә |
|
בְּ |
Silent or Quiescent Šwa |
∅ |
∅ |
|
בֲּ |
Ḥaṭep-pataḥ |
ă |
ă |
|
בֱּ |
Ḥaṭep-sĕgōl |
ɛ̆ |
ɛ̆ |
|
בֳּ |
Ḥaṭep-qāmeṣ |
ɔ̌ |
ɔ̌ |
|
Table 21 - Tiberian Vowels of the Same
Quality often Have Diverse Origins |
||||
|
*/PH/ (c. 1200 BCE) |
(c. 850-550 BCE) |
(c. 400 CE) |
(c. 850 CE) |
(present) |
|
/baytu/
> /bayt/ |
/ˌbayt/
'house of' [EBHisr] [ˌbệt] |
/ˌbệt/ |
בֵּית /ˌbẹt/
[ˌbẹːt] |
[ˌbɛt] |
|
/ˈʾilu/ |
/ˈʾeːl/ [ˈʔẹːl] “god” |
/ˈʾeːl/ |
אֵל /ˈʾẹl/ [ˈʔẹːl] |
[ˈɛl] |
|
/qitˈtilu/ |
/qitˈteːl/ (adjectives
of infirmities) e.g. |
|||
|
/ʾilˈlimu/ |
/ʾilˈleːm/ [ʔɪlˈlẹːm] "deaf" |
/ʾilˈleːm/ |
אִלֵּם /ʾilˈlẹm/ [ʔilˈlẹːm] |
[iˈlɛm] |
|
/ciwˈwiru/ |
/ciwˈweːr/ [cɪwˈwẹːɾ] "blind" |
/ciwˈweːr/ |
עִוֵּר /ciwˈwẹr/ |
[iˈvɛʁ̞] |
|
|
(marker of
direct)
object |
/’et/ |
אֵת |
[ɛt] |
|
/mawt/ |
/ˌmawt/
[ˌmɐwt]? [ˌmo̞wt]?
“death of” |
/ˌmôt/ |
מוֹת /ˌmot/ [ˌmoːθ] |
[ˌmot] |
|
/gaˈdālu/[55] |
/gaˈdōl/ [gɐˈdoːl] (qal
inf. abs..) 'becoming great' |
/gaːˈdōl/ |
גָּדוֹל[56] /gåˈdol/ |
[gaˈdol] |
|
/ˈgadulu/ |
/gaˈdoːl/ [gɐˈdoːl] (adj.) “great” |
/gaːˈdoːl/ |
גָּדוֹל /gåˈdol/ |
[gaˈdol] |
Box 18
Vowel
System Modern Israeli Hebrew (IH)[57]
|
“The five vowels are close to cardinal
vowels in pronunciation: i, e, a, o, u. There
is no phonetic contrast between long and short (or tense verses lax) vowels
in Modern Hebrew…. There are three diphthongs,
uy, oy,
ay created
by a nonfront vowel followed by a front offglide, only in word-final
position, e.g. kanuy ‘bought’,
goy ‘gentile’, elay ‘to
me’. Quoted from Modern Hebrew by
Ruth A. Berman in Hetzron 1997. Though it would more accurate to
transcribe /IH/
/a/ as [ɐ]
etc. the exact pronunciation of [IH] is
not germane to our topic and would add needless complications. Thus I will generally
use the following, admittedly imprecise, [IH] transcriptions of vowels - [i, ɛ,
a, o, u]. We can assume that IH vowels are
longer than the short vowels of Ancient
Hebrew but much
shorter than Ancient
Hebrew's long vowels. |
d.2 Conventional Scholarly Transcription of the TH
Vowel System (THCST)
As Joϋon-Muraoka
1991[58] correctly observes there are a "...
bewilderingly large number of transliteration methods...." However,
generally the transcription systems used in biblical scholarship follow -
(t)he accepted rules of Hebrew grammar,
including the current Sephardic pronunciation ... (as) laid down in medieval
1. The traditional Sephardic pronunciation of the
vowels (inherited, as it seems, from the old Palestinian system) was
perpetuated. Their failure to fit the
Tiberian notation was rationalized by the theory that the distinctions between
Tiberian symbols represented differences of length rather than quality: thus patach
was short a, qamatz was long a, segol was short e and tzere was long e.
2. The theory of long and short vowels was also
used to adapt Hebrew to the rules of Arabic poetic metre. For example, in
Arabic (and Persian) poetry, when a long vowel occurs in a closed syllable an
extra (short) syllable is treated as present for metrical purposes, though not
represented in pronunciation. Similarly in Sephardic Hebrew a sheva
following a syllable with a long vowel is invariably treated as vocal. (In
Tiberian Hebrew this is only true when the long vowel is marked with meteg.).[59]
A widely used standard in this tradition is The Society
of Biblical Literature (SBL) Academic Translation Style (THSBL)[60]. Under this system the following transliterations are
prescribed -
|
Tiberian Vowel
Sign |
Name |
SBL Academic
Translation Style[61] |
||
|
Half-Vowel |
Short Vowel |
Long Vowel |
||
|
i vowels |
||||
|
בִּ |
short ḥîreq |
|
i |
|
|
בִּ |
long ḥîreq |
|
|
ῑ |
|
בִּי |
ḥîreq yôd |
|
|
Î[62] |
|
e vowels |
||||
|
בֱּ בְּ |
ĕ |
|
|
|
|
בֶּ |
sĕgōl |
|
e |
|
|
בֶּי |
sĕgōl yôd |
|
|
ê
|
|
בֵּ |
ṣērê |
|
|
ē |
|
בֵּי |
ṣērê yôd |
|
|
ê |
|
a vowels |
||||
|
ḥatep
pataḥ |
ă |
|
|
|
|
בַּ |
pataḥ |
|
a |
|
|
בַּח, בַּע |
furtive pataḥ |
|
a |
|
|
בָּ |
qāmeṣ gādôl |
|
|
ā |
|
בָּה |
final qāmeṣ hê |
|
|
â |
|
ָיו |
3d ms. suffix |
|
|
āyw |
|
o vowels |
||||
|
בֳּ |
ḥatep
qāmeṣ |
ɔ̆ |
|
|
|
כָּל־ |
qāmeṣ ḥāṭûp/ qāmeṣ qāṭān |
|
ɔ |
|
|
בֹּ |
ḥōlem |
|
|
ō |
|
בּוֹ |
full ḥōlem |
|
|
ô |
|
בֻּ |
short qibbuṣ |
|
u |
|
|
בֻּ |
long qibbuṣ |
|
|
ū |
|
בּוּ |
šûreq |
|
|
û |
There are plusses and minuses
inherent in the use of the SPL, or similar THCST,
system. The following examples are based on illustrations using the SPL
notation for THCST -
1. It is claimed to be
"...fully reversible: that is, the
system allows the reader to reproduce the Hebrew characters exactly
(consonants and vowels). However this is only true if the scholar is fully
conversant with the detailed grammatical rules and eccentricities of TH. For
example:
-
whereas dāgēš forte
is indicated by doubling the consonant, a euphonic dāgēš[63]
is not doubled
in the SBL system;
-
both sĕgōl yôd and ṣērê yôd are transliterated as êy.
