Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Trevor Peterson" <06peterson AT cua.edu>]

Jason wrote:
> 
> The same could be said of the kametz and the kametz-chatuf. 

Indeed, it could. That's why I wouldn't make the distinction in my
system.

> The fact is that the long "a" and the short "o" are really 
> two distinct sounds, but the Massoretes didn't hear them 
> differently.

What is this supposed to mean? Who heard them as distinct if the
Masoretes didn't? Yes, long a and short o are different. But from all we
can tell of the Tiberian system, there was only one sound.
Distinguishing between an a-qametz and an o-qametz is a property of
Israeli Hebrew, but that doesn't mean it's the only way to read the sign
(or the most logical).

> We generally use the Sefardic pronunciation. Why 
> not just agree with the normative Jewish pronunciations (take 
> your pick)? That would get us past this.

I use Israeli pronunciation, but I also recognize that the Masoretes'
pronunciation was not necessarily the same. My objective is not to
transcribe Israeli Hebrew, but Tiberian Hebrew.

> If you want to 
> maintain a puritan position in this regard, does it matter 
> that the rest of us will still pronounce it the way were hear 
> in synagogue or on the streets (those who are in Israel [or 
> New York])?

I'm not trying to dictate anyone's pronunication--only to come up with
the best transcription system I can. The reader is free to read with any
pronunciation from the script or from transcription. But for the very
reason that there is divergence of tradition and habit, I prefer to base
my transcription on what the Masoretes seem to be encoding than on what
anyone today practices. (On the other hand, when I use general purpose
transcription, I normally follow Israeli pronunciation.)

> What if the half-lengthening has really no effect 
> on the meaning of the word? Or are you only arguing that a 
> separate allophone-pardon me, I have only studied phonetics 
> in Spanish, so this is my variation of /alófono/. If 
> "allophone" is an English word, I don't know-should be used?

My only point in all of this was to establish the most consistent way
possible to transcribe BH according to my view of Tiberian Hebrew. Peter
brought up the problem of distinguishing a strong dagesh from two
matching consonants written side-by-side, since I don't represent shvas
of any sort. That got us into a discussion of what's actually going on
here (since a transcription goes beyond the written signs to meaningful
units).
> 
[snipped]

> > Regardless of where it comes from, I think the argument stands that 
> > there ought to be some explanation for why the dagesh could 
> drop out 
> > and leave a short vowel in an apparently open syllable. By 
> comparison, 
> > the loss of consonantal alef at the end of a syllable produces the 
> > characteristic voweling of an open syllable.
> 
> An /apparenlty/ open syllable. That is like asking why the 
> chet takes implicit doubling and can keep the syllable before 
> it "apparently" open. The fact is... it's a functionally 
> closed syllable.

In other words, the chet is in some sense doubled.

> Perhaps pronouncing the double consonant 
> without a vowel following was a pain, and for euphonic 
> reasons it was dropped (even as stated earlier in this 
> thread). That makes perfect sense to me.

And pronouncing alef at the end of a syllable apparently became a pain.
The difference is that the loss of alef resulted in a vowel shift to fit
an open syllable. What's the difference?

Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics