[b-hebrew] Was Schewa really silent?
Isaac Fried
if at math.bu.edu
Mon Sep 17 07:11:01 EDT 2007
James,
I am sorry, but I am not succeeding in phonetically relating to this
graphical symbol /ə/, which indeed all say "is the most common sound
in the English language". Listening even to a good talking dictionary
I hear nothing in 'hard' but hard, and nothing in 'pencil' but pensl.
I would not know what to do with pensəl. Is /ə/ indicating that
there exists an ephemeral, tiny-tiny, ether filled, gap between the
's' and the 'l', or is /ə/ just standing there in memoriam of an
evaporated 'i'?
When a Hebrew speaker "moves", or vocalizes, a schwa he does it by a
full and healthy E, nothing less, and all I am saying is that Hebrew
sounds better without these uninvited and intrusive Es. I know that
by now the battle is lost as they are entrenched in the language [and
also justified by this schwa "NA" theory] and there is no one to
uproot them.
In my opinion the schwa is at most an )ET-NAX-TA, a pause, a ZAKEP
QATON put under the line. Thus, it is VA-YHI, not VA-Y[E]HI, MLUKA,
'monarchy', not M[E]LUKA, [there is nothing prohibitive about the
initial cluster ML in my Hebrew] it is $)ELAH, 'question', not $[E])
ELAH, it is T$UBAH, 'response', not T[E]$UBAH, it is LMAD[ ]TEM, not
LMAD[E]TEM [verbs ending in D or T are prone to this extra E] nor the
commonly heard L[A]MAD[E]TEM. It is CAL[ ]LU not CAL[E]LU, it is SOK
[ ]KIM, not SOK[E]KIM, it is XAG[ ]GA, not XAG[E]GA, it is (AN[ ]NEI
not (AN[A]NEI, it is MI-LMATAH, 'from below', not MI-L[E]MATAH, it is
LUL)OT, not LUL[A])OT, it is MIGR[ ]$EI, not MIGR[E]$EI nor MIGR[A]
$EI, it is YI$L[ ]XU, not YI$L[E]XU, it is NIPL[ ])OTAY, not NIPL[E])
OTAY. Yet I agree with T[E]DABER, and I can also sympathize with U-NT
([A]TEM since U-NT(TEM = U-NT(-ATEM.
The common Hebrew speaker very rarely gets to see a contemporary
punctuated [vocalized] text, and even when looking at one, prefers to
ignore the irksome swarm of points swirling about the lines. He also
does not consider the Masoretic vocalization God given, nor the
Nakdanim holy men [he is also mostly unaware of the suspicion raised
that the early Nakdanim were even not Rabbinical Jews]. So he
straightens the grammar. He does it now, he possibly did it a
thousand years ago, he possibly did it two thousand years ago.
Whereas the table says $MARTEM, '[you] guarded', the latter day
Hebrew speaker boldly and routinely puts *$AMARTEM, in alignment with
$AMARTA, to the utter consternation of the Hebrew Academy in Jerusalem.
Take for instance the Hebrew word MA-PTEAX, 'key'. No Hebrew speaker
is in even the slightest doubt that its appropriate plural is MA-PTEX-
OT. MA-PTEAX-OT is no good but MA-PTEX-OT sounds perfect, in spite of
the fact that it contains three vowels. [Yet he correctly pluralizes
M-GADEL as M-GADLIM, not *M-GADELIM.] He is mightily surprised upon
being shown that the "official" plural of MA-PTEAX is, the harder to
pronounce, MA-PTX-OT with a schwaic T followed by a schwaic X.
Nevertheless, for him this revelation is a mere curiosity as he knows
well to distinguish between the theoretical school stuff buried in
books, that is good for tests only, and the real stuff of everyday,
easy and clear speech.
To reconcile this discrepancy, that possibly never ceased to exist,
between the sacred vocalized text and the prevailing irreverent
practice, Hebrew grammarians invented this lawyerish quibble, this
hair-splitting argument, that the second schwa in MA-PTX-OT is
actually genetically tainted by being the progeny of a vowel, here a
tsere. [To account for the fact that an initial schwa is always "NA"
Hebrew Grammar textbooks resort to the spin that once upon a time all
Hebrew words started with a vowel]. This is not a regular schwa, mind
you, but rather a schwa "NA" that actually ought to be "moved". To
account for the fact that the T is still marked by a schwa and not a
tsere or segol, another pretense is invoked, namely that this schwa
is not to be replaced by a full, but rather by a "thin", or a
"furtive", or a "minimal" E. In other words, we are "allowed" to
substitute for a schwa "NA" only a "half" vowel.
This compulsive preoccupation of Hebrew grammar with the virtual
schwa "NA" rests on two crutches. First, some people fret now about
the "proper" pronunciation of devotional words, to wit: should they,
or should they not, "move" the schwas of U-B-$AKB-KA. Then, there is
the issue of the soft and hard BGD-KPT. In their zeal to discover the
"true" nature of a schwa some Hebrew grammar books suggest now a
converse rule, to the effect that if a schwa is followed by a soft
BGD-KPT, then the schwa is "NA", for example SAL-KA, 'your basket'. I
think the final KA is a shortened AKA, the possessive form of ATAH,
and hence the soft K.
Well, it appears all bubkes to me. The sad thing is that this schwa
"NA" thing is still shamelessly being foisted upon young and
unsuspecting students. Instead of confronting them forthrightly with
the hard fact that we are simply abrogating and contravening the
Masoretic vocalization, they are presented with this, practically
misleading, convoluted, apologetic, excuse of a schwa mobile.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
On Sep 14, 2007, at 2:44 PM, biblical hebrew wrote:
> IF:
>
> 1. Your advice: "pronounce the schewa only when you have to" is good,
> except that in my opinion you never have to, and that Hebrew sounds
> better without it. A little bit of vocal discipline goes a long way
> towards producing a crisper language. Whenever you feel the necessity
> to enter an E insert instead a tiny gap.
>
> JCR: I think you will find that the 'tiny gap' you refer to is what
> in phonetics
> is represented by the symbol /ə/ and is the most common sound in
> the English
> language. It is physically impossible for the human vocal system to
> pronounce
> your suggested examples without a /ə/. As an experiment pronounce
> the English
> word 'hard' to yourself a few times until you realise that out of
> context you
> cannot say this word without pronouncing a /ə/
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
>
> James Christian Read - BSc Computer Science
> http://www.lamie.org/hebrew Thesis 1 - Aleppo codex machine
> translation
> http://www.lamie.org/lad-sim.doc Thesis 2 - language acquisition
> simulation
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
More information about the b-hebrew
mailing list