2. It highlights the fact that vowel length was phonologically
distinct, and audibly important in Ancient
Hebrew as it is in most forms of
Arabic. This
is even more important if scholars actually pronounce, and hear in their mind,
long vowels pronounced with at least twice the duration of short vowels (i.e.
do not use modern
Hebrew pronunciations which ignore historic vowel length). However, the distribution of long and short vowels produced
mostly reflect the reconstructed reality of /PTH/+ which was systemically different
from the /EBHP/
system of over a millennium earlier and the /TH/+ system of half a millennium later.
3. It provides a, more or less, common code for scholars.
Disadvantages:
1. As a proxy
for EBH:
·
The long vowels ofTHCST include many vowels lengthened after the extinction of Hebrew as a
spoken language. Put another way,
many vowels which are long in THCST were short in EBH and LBH e.g.
'word' /EBH/ */daˈbaːr/;
TH
דָּבָר;THCST dābār;
·
Many short vowels in EBH and LBH have been reduced to ultra
short vowels in THCST e.g. 'word of' /EBH/ */ˌdạbar/; TH דְבַּׅר;THCST dĕbar;
·
It most
closely resembles my Proto-Tiberian Hebrew but does
not represent what the Masoretes encoded in their graphemes (my /TH/+) and what the
Masoretes almost certainly pronounced (my [TH] ).
"The
Masoretic pointing distinguishes seven vowel qualities: a, ɔ, o, u, ɛ, e, i, as well as šĕwāʾ (ә). Vowel length is not indicated explicitly. The
assumption that vocalic length is part of the phonology although it is not
distinguished graphically allows us to explain, for example, the conditions
under which certain vowels (presumably short) reduce or elide when other vowels
(presumably long) do not[64]. Students of Hebrew are misled by typical systems
of transliteration such as those of the Society of Biblical Literature and various individuals[65], which employ phonological symbols such as the macron (which is meant to
indicate vowel length) to
represent graphemic distinctions (such as vowel quality). It would appear from
such transcriptions that Masoretic qāmeṣ, transliterated ā, is simply a long pataḥ, and that ṣērê, transliterated ē,
is a long sĕgōl. The usual corollary is
that both pataḥ and sĕgōl
are always short and that both qāmeṣ gādôl and ṣērê are always long.
From a pholological point
of view the system of only five vowels (excluding šĕwāʾ ), in which ṣērê is a long sĕgōl, etc., makes little
sense. Why would the Masoretes employ a single symbol to render both qāmeṣ qāṭān - the realization of
closed /o/- and a long ā ? It is
much morel likely that the same symbol represents both short and long qāmeṣ, ɔ and ɔː [66]. Moreover, it stands to reason phonologically that pataḥ can be, and is,
long in the initial open syllable of forms like laːdoːnɔːy 'to my lord'. Concerning ṣērê, there is no reason that it should always be long..... (I)t is
surely unreasonable to analyze the open accented sĕgōl
at the end of the unbound (absolute) form yɔːˈfɛː 'fair' as short but the ṣērê with only a secondary accent in the construct counterpart
yәˌfe as long! The graphemic system should, it
would seem, be interpreted in such a way that the phonology makes sense."[67]
Some
examples of the misleading readings inherent in the SBL system
are:
- Non-Tiberian vowels - TH דָּבָר /TH/+
/dåˈbår/ [TH] *[dɔːˈvɔːr] is
transliterated under the SBL system as dābār.
- begadkepat spirantization - this is only
indicated when it is important to the discussion. See
the preceding example.
- quiescent
ʾālep is always
transliterated by ʾ - three
examples of the implications of this rule:
לׁא 'no' is transcribed lōʾ even though it was
almost certainly pronounced [loː] - i.e. no glottal stop - throughout the history of Ancient
Hebrew;
רֹאש is transcribed rōʾš although the spelling is
historical as the glottal stop [ʾ] disappeared prior to the Canaanite
shift i.e. in the first half of the second millennium BCE.
מָצָא is transcribed māṣāʾ although this pronunciation never
existed in the history of the language. The actual historical development of
the word was probably - /PH/ */maˈṣaʾa/
> /EBH/ */maˈṣaʾ/
> /LBH/ */maˈṣâ/
> /TH/+
/måˈṣå/ [TH]
*[mɔːˈṣɔː]
2. The accents
marking, both syntactical relations between words and stress are an
integral part of the MT.
However under the SPL transcription they are not marked
unless it is relevant to the point under discussion. N.b. stress is phonological
in TH.
3. It does not represent any scientifically reconstructed pronunciation
of Ancient Hebrew while it was
a spoken language;
4. It does not represent any traditional
pronunciation of Hebrew which has survived to the present as these do not distinguish between long
and short vowels.
5. The transliteration, aiming primarily at representing
Tiberian graphemes, has multiple signs
for long vowels synchronically identical in pronunciation (e.g. â
and ā both representing [aː]). These symbols are frequently unrelated
to the (diachronic) origin of the sound (c.f. my own notation).
It is clear
to me that:
·
For the study of biblical literature we should try to recapture what I
have termed EBHP. Although
there are many unknowns,
using a balance of probability approach, we can come much closer than THCST.
·
THCST is not a suitable transliteration system for the study of the history
of the Hebrew language as it does not distinguish the original quality
of reduced short vowels and the origin of long vowels (primitive long, lengthened to
contraction and assimilation, and lengthened
due to stress).
·
THCST is not a suitable transliteration system for the study of the Tiberian
vocal system since it does not represent what the Masoretes encoded
in their graphemes.
e. Ancient Hebrew Orthography[68] Provides
Some, But Not Much, Guidance Regarding the Placement, and Nature of Vowels
N.b. – Epigraphic
Hebrew from the first Temple Period is of great importance as there can be no
suspicion that later linguistic changes or writing conventions have influenced
the spelling.
http://www.adath-shalom.ca/history_of_hebrew2a.htm
- vow_qual Biblical Skeleton, Changing Script and Orthography, Medieval
Vowel Signs, Modern Pronunciation
http://www.houseofdavid.ca/anc_heb_12.htm
- Skeleton
Note - When was
Word-final hēʾ Consonantal in EBHP?
