Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Dagesh - a different sound or aspiration?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk>
  • To: Kevin Riley <klriley AT alphalink.com.au>
  • Cc: 'B-Hebrew' <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Dagesh - a different sound or aspiration?
  • Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 08:17:19 +0100

I've tried to stay out of this but I can't resist any longer.

Basically, these are the simple linguistic facts of the matter:

1) We know Hebrew mainly through Greek
2) We know Greek mainly through Latin
3) We know Latin mainly through our translations from Latin
4) When we transliterated Hebrew names from Latin the limitations of the naturally sounding sequences of phonemes and of our alphabet caused us to lose/change features of the latin vocalisation
4) When those before us transliterated Hebrew names from Greek into Latin the limitations of naturally sounding sequences of phonemes and of the Latin alphabet caused them to lose/change features of the Greek vocalisation
5) When those before they transliterated Hebrew names from Hebrew into Greek the limitations of naturally sounding sequences of phonemes and of the Greek alphabet caused them to lose/change features of the Hebrew vocalisation
6) Add into this the hearing factor (I've been living in Ukraine now, on and off, for 3 years and while I can hear the very subtle difference in their L's I still can't pronounce the difference very well. To them there is a world of difference. Just as to us there is a world of difference between 'r' and 'l' but to others not so great) to make the situation worse
7) We have some old documents which refer to the system but it is not altogether clear if we are reading them or understanding them right

In short, any kind of 'concensus' is practically meaningless to any of the list members or to any earnest student of Hebrew who wants to hear evidence of the matter so they can decide for themselves.

I vaguely recollect delving into this at some point to see if there was some kind of consistency to any of the theories and comparing with Greek transliterations of Hebrew names I saw that consistency of any kind just goes right out of the window. I think this is especially true of a text which was meticulously copied consonant by consonant thus resisting evolution of language while the pronunciation of the language itself did not have such a restraint. Would you not agree that whatever convention the Masoretes decided on it is an almost impossible task to define a consisent system of any kind whatsoever unless you are willing to write everything in IPA.

However, even if we wrote everything in IPA we would need to provide a database of recordings of which phones we associated (at this time) with each IPA symbol so that later generations could reliably decide the matter with any kind of conviction.

In fact, the question then arises "Is IPA complete? Will it still be complete (using the same symbols) after 2000 years of linguistic evolution?".

James Christian

Quoting Kevin Riley <klriley AT alphalink.com.au>:

The timing of the sound changes in Greek is still disputed, but generally I
think that aspirated and voiced stops are considered to have become spirants
by about the C3rd CE, probably before. How much of that is reflected in the
Septuagint is anyone's guess. My main point was that the change in Greek,
and also the alternation in Spanish of bdg between voiced stops and
spirants, is not accompanied by any change in the alphabet. The Masoretes
seem to have wanted to maintain the consonantal text intact and also
indicate the pronunciation for chanting/reading. Hence the use of dagesh
and all the other marks. If the similar change in Aramaic occurred before
the Aramaic alphabet was adopted, then the double pronunciation of the
bgdkpt letters in Aramaic would have been carried over into Hebrew without
any need to change letters.

Kevin Riley

-----Original Message-----
From: Vadim Cherny [mailto:vadimcherny AT gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, 24 August 2009 6:01 AM

Thanks. What about the absence of dagesh from LXX? Ok, we can take it
that beta in LXX can mean both [bh] and [v], but there are Latin
transliterations where we would expect b and v differentiated.

I don't know about Spanish and other languages, but isn't [b/v]
differentiation of beta in Greek relatively modern, the ancient
pronunciation being just a bit aspirated?

Vadim Cherny


Kevin Riley wrote:
> The second is the consensus. And whether it 'goes against our
understanding
> of the alphabet' or not, it is also found in Greek and Spanish, as well
as a
> number of lesser known languages. Where lenition is predictable from
the
> context (e.g between vowels) it is not marked in any way. The evidence
> from modern Aramaic dialects/languages as well as the traditional
> pronunciation schemes for Hebrew support this conclusion for Aramaic and
> Hebrew.
>
> Kevin Riley
>

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew





--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page