Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Inseparable Prepositions and that shewa

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Ryan Clan <robert.ryan AT xtra.co.nz>
  • To: Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Inseparable Prepositions and that shewa
  • Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:20:01 +1200

Hi Randall
Thanks for your response. I am taken with the idea of a shva medium, but I still can't quite figure out in my own mind whether it solves the problem, or adds to it! More mulling required, I think.

If there is no phonemic difference between a vocal, silent and medium shewa, what then is the mechanism at work causing a following begadkephat letter to switch its dagesh lene (and presumably its pronunciation) off and on in all the different situations we see it. If the dagesh lene is not responding to a phonemic difference, what is it responding to?

Modern Hebrew pronunciation of these letters is certainly a *practical* option, and there is a lot to be said for a practical, working solution that lets you move on. It was this pragmatism mixed with the juggernaut of Modern Hebrew as a spoken language today, that has made me think that MH is indeed at work influencing and pressuring the way we pronounce and teach biblical Hebrew. I can't otherwise account for the differences in pronunciation taught of not only the inseparable preposition, but also with the vowels, the begadkephat letters, and the "waw." Or is it just a happy coincidence that the more recent grammarians teach a pronunciation that conforms so readily to modern Hebrew? Or perhaps some major discovery of ancient pronunciation accounts for the trend? If Modern Hebrew is not at work here, then what is?

There is a practical aspect to my question too. I learnt the ol' time pronunciation seen in Weingreen et al, as you can see from my "waw" and "shewa" but perhaps it is time I jumped ship? How did Weingreen get it so wrong on all these counts?

As you can see I have been saving up my questions over the years fit to bust!

Regards
Kay Christensen



Randall Buth wrote:
Your opinions please.

My grammars are divided into two schools of thought concerning the way
an inseparable preposition attaches itself to a word that begins with a
vocal shewa.

The first school of thought says that under these conditions, an
inseparable preposition creates a closed syllable at the beginning of a
word, usually invoking the "rule of shewa." However, this approach
ignores the absence of a dagesh lene in any following begadkephat letter.


Your question is about single consonant prepositions being
joined to words whose first consonant would be expected to have a
"reduced vowel//vocal shva". e.g.
b+dvar-o "with his word"
Here, the resultant form is bidvaro where the dalet does not take a dagesh,
because of following a vowel, yet the following 'b' is also soft, as
if following a vowel.
This is one of the classic examples where a 'middle shva' is discussed,
where the shva has a double nature, almost closing a syllable, and
providing a syllable onset to a following begedkefet letter.
See below. However, phonemically,
there was no difference between a 'silent', 'vocal' or 'in-between' shva.


The second says that the initial syllable is left open with the hireq
vowel, with vocal shewa following. The absence of a dagesh lene in a
following begadkephat letter is often cited as proof. However, this
approach ignores the usual rule that a short vowel likes to be closed in
an unaccented syllable.

This is the other side of the 'middle shva' situation.
See below.

Questions:
1. So, which do we choose? How do we account for the problems that arise?

I would start with the summary discussions on 'shva medium' in Jouon-Muraoka
and in Gesenius. It is a kind of grammatical fiction that might be compared to
'virtual dagesh', too. (A gutteral consonant without written dagesh
that acts 'as if'
a dagesh existed, closing off a syllable and preserving a previous
short vowel.)
As the Bard said, 'Much Ado About Nothing'. Pun intended.

The basic meaning of 'shva' in the MT was 'no vowel'.
As for choice, a practical option is to use a modern Israeli pronunciation,
where half of the begedkefet pronunciations disappear,
and !
there is a strong tendency to drop all shva except at initial grammatical/word
boundaries.

2. And more importantly, how did this situation come about?

Through the history of the language where open syllables, two syllables before
an accented syllable, shortened their vowel.

3. Is Modern Hebrew pronunciation influencing the situation here? And if
so, should it?

No, it is the other way around. The Masoretic text only had one symbol and
the vocal shva interpretation is problematic but is used primarily in
explaining begedkeft consonants.
The Masoretic text is recording a tradition from late antiquity.
Modern Hebrew tends to ignore or modify the exact vocalization of the MT.

In fact, sometimes in Modern Hebrew one hears 'b', 'p', and 'k' as stops
even when following one of these prepositions because the 'stand-alone' form
of the word has a 'stop' (i.e., a dagesh qal-lene). That is a further
phonological
development where the begedkefet distinction is being phonemicized in the
spoken language.

Regards
Kay Christensen

braxot
Randall Buth





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page