Box 19
|
“Diphthongs are complex
sounds which change timbre during their emission as a speaker glides from the
position of one vowel to that of another in the same syllable …. They may he experienced
auricularly either as two vowels. e.g., English house [au], fine [ai],
or as a vowel
followed by a glide or semivowel e.g., English house [aw], fine [ay]. Bange 1971 suggests
that in the first linguistic and orthographic period, diphthongs were
experienced only as two vowels and were not, therefore, indicated in the
orthography which was purely consonantal. In the second period, they were
experienced as a vowel followed by a glide, an indefinite sound uttered as
the speech organs passed from the articulatory position of the first vowel to
that of the second, which was not felt to be vocalic, and was therefore
indicated in the orthography. Bange refers to these indefinite sounds as
semiconsonants and to their orthographic representation as
"off-glides"…. In the last stage diphthongs were contracted into
monophthongs, but the orthography of the preceding period was maintained,
despite the fact that the off-glides no longer indicated semiconsonants. They
came to be viewed as m.l. and were then extended to indicate vowels even in
positions which had never had diphthongs…. The expression “contraction of
diphthongs,” which is convenient and will he utilized in this study,
refers to the phonetic process of vocalic assimilation. In the case of the
diphthong [au] or [aw], the low throat vowel [a] assimilates to the high back
vowel [u] resulting in the mid- back vowel [o]: in the case of [ai] or [ay],
the low front vowel [a] assimilates to the high front vowel [i], resulting in
the mid front vowel [e]." Zevit 1980, p. 7 |
|
Box 20 - Origin
of Matres Lectionis (Vowel
Letters) |
|
In
Ugaritic, the pronominal suffix of 1s., ῑ, is sometimes indicated by yod[69] in the orthography …. The
Ugaritic data are relevant to the following discussions of 1st-millennium
orthography insofar as they demonstrate that an idea of m.l. was current in
the Canaanite cultural milieu prior to the end of the 2nd millennium. There
is not enough evidence to support a definitive statement concerning the
influence of this development in Ugaritic cuneiform on the chronologically
later linear alphabets. Despite this, the reduced Ugaritic alphabet, approximating
the Hebrew-Phoenician phonemic inventory, mirror written from right to left
like Hebrew, Phoenician, and Aramaic, may have been a mediating influence. P3 Underlying the emergence of any system of m.l. is the
awareness that graphemes may be assigned more than one value, i.e., that they
may be polyphonous. Both
the Ugaritic and Phoenician alphabets were originally basically phonemic,
each grapheme corresponding to a single consonantal phoneme. Conservative
orthographic practices which did not keep pace with certain sound changes
gave rise to situations in which graphemes assumed more than one value. In
both Ugaritic and Phoenician, scribes employing this insight experimented
with using such graphemes as vocalic phonemes in positions where there could
be no danger of mistaking them for consonants, e.g., a final vowel. Where
historical circumstances did not give rise to enough suitable polyphonous
graphemes, scribes could invent new ones, as in the case of the three ’alep
signs in Ugaritic, a, i, u, or they could assign a second value to a
given grapheme in certain positions within a word. The employment of ’alep
signs in Ugaritic and of he in Ugaritic and Phoenician as m.l. may be due to
such an arbitrarily established scribal convention. P4 Like their Aramean neighbors to the northeast, the
Hebrews employed the principle of polyphony when they adopted a Phoenician or
Phoenician-type alphabet to their language by the 12th-11th centuries. The grapheme šin
designated the phonemes ś
and š,
and in all likelihood, ḥet designated both ḥ and ḫ and cayin both c and
ġ p5 Whether or not the Each
of these suggestions is open to serious criticism which undermines any
historical reconstruction of the use of in Hebrew orthography which relies on
it. It is therefore discreet to assume with EHO that the calendar is
Hebrew and that its orthography is defective without, however, opting for one
or the other of the problematic solutions. Should later research establish
that the waw is in fact a m.l.,it will be necessary to conclude that
the emergence of in Hebrew--if that is indeed the language of the inscription
— paralleled chronologically the same development in Aramaic. Pp. 5-6 In examining epigraphic evidence for the development of
m.l. in Hebrew orthography, the following criteria are applied: 1) The
graphemes 'alep, he, waw, and yod are considered m.l. if they
do not represent etymological consonant phonemes. 2) If, however, they do
represent such phonemes, they are considered m.l. only when evidence
indicates that a sound change occurred and that the grapheme conforms to a
historical and not to a phonetic spelling. The second criterion assumes that the pronunciation of
Hebrew in the 9th-6th centuries B.C.E. was different than it is today, and it
presumes to know how it was different. The source of this knowledge is historical
reconstruction, drawing on comparative Semitic linguistics, based on the text
of the Hebrew Bible and on the linguistic traditions associated with it. The
function of a reconstruction is to explicate empirical evidence; in itself,
it does not constitute such evidence. The reconstruction, however, proceeds
from an empirical base and can never surmount the unreliability of this base.
For Hebrew the
question must be: how reliable are the text and linguistic traditions of the
Hebrew Bible as preserved, recorded, and transmitted by the Massoretes, i.e.,
the Massoretic Text (=MT)? Discoveries
at Qumran clearly indicate that proto-Massoretic (or proto-textus-receptus)
text types, with regard to contents and orthography, are well represented by
the 1st century B.C.E. These existed side by side with texts which differed
from them in readings and orthography (Cross 1966: 78-81, 94). Of the three
oldest biblical manuscripts, 4QExodf (ca. 250 B.C.E.), 4QSamb
(ca. 225 B.C.E.), and 4Q.Jera (ca. 200 B.C.E.), two, Exodf
and Jera, conform orthographically to the prevailing pattern of
the MT (Freedman 1962: 202, 205, 211). [71]
The MT, then, may be considered the stemmatic descendant of a text type which
evolved prior to the 3rd century B.C.E. when it is first attested (Goshen-Gottstein
1967: 245-49; Zevit 1977: 327-28). It is not a rabbinic or a massoretic
invention, but rather a type of text which was received by them as normative.
The antiquity of the text, however, does not assure the antiquity of the
linguistic traditions associated with it. Pp 8-9 Quoted from Matres Lectionis in Ancient Hebrew
Epigraphs (Monograph series - American Schools of Oriental Research; no.
