Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Was Schewa really silent?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
  • To: JCR128 AT student.anglia.ac.uk
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Was Schewa really silent?
  • Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 20:54:41 -0400

James,

1. I don't know how the ancient Hebrews, or for that matter the ancient Canaanites, pronounced their words, and I don't think anyone knows.
2. In Exodus 15:10 it is CAL[ ]LU and not CAL[E]LU nor CAL[A]LU.
3. In Genesis 6:13 it is V[ ]HIN[ ]NI. However, I commonly hear V[E] HIN[E]NI. This has nothing to do with the Schwa "NA" business but rather with defying the Massoretic punctuation as a result of the recognition that V[ ]HIN[ ]NI is the compacted form of VEH HINEH ANI.
4. In 1 Samuel 17:52 I see now XAL[ ]LEI, but I vaguely recall having seen a book where it is XAL[A]LEI with a hataf patax, possibly the result of some editors or proof-readers playing with it.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Aug 31, 2007, at 2:55 PM, JAMES CHRISTIAN READ wrote:

Hi Isaac,

am I to take the below as meaning that you don't accept
propositions that vocal schewas were full vowels in
proto semitic?

-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------

James Christian Read - BSc Computer Science
http://www.lamie.org/hebrew - thesis1: concept driven machine translation using the Aleppo codex
http://www.lamie.org/lad-sim.doc - thesis2: language acquisition simulation

-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------



James,

The whole business of Schwa NA and Schwa NAX is in my opinion
baloney. It is a historical misunderstanding and is one of the many
ghosts cozily and imperturbably inhabiting the dim corners of Hebrew
grammar. It got now to the point of becoming a religious question of
how to properly recite the prayers, with some Hebrew prayer books
marking what they think needs to be "moved".
There is only one Schwa and it is but an indication to put a tiny
hiatus or pause after the marked consonant. Since this requires
phonetic discipline some find it easier to sloppily insert a thin,
and ugly, E into this gap, phonetically disfiguring thereby the
Hebrew language.
Thus: XAL[ ]LEI not XAL[E]LEI, CIL[ ]LEI not CIL[E]LEI, UMAD[ ]DU,
not UMAD[E]DU, Y[ ]$AD[ ]DEM, not Y[E]$AD[E]DEM, AP[ ]PU, not AP[E]PU.
There is a natural tendency to place such a redundant (repugnant) E
after an initial schwaic L, M, N, R, Y. To wit: L[E]BENAH, 'brick', L
[E]BIBAH, 'cake', N[E]BIAH, 'prophetess', R[E]BABAH, 'ten thosand', Y
[E]SOD, 'foundation', Y[E]LADYIM, 'children', in place of L[ ]BENAH, L
[ ]BIBAH, N[ ]BIAH, R[ ]BABAH, Y[ ]SOD, Y[ ]LADYIM. Also if the
second letter is Alef, He or Ayin as in the mispronounced G[E])ULAH, $
[E](ARYIM, T[E])O, M[E](ARAH, S[E](ARAH, B[E]HEMAH, D[E]HYIRAH (from
the root DHR, 'gallop, canter'). But $)AL, 'ask', SAD(, 'eat', $)AB
'draw water', appear to be easily pronounceable as $[ ])AL, S[ ](AD
and $[ ])AB.
Cleavage of a consonant cluster may also be a myth. Even (new) words
such as BAR[ ]RAN, 'fastidious, choosy', from the root BRR, or XA$[ ]
$AN, 'apprehensive', from the root X$$, should not be pronounced BAR
[E]RAN, and XA$[E]$AN.
As far as I can recall, no Hebrew noun starts with a schwaic Alef,
He, Xet or Ayin , but an initial schwaic Resh is common, for
instance, R[ ]BABAH. There are few Hebrew nouns containing a schwaic
Alef such as B)[ ]$AH, 'cockle' of Job 31:40. In Isaiah 42:21 we find
the verbal V[ ]YA)[ ]DYIR. A schwaic He is also rare.
The 1 Kings 6:8 UB[ ]LULYIM, 'with winding stairs' is commonly
pronounced U-BE-LULIM. But Leviticus 2:5 B[ ]LULAH, 'mingled' is
pronounce BLULAH to indicate that this B is radical. Also M[ ]MALE)
is being voiced nowadays as ME-MALE( in recognition of the
prepositioned M being short for MI, 'he, who'.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Aug 30, 2007, at 5:00 PM, JAMES CHRISTIAN READ wrote:

Hi all,

recent discussions have reminded me of a point which I
have never really fully resolved in my mind. The whole
point of the Massoretic pointing system was to preserve
the pronunciation by introducing *non ambiguous*
representation of vowels.

Why would the massoretes betray this goal by giving
the point which represents Schewa a dual role? And so,
I guess what I'm really asking is, is there any real
evidence that Schewa was used by the Massoretes to
close a syllable rather than to represent a vowel?

-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------

James Christian Read - BSc Computer Science
http://www.lamie.org/hebrew - thesis1: concept driven
machine translation using the Aleppo codex
http://www.lamie.org/lad-sim.doc - thesis2: language acquisition
simulation

-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------








































































_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew




























































Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page