Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Churchyard on Tiberian pronunciation

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: peter_kirk AT SIL.ORG
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Churchyard on Tiberian pronunciation
  • Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 00:06:07 -0500


Well, maybe Henry Churchyard is the exception that proves your rule,
but in his thesis (dated this year rather than more than 50-100 years
ago, p.138 of the version I downloaded from the Internet) he writes
concerning qamets and qamets-hatuph:

"These two sounds are written with the same grapheme in the Tiberian
orthography, but as discussed below, come from separate diachronic
sources (o from Proto-Semitic *u and aa mainly from Proto-Semitic *a),
behave differently in the synchronic Tiberian Hebrew phonological
system, and are pronounced differently in many attested modern Jewish
pronunciations of Hebrew (Blau 1976:10)."

Churchyard goes on to examine this question in detail in his section
1.4.2.4.5., Comparative Evidence and the History of the Hebrew Vowel
System (pp.146-157). He argues that "the vowel diacritics we call
"Tiberian" must have originally been devised to represent an
innovative pronunciation tradition which... resembled the later
Ashkenazic pronunciation traditions in having seven unreduced
vowels... This orthography was then afterwards adopted to represent
the Tiberian pronunciation tradition proper, which had a more
conservative Qimhian vowel system." (p.153). He concludes: "it remains
clear that short o and long aa act differently within the phonological
system of Tiberian Hebrew itself, though written homographously"
(p.157).

So clearly the question is not as settled as you seem to be
suggesting. Although Churchyard is not arguing for a simple Qimhian
system, in him Alfred Silberman does have at least one worthy
opponent.

Peter Kirk



______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Saenz-Badillos on Tiberian pronunciation <LYR12657-916-1999.
Author: rdhoberman AT ccmail.sunysb.edu at internet
Date: 26/03/1999 09:38


<snip>

Traditional Hebrew grammar textbooks do still say things like that "long"
qames is to be pronounced a and "short" qames like o, which certainly is
trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. They are reproducing a docrine
that goes back to David Kimhi. I doubt that any linguist for the past 50
or 100 years has thought of that as a coherent description as it stands.
(For a more nuanced, knowledgeable and incredibly thoroughgoing version of
this Silberman might look at Malone's book Tiberian Hebrew Phonology.)
Clearly, there were historical correspondences between Tiberian and
Sephardi pronunciations; what's wrong with trying to figure them out?

Robert Hoberman
robert.hoberman AT sunsyb.edu




  • Churchyard on Tiberian pronunciation, peter_kirk, 03/26/1999

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page