2) by Ziony Zevit , 1980, ISBN:
0897574028 pp. 2-9 |
|
Box 21
- Matres
Lectionis in Hebrew |
|
The use of
vowel letters in JEH, formed the basis, with some modification
and widening of use, for their use in the biblical text. Four
trends that influenced the institution and spread of vowel letters can be
identified: 1. The practice of using a consonantal grapheme to
indicate a vowel was initiated by the Aramaean scribes at the time they
borrowed the Phoenician alphabet. Specifically Aramaean scribes used waw to indicate [uː], yod to
indicate [iː], he to
indicate [aː]. At first vowel letters were used mainly to
indicate word-final vowels. The use of he
to indicate [aː]
always was always limited to the word-final position. Although the use of
vowel letters within words was initially sparing, they were more frequently
used in the case of borrowed words and foreign proper names whose sound
patterns would be foreign to Aramaean ears. Aramaean
practice in the use of vowel letters spread to became the norm in the writing
of Hebrew and Moabite. In JEH the use
of final vowel letters and occasionally, e.g. <ʾrwr>,
internal vowel letters is clear. 2.
Historical spelling made only a secondary, and later, contribution to the
development of vowel letters. Examples: - he may
have come to indicate -[oː]
due to the shift in the 3ms. pronominal suffix *-[ahu] > *-[au] > -[oː][72]; - waw may
have come to indicate -[oː]
due to the heterogeneous
diphthong contraction *-[aw] > -[oː]
in words such as *šawr > šoːr and *hawlid
> hoːlid - a clear example of historical spelling is the aleph
in <rʾš> 'head' which was
written in the Siloam inscription at a time when it
certainly did not represent a consonantal glottal stop.
It is at
times difficult to decide whether an historical spelling is indicated. Thus the
spelling <byt> in construct in the Arad inscriptions can be explained
in any of 3 ways: a)
the
original diphthong was maintained i.e. /bayt/; b)
it
was a historical spelling i.e. the shift /bayt/ > /beːt/ had already taken place; c)
it
was not so much an historical spelling as a tendency to retain the spelling
of a word in its declination. 3. At a later date, the use of vowel letters may
have spread through the process of analogy. Thus the diphthong contraction [aw] > [oː]
led to the use of waw to indicate [oː] even in cases where its origin was [aː]
> [oː] as in the fp. noun suffix -[oːt] and the active participle of
the qal. However, we should note
that this type of analogy is much more restricted in the case of [eː].
Generally [eː] is represented by yod only where it results from the diphthong contraction [aw] > [oː] and only rarely when it originates
from an earlier [iː]. From this it is clear that the
contraction of the diphthong [ay] > [eː] took place later than the contraction of the diphthong [aw] > [oː].
This sequence led to waw being used to indicate [oː] long before yod
came into use to indicate [eː]. In fact the use of yod to
indicate [eː] might have commenced only after the Babylonian Exile[73]. In addition, the letters waw and yod, which
originally indicated only long vowels, later were used in addition, at times,
to indicate short vowels. 4. Over the centuries, vowel letters were
consistently and increasingly used to eliminate ambiguity in writing as is evidenced in LBH, QH and MH. though an opposite
"aesthetic" trend is seen regarding the biblical text, which
prevented the reiteration of a letter in the same word thus words such as טובות and ישמרוהו are
generally written with a single waw. Summarized from Sarfatti 1994
pp. 19-21. |
N.b. The common noun יום/ ים = “day” is commonly spelled ימ in epigraphic Hebrew representing a pronunciation yom or yōm. See Joϋon-Muraoka
1991 § 98 note 2.
See
also Table -
Matres Lectionis in
JEH
|
Box 22[74] -
Matres Lectionis in the Biblical Text |
|
Quoted from Ziony Zevit’s review (Journal
of the American Oriental Society 111.3 1991pp. 647-50) of Barr 1989. Hebrew words in the Bible, particularly those with a long
o or i in a medial position, are often spelled more than one
way. Sometimes long o is indicated by a waw, and sometimes long
i is indicated by a yod. Sometimes, however, neither of these
vowel letters is used to indicate the vowel. Were the spelling differences
isolatable by specific words, or morphemes, or by etymological
considerations, explanations for the diverse spellings would be forthcoming;
but such is simply not the case. In fact, many words are spelled variously
with or without vowel letters in close proximity to each other in the same text
for no apparent reason…. …Barr
draws a number of conclusions. 1) Spelling varies in the Bible because
scribes like it to vary. They had no systematic approach to spelling. They
could vary spellings arbitrarily or for some graphic, stylistic pleasure (p.
194). 2) Varied spellings do not preserve dialect differences, cf. Ju 1:11,
19, 27, 30, 31 ywšby, yšby, (dwellers) (p. 194). 3) The overall
picture appears to indicate a lack of conscious awareness in the use of vowel
letters. The few patterns revealing pre-masoretic Hebrew may be accidental
vestiges not blurred by scribal activity (pp. 195-96). 4) The consistent
spelling of certain personal names such as those of Moses, Aaron, and of
certain nouns such as khn (priest) may be indicative of certain
scribal conventions (p. 197). 5) Given these conclusions, nothing may
be learned from patterns of spelling about their pronunciation (p. 197). 6)
The spelling of a book depends not on when it was written but on when and how
often it was revised and what spelling conventions were applied by the
responsible scribes (pp. 199-201, 207). No Biblical book written in the
pre-exilic period retains the spellings characteristic of the time of
original composition (p. 207). These conclusions differ somewhat from those of F. I. Anderson
and A. D. Forbes, Spelling in the Hebrew Bible (Rome: Biblical
Institute Press, 1986), that appeared after Barr had completed his work but
before its publication. Barr, therefore, could only refer to this book
sporadically in his notes. Working
with a computer-generated data base, Anderson and Forbes concluded that the
spelling rules and procedures which prevail in the masoretic texts combine
the conservation of old rules with the adoption of two new ones, along with a
certain drift towards phonetic spelling of long vowels with matres lectionis.
Uniformity was never achieved (p. 326). The
old rules to which they refer are the tendency towards defective writing
characteristic of the Iron Age as evidenced in Hebrew inscriptions with a
spare use of vowel letters to indicate originally long, word-final, vowels or
those derived from diphthongs. In the pre-exilic period, vowel letters were
also used to indicate other long vowels (pp. 32, 55-60), but in the
post-exilic period, the system was extended to indicate originally short
vowels lengthened under stress (pp. 32, 55-62). The two new ones, introduced
in the post-exilic period are the use of waw instead of he to
indicate a final long o and the use of yod to indicate
masculine plural noun stems (pp. 318-19, and cf. Z. Zevit, Matres Lectionis
in Ancient Hebrew Epigraphs [Cambridge, Mass.: ASOR, 1980], 33). For Anderson and Forbes, the mentality of the scribe and
the traditions of his craft made for a conservative tradition of copying. The
two new rules were almost universally applied to Biblical texts, the
extension of vowel letters to indicate originally short vowels less so.
