Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Garth Grenache <garthgrenache AT hotmail.com>]

Arnaud,

Suddenly this discussion has become rude, and my words misconstrued.
My interest in discussing this with you has come to a sudden halt.

Garth Grenache,
Australia.


> From: fournet.arnaud AT wanadoo.fr
> To: garthgrenache AT hotmail.com; b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Blau's explanation for how ultimate stress became 
> in Hebrew
> Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 15:48:32 +0200
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: Garth Grenache
> To: fournet.arnaud AT wanadoo.fr ; b-hebrew
> Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2010 3:32 PM
> Subject: RE: [b-hebrew] Blau's explanation for how ultimate stress became 
> in 
> Hebrew
> 
> 
> Thanks for your response, Arnaud :)
> 
> Arnaud> I wrote this little paper you may find interesting:
> > http://www.scribd.com/doc/34156784/Synopsis-of-Comparative-Linguistics
> 
> I'll to have a read :)
> **
> ok
> Please do.
> A.
> ***
> 
> 
> Garth> Blau shows pretonic lengthening came between stages iii and iv.
> > i.e. the forms produced by the move of stress to the last syllable (stage
> > iv), have propretonic lengthening instead of pretonic lengthening.
> 
> Arnaud> I find it hard to believe that an unaccented vowel could be 
> lenghthened !?
> > This is unheard of.
> 
> In a word such as Ka:-t:-BAH, pausal Ka:-TA:-bah  (Arabic katabat),
>  I think you would agree, Arnaud, that the first vowel was once short, and 
> yet it has become long (qamets gadol).
> 
> If only accented vowels can be lengthened,
>  do you propose that it was this antepenultimate vowel of katabat that was 
> accented at the time of this lengthening,
>  and that subsequently the stress moved to the penult (Blau's stress stage 
> ii), where it remained in the pausal form,
>  before finally moving to the ultima (Blau's stress stage iv), as found in 
> context?
> 
> Is that what you are suggesting, Arnaud?  Or do you have another proposal?
> ***
> I seriously doubt that the root k_t_b is old and of Proto-Semitic dating.
> 
> So maybe it would make more sense to discuss a root or a word or a form 
> that 
> has significant chances of being inherited and of Proto-Semitic dating.
> 
> A.
> ****
> 
> 
> 
> I have also thought that perhaps the common penultimate lengthening was due 
> to penultimate stress, but obviously the above is not an example of 
> penultimate stress if this theory is correct.
> 
> Blau's theory is indeed that the pretonic syllable was often lengthened, 
> but 
> he explains it as brought about by pressure from Aramaic to reduce the 
> pretonic syllable.  It is thus not exactly a natural phonetic change, but 
> perhaps more of a forced one, perhaps as when I spell out to a child that 
> "dinə̯saur" is really phonemically "DI-NO-SAUR".  I give the -no- syllable 
> a 
> long vowel in spelling it out, though in common speech it is reduced.
> ***
> This word <dinosaur> is completely artificial.
> It proves nothing.
> It's not even a true Greek word.
> How can you dare infer anything out of that pseudo-"word"?
> A.
> ***
> 
> 
> The timing of this supposed pretonic lengthening is as Hebrew is becoming 
> more of a literary language, and Aramaic becoming more of the dominant 
> everyday language.
> Garth Grenache, Australia.
> ***
> What that lengthening proves is that the language must have had **real** 
> accent on the so-called "pre-tonic" syllable.
> The real position of the accent is completely mis-construed in the first 
> place in that utterly nonsensical phonological theory.
> 
> Arnaud Fournet
> 
> 
>