[b-hebrew] Why not patah?
if at math.bu.edu
Tue Jan 18 21:27:44 EST 2011
I said it before, I will say it again. It is true that the Hebrew
speaker sometimes replaces a schwa by an E to enhance the proper
hearing and understanding of his utterances. One thing he does
systematically is make a distinction between a radical B and an
auxiliary B. Thus, BE-MITZ, BE-TEL-AVIV, but BTUL-AH, 'virgin', BRUK-
AH, 'blessed' (but BE-RUX-AH, 'in her imagination'). On the other
hand, he will say $AMAR-TIY, 'I have guarded', yet RAQAD-E-TIY 'I
have danced', with an extra E to cleave the DT pair.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
On Jan 18, 2011, at 8:49 PM, Uri Hurwitz wrote:
> It is unclear to me why you keep referring to modern Hebrew
> pronounciation, when questions refer to a tradition of
> reading which existed well over a thousand years ago.
> As for hearing or not hearing a shwa na in modern Heb., may
> I remind you of SHTUYOT BEMITZ? *
> Uri Hurwitz
> *stuff and nonsense
> I think you should add the explanation that the claim of "proper"
> pronunciation is a theoretical corollary of the dubious proposition
> that a schwa following a qamats is a schwa "NA", which should
> actually be "moved". I must say that I have never heard a-me-ru, sha-
> le-xu, which also barely sound Hebrew to me.
> Isaac Fried, Boston University
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the b-hebrew