Variation in this extension exists in the Bible and can be measured in
different parts of the text. They conclude, cautiously and with
qualifications, that the earlier a text was canonized, its form fixed,
scribal practice tended not to increase the use of post-exilic vowel letters.
Such a text is more defective. The later its fixing, the more prevalent
post-exilic types of vowel letters, the more plene the text (pp. 312-18).
They maintain that a relative scaling of texts from most defective to most
plene provides a guide for determining not the time a text was written but
the time that its very spelling became fixed, and hence the relative time of
its canonization. Orthographic differences thus correlate with chronology and
are not, in the final analysis, so anarchic as Barr's study would indicate |
f. Reading
Traditions of Biblical Hebrew
|
Table 23 - EBHP, TH and
the Phonetic Realizations of BH in Key Modern Pronunciations[75] |
||||||||
|
MT Graphemes |
(c. 850-550 BCE) |
(present) |
(c. 850 CE) |
(present) |
(present) |
(present) |
(present) |
(present) |
|
|
Readings or recitations of CBH documents in late First Temple Jerusalem |
|||||||
|
Consonants |
||||||||
|
א |
/ʾ/ |
Ø when word or syllable final. |
[Ø] |
[Ø] |
[Ø] |
[ʔ] |
||
|
בּ |
/b/ |
/b/ [b] |
[b] |
[b] |
[b] |
[b] |
[b] |
|
|
ב |
/b/ [v] |
[v] |
[v] |
[v] |
[v] |
|||
|
גּ |
/ɡ/ |
[ɡ] |
[ɡ] |
[ɡ] |
[ɡ] |
[ɡ] |
||
|
ג |
/g/ [ɣ] |
[ɣ] |
[ɣ] |
|||||
|
דּ |
/d/ |
[d] |
[d] |
[d] |
[d] |
[d] |
||
|
ד |
/d/ [ð] |
[ð] |
||||||
|
[81]ה |
/h/ |
/h/ [h] |
[h] |
[h] |
[h] |
|||
|
הּ |
[Ø] |
[Ø] |
[Ø] |
|||||
|
ו [83] |
/w/ |
/w/ [w] |
[v] |
[v] |
[v] |
[w] |
||
|
ז |
/z/ |
/z/ [z] |
[z] |
[z] |
[z] |
[z] |
[z] |
|
|
|
/ḥ/ [ħ] |
[x] |
[x] |
[ħ] |
[x] |
[ħ] |
||
|
ט |
ṭ, t |
[t] |
[t] |
[tˤ] |
[t] |
[t], [ḍ] |
||
|
י [85] |
/y/ |
(I will use [y] in transcriptions) |
[y] |
[y] |
[y] |
[y] |
||
|
כּ |
/k/ |
[k] |
[k] |
[k] |
[k] |
[k] |
||
|
כ |
[x] |
[x] |
[x] |
[x] |
[x] |
|||
|
ל |
/l/ |
/l/ [l] |
[l] |
[l] |
[l] |
[l] |
[l] |
|
|
מ |
/m/ |
/m/ [m] |
[m] |
[m] |
[m] |
[m] |
[m] |
|
|
נ |
/n/ |
/n/ [n] |
[n] |
[n] |
[n] |
[n] |
[n] |
|
|
ס |
/s/ |
/s/ [s] |
[s] |
[s] |
[s] |
[s] |
||
|
[Ø] |
[Ø] |
[ʕ] |
[Ø] |
[ʕ] |
||||
|
פּ |
/p/ |
[p] |
[p] |
[p] |
[p] |
|||
|
פ |
/p/ [f] |
[f] |
[f] |
[f] |
[f] |
[f] |
||
|
[ ʦ͡] |
[ ʦ͡] |
[ṣ] |
[ ʦ͡] |
[ṣ] |
||||
|
ק |
[k] |
[k] |
[k] |
|||||
|
ר |
/r/ |
/r/ [ɾ] |
[r] |
[r] |
[r] |
|||
|
שׂ |
/ś/[92] |
[ʃ] |
/ś/ [ɬ] |
[s] |
[s] |
[s] |
[s] |
[s] |
|
שׁ |
/š/ |
/š/ [ʃ] |
[ʃ] |
[ʃ] |
[ʃ] |
[ʃ] |
[ʃ] |
|
|
תּ |
/t/ |
/t/ [t] |
[t] |
[t] |
[t] |
[t] |
[t] |
|
|
ת |
/t/ [θ] |
[s] |
[θ] |
|||||
|
Dagesh forte |
CC |
CC |
CC |
C |
C |
CC |
C |
CC |
|
Vowels |
||||||||
|
Ḥîreq |
i |
[i] |
[i], [ə] |
[i] |
[i] |
[i], [ə] |
||
|
Ṣērê |
/e/ [ẹː] |
[ɛ] |
[ẹy], [ay] |
[ɛ] |
[ɛ] |
[ẹ] |
||
|
Sĕgōl |
/a/ |
[ɛ], [ẹ], [ẹy] |
[a], [ɛ] |
|||||
|
Pataḥ |
a, ɔ |
[a] |
[a] |
[a] |
[a] |
|||
|
Qāmeṣ |
[a] [o] |
[o] |
[a] [o] |
[a] [o] |
[ɔ] |
|||
|
Ḥōlem |
u, o |
/o/ [oː] |
[o] |
[oy], [ẹy], [y] |
[o] |
[o] |
[ö], [ẹ] |
|
|
Šûreq- qibbuṣ |
[u] |
[u], [i] |
[u] |
[u] |
[u] |
|||
|
Mobile šwa |
/i/,
/a/, /u/ |
|
/ə/ [ə] |
mostly [Ø] occasionally [ə], [ɛ] |
[ẹ], [ə] |
[ẹ~ɛ] |
[ẹ~ɛ] |
[ă] or other short vowel depending on context.[98] |
|
Ḥaṭep-sĕgōl[99] |
/i/,
/a/ |
|
/ɛ̆/ [ɛ̆] |
[ɛ] |
[ɛ], [ẹ], [ẹy] |
[ă] |
||
|
Ḥaṭep-pataḥ |
/a/ |
|
/ă/ [ɐ̆] |
[a] |
[a] |
[a] |
[a] |
|
|
Ḥaṭep-qāmeṣ |
/u/ |
ɔ̆ |
/ɔ̆/ [ɔ̆] |
[o], [u] |
[o], [u] |
[o] |
[o] |
[ɔ̆] |
|
Word Stress |
||||||||
Masoretic cantillation
signs (MCS)
|
See note[100] |
follows MCS |
mainly follows MCS |
generally
penultimate |
mainly follows MCS |
mainly follows MCS |
See note[101] |
|
[1] See Joϋon-Muraoka
1991
§ 5-9.
In Hebrew not only is a more stable than i/u (cf. §3.5.7.2.3n, p.
122); differences also obtain between the more
stable i and the less stable u.
3.5.5.1. From a diachronic point of view, it is likely that in
Proto-Semitic (as in Classical Arabic) the phonemic system of vowels consisted
of three vowel pairs, three short, a : i : u, and three long, ā : ī : ū.
3.5.5.2. In the structure of the Proto-Semitic short vowels one can
detect, it seems, an older binary system in which a was opposed to i/u,
with i and u acting as mere variants. Traces of this ancient binary
structure are reflected in Biblical Hebrew as well. In the qal
suffix-tense (see §4.3.5.2.2.1, p. 220) of verbs denoting action, the second
radical is followed by a (e.g., ֺשׇמַר ‘he preserved’...), whereas in stative verbs
it is vocalized with ṣere, ḥolam (< i, u, e.g., חָפֵץ ‘he wanted’; יָכֺל
‘he was able’). In contrast, in the qal prefix-tense, it is a
that is characteristic of stative verbs (e.g., יִיֺשַן
‘he will sleep’; יוּכַל ‘he will be able’), whereas ṣere, ḥolam (< i, u)
are typical of action verbs (e.g., יִתֵּן ‘he will give’; יִֺשְמֺר
‘he will preserve’). This state of things, to be sure, is rather blurred, since
a tends to prevail in the suffix-tense and o (< u) in
the prefix-tense, yet its traces are clear enough to suggest an ancient binary
opposition a: i/u.
[4] A case can be made that the PTH reflex of the TH vocal šwa
/ә/ is
not phonemic (cf. Gibson 1965 pp.
41-42). However, for clarity I will assume its phonemic status in PTH.
[5] Rare e.g. /ˈmētu/
dead see Gibson 1965 p. 37
and Blau 2010 §4.3.8.7.2.3..
[7] Gibson 1965 p. 37 "One other Tiberian vowel phoneme is known not to have existed before about the fifth century A.D., namely /å/ (IPA , which is in origin a merger of a previous /aː/ and certain allophones of /u/"
[10] Cf. Joϋon-Muraoka
1991 §6b
[11] Al Ani 1970 (p. 75) states that in Iraqi read MSA "The relative
duration of the short vowels is from 100-150 msec. With the long vowels it is
from 225-350 msec. These durations do not apply for vowels when
inisolation."
[12] Lipinski 1997 §21.25
[13] "There are two
sounds which have not as yet been mentioned, viz. e and o.... Phonetically they
occur both as long and short vowels. Phonematically, however, things are
different.... The two vowels have their origin in classical ay and aw and ought
to be long in every case. In the colloquial they are shortened before two
consonants and in every unstressed syllable. Consequently, this shortening is
conditioned by the position and is of no relevance. We, therefore, still have
only one e-phoneme and one o-phoneme. In the position where vowel quantity
might be relevant, viz. in non-final open and stressed syllables, these two
vowels are always long. Consequently any oppositions ē:ĕ and
ō:ŏ does not exist.
"But then we have to solve the problem whether a short
e is a different phoneme from a short i, and a short o a different phoneme from
a short u. The numerous inconsequences in transcriptions, in which i often
alternates with e and u with o, even in the same syllable in the same word,
seem to indicate that there are no phonematic oppositions i:e and u:o.
The definite article il, el illustrates rather well the
lack of any opposition between i and e. As a matter of fact, it is quite
impossible to state such an opposition in any word at all: No word changes its
cleaning when an i is replaced by an e and vice versa. Phonetically it is often
hard to say whether to note i ore, especially in unstressed closed
syllables....
Just the same statement is to be made as to the relation
between ŭ and ŏ.... It is
completely indifferent whether ŭ or ŏ
is used in transcriptions. The phonetic value may depend on the surroundings,
so that a velarized consonant requires the more open o, but any opposition o:u
is impossible....
The conclusion must be drawn that the oppositions ī:ē and ū:ō do exist. They are,
however, very little utilized. They are, indeed, so little utilized that as
soon as the vowel is shortened they are nullified....
The ultimate conclusion is:
The
Egyptian Arabic has only the three short vowel phonemes of the classical
language, viz. a, i, u. But it has five long vowel phonemes, viz. oppositions
ā, ē, ī, ō, ū. The short i has the two long
correspondences ī and ē, the short u the two long correspondences
ū and ō. If we had a linguistic system without any relevance of vowel
quantity we would have five vowel phonemes, viz. a, e, i, o, u. In this system
e and o, regarded as phonemes, would only occur as phonetically long vowels,
the others both as short and long vowels. This may, indeed, be the correct way
of interpreting the phonetics facts phonematically, since the relevance of
vowel quantity is more than questionable." Birkeland 1952
pp. 47-49.
[15] Mitchel 1962 p. 23.
[16] See Dabbēr
carvīt by Moshe Piamenta< Maariv, Tel Aviv, 1968 p.14.
[21] Note, in reconstructed [EBHP]
transliterations and sound files -
1.there is no spirantization
of the bgdkpt consonants -
http://www.houseofdavid.ca/anc_heb_tequ.htm#bgdpt;
2. vowel
qualities are outlined here - http://www.houseofdavid.ca/anc_heb_6.htm#ebhp_vow_qual;
3. I use the
most probable form. Where no one form stands out as most probable, I select the
one closest to the MT vocalization.
4. when multiple forms are possible, the form used is underlined.
[22] “When ו and י are
not used as mater lectionis, they are pronounced. This is true in the
following cases where the preceding vowel is heterogeneous …. In these
combinations the ו and י probably have a consonantal value, e.g. ַי =ay,
and not ai, ָו = åw and not åu.”. From Joϋon-Muraoka
1991
§ 7d.
[23] IN EBHP and LBHP
THE JUSSIVE
(PCjus),
COHORTATIVE (PCcoh),
IMPERFECT (PCimp) AND PRETERITE (PCpret_sim/PCpretWC)
are, in some forms, distinguished by the placement
of syllabic stress when not
carrying object suffixes. See -
- http://www.adath-shalom.ca/history_of_hebrew3a.htm#indic_jus
AND
- http://www.adath-shalom.ca/history_of_hebrew3a.htm#Prefix_Conjugation
[24] /gāˈlâ/ (TH גָּלָה) = "she rejoices" root gyl qal a.p.; /gaˈlâ/ (TH גָּלָה) = "he went into exile", 3rd MS passive qal SC root glh. Joϋon-Muraoka 1991 §204b.
