Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Silberman, Alfred" <alfred.silberman AT lmco.com>]

> "R. Hoberman" <rdhoberman AT ccmail.sunysb.edu> wrote:
> 
>               If I understand Saenz-Badillos correctly, he's thinking of
>               the phonetic differences between the way he (and most
> scholars) believe
>               Tiberian pronunciation to have been and the various modern
> Ashkenazic
>               pronunciation.  No modern pronunciation has seven so-called
> "pure," 
>               monophthongal vowels. 
> 
I guess my question is - who says that there ever were "seven so-called
"pure," monophthongal vowels."? My reading of the descriptions of some of
the vowel diacritics by the early Jewish Grammarians sounds like they are
describing diphtongs. I also think that internal evidence would point to
some of the "vowel" diacritics being diphtongs.


>               So: the statment as intended was probably not false, the
> facts were not
>               unknown (and who are "these researchers", plural?), and,
> neither Silberman
>               nor anyone else in modern times uses the Tiberian
> pronunciation in precise
>               detail.  Who wasn't accurate?
> 
Again, my question is - How do you know that no-one in modern times uses the
Tiberian pronunciation (at least for vowels)?


>               But it's clear that S-B both knew the facts (for
>               instance, he cites Morag's article on Hebrew pronunciation
> in the
>               Encyclopedia Judaica [on p. 282] and Morag's book The
> Vocalization Systems
>               of Arabic, Hebrew, and Aramaic, both of which cover all the
> essential
>               details) and meant something sensible in his description of
> them. 
> 
> 
Morag's description of Hebrew pronunciation in Central Europe is far from
factual. I don't know where he got his data from but it certainly did not
include talking to people like myself.


>               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 don't know what is meant by "traditional"? It certainly is NOT the ones
used by Orthodox Jewish people based on the writings of Orthodox Jewish
Grammarians.

>               (For a more nuanced, knowledgeable and incredibly
> thoroughgoing version of
>               this Silberman might look at Malone's book Tiberian Hebrew
> Phonology.)
> 
I've had this book for quite a while and am familiar with it. I've also
spent many, many hours going over Henry Churchyard's excellent work. That
does not mean that I agree with everything said.


>               Clearly, there were historical correspondences between
> Tiberian and
>               Sephardi pronunciations; what's wrong with trying to figure
> them out?
> 
Ah - here's the rub. Anyone with a bit of knowledge of Jewish History of
tradition knows that the Sephardim follow the customs and rulings of
Babylonian Jewry while Ashkenazim follow the custom and usage of Israeli
Jewry. The Babylonian pointing system does not even have a diacritic
corresponding to the segol. There is absolutely no reason to assume that the
Tiberian vowel system has any correspondence to the Babylonian vocalization
system nor have I seen any proof that they do correspond to each other.

Why start working from a non-compatible system? Why is there no-one (that I
know of) who has done studies using the Ashkenazi pronunciation as a
starting point? Is that so unreasonable?

Alfred Silberman
alfred.silberman AT lmco.com