Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Blau's explanation for how ultimate stress became in Hebrew

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Garth Grenache <garthgrenache AT hotmail.com>
  • To: Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arnaud AT wanadoo.fr>, b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Blau's explanation for how ultimate stress became in Hebrew
  • Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 00:23:16 +1000


Dear Arnaud,

According to http://www.jstor.org/pss/542171 ...
"Certain linguistic groups have apparently lost the ability to pronounce
short vowels in unaccented open syllables; hence, when they attempt to
pronounce short vowels of other languages of of earlier forms of their own
language, they substitute long vowels for the original short ones. So the
North African dialects of Arabic."

Blau mentions this, that the North African dialects of Arabic have long
vowels in place of original short vowels. This is not because of stress -the
vowels aren't stressed- but rather because in North African Arabic, short
vowels no longer occur in open syllables.

So the change that Blau is suggesting for the lengthening of vowels that are
(at least now) in pretonic position in Hebrew, is a living, linguistic
reality in North African dialects of Arabic.


I can see what you mean: To say that having lost the ability to pronounce
short vowels in open syllables, they made them long, would seem to be a
contradiction: having lost the short vowel, how can it be lengthened? But it
is not that nobody retained the ability to pronounce such short vowels.
North African Arabic speakers have been exposed to recitations of (more
classical) Arabic, in which the short vowels were NOT lost. They therefore
had the option of retaining the quality of the vowels of (the more classical)
Arabic. Evidently, they saw fit to do so, restoring the quality of the
vowels of prestigious, classical Quranic Arabic (spoken properly amongst them
by an religious minority) to their own dialect, by pronouncing long vowels
(of same quality) in their place. So an archaic Arabic pronunciation has
influenced modern Arabic dialects, spoken by communities which pronounce its
short vowels as long vowels (of same quality) when they occur in open
syllables.

It is not totally ridiculous to suggest that the same thing could have
happened to spoken Hebrew: at a certain time, perhaps during or after the
exile, a religious minority may have been properly pronouncing short vowels
in open syllables, whereas the majority were succumbing to Aramaic tendency
to reduce such vowels. Those aspiring to speak the ancestral Biblical
language, but unskilled at pronouncing short vowels in open syllables, could
learn the quality of such vowels from the religious minority, and then
pronounce them carefully and with greater quantity in order to avoid reducing
them.

If it has happened with North African dialects of Arabic, I don't at all
count it absurd that it should have happened to Hebrew at a time when Aramaic
was dominating as a spoken language.

On the other hand, if such vowels were stressed or accented in some way,
there would be additional reason to lengthen the vowel/syllable.

Garth> Blau has been doing this for ages, and and has also
> presented the notion that the lengthened syllable was originally accented,
> but has countered it.
> ***
Arnaud> That theory really seems the better of the two !
> I wonder why he changed his mind.

Blau gives his reasons: would you like me to relate them?

Probably the big point is that he gives good evidence that the syllable AFTER
such vowels is accented, and seems to have been for a while.

If it is possible that both syllables were accented in some way, perhaps this
possibility has been overlooked??
Do you think that it is possible that both syllables were once accented in
some way?

Garth Grenache,
Australia.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page