Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Kevin Riley" <klriley AT alphalink.com.au>]

The question was concerning what the consensus is, not about whether the
consensus position is correct or not.  If you consult virtually any
reference work in English, you will find that the dagesh is used by the
Masoretes to mark lenition (spirantisation) of the bgdkpt letters.  We can
therefore assume that that is the consensus.  You are likely also in some
works to get a discussion of the phonetic realisation at various points in
time.  It may have started as a slight difference between fortis and lenis
pronunciation, or it may have had other origins, but the consensus is that
the Masoretes intended the dagesh to indicate the non-lenited (stop)
pronunciation of bdgkpt.  The consensus may be wrong.  There are reputable
(and not so reputable) scholars who have argued for other positions.  They
do not yet appear to have convinced the majority of their colleagues.  Until
they do, their position is not the consensus position.  While there are a
number of traditions with regard to how to pronounce Hebrew, they all assume
an original spirant pronunciation for bgdkpt letters without dagesh.
Traditions, like consensuses, are not necessarily right.

Kevin Riley

> -----Original Message-----
> From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-hebrew-
> bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of James Read
> Sent: Monday, 24 August 2009 4:12 AM
> 
> > And this:
> >> - in some environments (yeshobhebh), the aspirated versions are nearly
> >> unpronounceable.
> >
> > By no means it is. At least not for a German native speaker ;-)
> 
> 
> I think this has to be the most sensible and valid point of this
> discussion I have read so far. All too often you see discussions of
> this kind with most parties drawing conclusions on what is
> pronounceable in their own native language.
> 
> Just about any sequence of phones is pronounceable given the right
> stimulus. When two truly phones can't be pronounced in sequence we
> deal with it with the universal adaptivity of vowels which are such
> agreeable little creatures that they can make friends with any
> consonant they come across.
> 
> When it all comes down to it what we have is:
> 
> a) a reasonable idea of what the sequence of consonants was
> b) an attempt by a group we call the masoretes to record the
> vocalisation of their time period unambiguously
> c) as many theories about the original pronunciation as there are
> readers of Hebrew
> 
> James Christian
>