[25] */ˌʾil/ (TH אֵל) = "god of"; /ˌʾal/ (TH אַל) = "don't, not"
[26] */qaˈṣar/ (TH קָצַר) = "he harvested" 3rd ms. qal SC; */qaˈṣῑr/ (TH קָצִיר) - "harvest (noun)".
[27] */qaˈtal/ (TH קָטַל) - 3ms. qal SC; */quˈtal/ (TH קֻטַּל) - 3ms. passive qal SC. Joϋon-Muraoka 1991 §55b.
[28] /cūl/ (TH עוּל) = "suckling child of"; /ˈcal/ (TH עַל) = "upon".
[29] /ʾab/ (TH אַב) = "father of"; /ʾōb/ (TH אוֹב) = "familiar spirit of".
[30] */ˌbin/ (TH בֵּן) = "son of"; */ˌbān/ (TH בָּן) = " understander of" - qal participle in constr..
[31] /sūˈsâ/ (TH סוּסָה) = "female horse"; /sūˈsῑ/ (TH סוּסִי) = "my (male) horse.
[32] */tār/ (TH תָּר) qal ms. a.p. in construct relationship = "investigator of":*/tur/ (TH תּוֺר) - "dove of".
[33] */qaˈtalâ/ (TH קָטְלָה) - 3rd fs. qal perfect; */qaˈtalū/ (TH קָטְלוּ) - 3rd pl. qal SC. Joϋon-Muraoka 1991 §55b.
[34] /sūˈsâ/ (TH סוּסָה) = "female horse"; /sūˈsô / (TH סוּסוֹ) = "his (male) horse.
[35] /sūˈsâ/ (TH סוּסָה) = "female
horse"; /sūˈsay(y)/ (TH סוּסַי) = "my (male)
horses".
[36] /sūˈsâ/ (TH סוּסָה) = "female
horse"; /sūˈsâw/ (TH סוּסָיו) = "his (male)
horses".
[37] /ˌbin/ (TH בֵּן) = "son of"; */ˌbῑn/ (TH בִּין) = "understanding of" - qal inf. constr. in construct relationship.
[38] /*kaˈbōd/ (TH כָּבוֹד) = "honor"; /kaˈbid/ (TH כָּבֵד) - qal 3ms. SC.
[39] /ˈqūmῑ/ (TH קוּמִי) - qal fs. imperative root qwm; /ˈqūmū/ (TH קוּמוּ) - qal mp. imperative root qwm.
[40] /sūˈsῑ/ (TH סוּסִי) = "my (male) horse"; /sūˈsô/ (TH סוּסוֹ) = "his (male) horse".
[41] /yirˈṣê/ (TH יִרְצֶה) - qal 3rd ms. PC indicative of root rṣh ; /yirˈṣū/ (TH יִרְצוּ) - 3rd mp. of the same.
[42] /sūˈsῑ/ (TH סוּסִי) = "my (male) horse";
/sūˈsay(y)/ (TH סוּסַי) = "my (male)
horses".
[43] /sūˈsῑ/ (TH סוּסִי) = "my (male)
horse"; /sūˈsâw/ (TH סוּסָיו) = "his (male)
horses".
[44] */muˈtῑ/ = "my man"; /mūˈtῑ / (TH מוּת) - inf. cstr. qal "my death".
[46] /ˈqōm/ (TH קוֹם) - qal inf. abs root qwm; /ˈqūm/ (TH קוּם) - qal inf. constr. root qwm
[47] /raˈṣê/ (TH רְצֵה) - qal MS imperative of root rṣh ; /raˈṣū/ (TH רְצוּ) - MP imperative of the same.
[48] /raˈṣō/:/ / (TH רָצֹה) - qal inf. abs. of root rṣh ; /raˈṣê/ (TH רְצֵה) - qal MS imperative of the same.
[49] /sūˈsô/ (TH סוּסוֹ) = "his (male)
horse"; /sūˈsay(y)/ (TH סוּסַי) = "my (male)
horses".
[50] /sūˈsô/ (TH סוּסוֹ) = "his (male)
horse"; /sūˈsâw/ (TH סוּסָיו) = "my (male)
horses".
[51] Blau 2010 §3.5; Blau 1976/93
p.12.
[52] Quoted from Khan 1997a pp. 85-86.
We must
distinguish the Tiberian vocalization system from the
original Tiberian Hebrew pronunciation, which It was
designed to represent. This was the pronunciation of Hebrew which was used in the traditional reading of
the Bible in the region of Tiberias during the seventh-ninth centuries A.D.
Whereas the Tiberian vocalization tradition has survived in written form, the
Tiberian pronunciation of Hebrew, which was orally transmitted, is extinct.
None of the pronunciation traditions of the Hebrew Bible that are in use among
Jewish communities today derive from the Tiberian pronunciation.
The
original Tiberian pronunciation that lies behind the vocalization signs can be
reconstructed from several sources. These include:
1. Masoretic and grammatical texts. Of primary importance are the texts from
Palestine, especially the work Hidāyat al-qāri. 'Guide
for the reader'. Thed grammarians from medieval Spain sometimes describe the
articulation of a
sound in greater detail than the Eastern sources. Their descriptions have to be
treated with caution, however, since they could in some cases reflect a local
type of pronunciation that differed from the Tiberian.
2.
Transcription of the Tiberian pronunciation tradition into Arabic script which
are found in medieval manuscript written by Karaites (a medieval sect of
Judaism).
3. The use of Hebrew letters and
Tiberian vocalization signs to represent other languages. Of particular
importance are medieval texts that represent Arabic in this way.
[53] Unaccented syllables in TH either are closed having a
short vowel or open with a long vowel. The only two exceptions are /båtˈtîm/ [båːtˈtîm], 'houses' and
/ʾånˈnå/ [ʾåːnˈnåː], 'please'.)
[54] Blau 1972 p.190 points
out that in the Tiberian qameṣ gadol developed from the
pre-Tiberian ā which was simply the long vowel corresponding to the short
vowel signified by the pataḥ.
[55] Note the pattern
Tiberian רֹגֶז (/ˈrogɛz/
< EBH */ˈrugz/
< */ˈrugzu/
=
"trembling, fear") vs. רֹגֵז
(/roˈgẹz/
< EBH */rōˈgiz/
< */ˈrāgizu/
(qal
m. .s act. part.= "one who trembles")
[56] E.g. 2 Samuel
5:10.
[60] From The SBL
Handbook of Style For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian
Studies by Patrick H. Alexander, Hendrickson
Publishers, 1999 sect. 5.1.1.
