Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>]

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