[62] "The consonants hê, wāw, and yôd, used to indicate long vowels (vowel letters, matres lectionis), are transliterated as
a circumflex over the vowel (i.e., â, ê, î,
ô, û).... Regarding a final hê, note the fem. sg. poss. ending (malkāh "her king") and
the feminine ending -â (malkâ "queen"). ָהּ (hệ with a mappîq) should be written as -āh."
Ibid 5.1.1.4(1).
[63] See GKC §20.
[64] For a historical
analysis of short vowel elision in ancient Hebrew, cf. Cantineau 1932
[65] I single out here W.
Weinberg, who has devoted entire publications to the topic of transliterating
Hebrew, esp. "Transliteration and Transcription of Hebrew," HUCA 40-41 (1969-70) 1-32 with tables.
Even what he calls the "narrow [i.e. scholarly, philological]
transliteration" fails to distinguish the seven Masoretic vowels and mixes
phonetic with graphemic phenomena.
[66] For the remainder of
this quote I am using the IPA length symbol ː in place of the macron.
[67] "An Introduction to a Generative Phonology of Biblical Hebrew" by Edward L. Greenstein in Bodine 1992 pp. 36-37.
[68] According to the
Encarta Dictionary, orthography is defined as:
1. study
of correct spelling: the study of established correct spelling
2. study of how letters are arranged: the study of letters of an
alphabet and how they occur sequentially in words
3. relationship between sounds and letters: the way letters and
diacritic symbols represent the sounds of a language in spelling
[70] Early Hebrew
Orthography: A Study of the Epigraphic Evidence (American Oriental Series)
by Frank M., Jr. Cross, David Noel Freeman, American Oriental Society (1952)
ISBN: 0940490366
[71] “Anticipating
conclusions in the final chapter, this sentence should be qualified to read as
follows: conform orthographically to what is commonly believed to
be the prevailing pattern of the MT."
[73] Andersen 1986 p.
138.
[74] I could also mention
Saul Levin's view that the vowel letters represent consonantal off-glides i.e. וֹ = [ow] etc. The following quote is taken from Levin 1988 (p. 292) - the highlights in bold are my own.
The analysis of English vowels [jy] and [ey] with and off-glide [y], and [uw] and [ow] with and off-glide [w], finally made linguists aware of an alternative to vowel-length. Physically the difference in sound between lengthening and off-glide may be quite small, especially between [iː] and [iy] or between [uː] and [uw]. In English both lengthening and an off-glide are often discernable in the very same syllable at the same time. but when we turn to the ancient Hebrew texts and examine the evidence, the only conclusion that makes sense is that the scribes could and did record off-glides. Vowels, whether lengthened or not, escaped their means of notation, a consonantal alphabet, just as accents and other supra-segmental features did.
[75] In preparing this chart I have drawn on Morag 1970.
[76] For details on the Samaritan traditions of
Hebrew see Ben-Hayyim 2000.
[77] From Kutscher 1982 §37 -
H. Yalon has
shown that the so-called Sephardic pronunciation was that of medieval Jewery in
Western and Central Europe, as we can see from the fact that prayer books that
were vocalized in Germany ... continually mix up the qameṣ and pataḥ just as Sephardic Jews
do.
[78] For details on the Yemenite traditions of
Hebrew see Morag 1963.
[79] /g/ Two allophones in complementary distribution גּ = [ɡ] and ג = g, ġ [ʁ] or nearly identical [ɣ].
[80] /d/ 2 allophones in complementary distribution דּ = [d] and ד = d [ð].
[81] [h]
when not vowel letter in word-final position; when word-final vowel letter [Ø].
[82] Consonantal [h] at end of word..
[83] Excluding its use as a vowel letter (Šûreq; ḥōlem mālê).
[84] A polyphonic letter in BH representing
/ḥ/ [ħ] or /ḫ/ [x] depending on its PS origin.
[85] Excluding its use as a vowel letter (sĕgōl mālê; ṣērê mālê;
ḥîreq mālê).
[86] From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_phonology#Dropped_consonants
In normal speech, /ʔ/ is dropped when occurring between vowels, and
/j/ is dropped when occurring between vowels where the first is a front vowel
(/e/ or /i/) or the second is /i/. /h/ between vowels may also be dropped,
especially in fast speech. Hence, /ma ha-ʃaˈʔa/ "what's the
time?" becomes [mahaʃaˈa] or [maaʃaˈa].
Thus /y/ is no longer pronounced if at beginning of
word followed by [i] e.g. ישמור pronounced [iʃˈmor]
[87] 2 allophones in complementary
distribution כּ
= k [k] or [kʰ] and כ = k [x].
[88] a polyphonic letter in BH
representing /c/
[ʕ] or /ġ/ [ɣ] depending
on its PS origin. ([ɣ]is very close to [ʁ̞]).
[89] /p/ 2 allophones in complementary distribution פּ = p [p] and פ = p [f].
[94] EBHP
[u]corresponds to BHSEP qameṣ qatan.
[95] Unaccented syllables in TH either are closed having a short vowel or open with a long vowel. The only two exceptions are /båtˈtîm/ [båːtˈtîm], 'houses' and /ʾånˈnå/ [ʾåːnˈnåː], 'please'.)
[96] Unstressed closed syllables.
[97] Stressed and open unstressed syllables.
[98] basic realization = ă; when preceding y = ǐ; when preceding ʔ, h, ħ, or ʕ = ultrashort vowel identical in quality to the vowel of the following consonant.
[99] The phonemic status of
the ḥaṭep vowels are moot.
[100] From Morag 1970 col. 1143.
Samaritan Hebrew has as a rule, penultimate primary stress (with
concomitant secondary stress on the second syllable preceding the one which has
the primary stress; secondary stress may fall on the syllable directly
preceding the syllable which has the primary stress - this is the case when the
former syllable has a long vowel). It may be, however, proven that the ...
stress patterns of Samaritan Hebrew are ... (of recent development), and that
the stress patterns that Samaritan Hebrew formerly possessed were identical
with those of Tiberian Hebrew (Z. Ben-Hayyim, Sefer Ḥanokh Yalon (1963),
149-160)..
[101] From Morag 1970 col. 1143.
The Yemenite community generally maintains in reading the Bible the
Tiberian rules of stress distribution in words which have disjunctive accents; words which have conjunctive accents, on the other hand, quite frequently have
stress patterns differing from those of the Tiberian tradition.... (W)ords
which in the Tiberian tradition have an ultimate stress ... have in the
Yemenite pronunciation the stress on the penultimate syllable... and
occasionally on the antepenultimate, when they come with a disjunctive accent.
