Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Garth Grenache <garthgrenache AT hotmail.com>]

Dear Arnaud,

According to http://www.jstor.org/pss/542171 ...
"Certain linguistic groups have apparently lost the ability to pronounce 
short vowels in unaccented open syllables; hence, when they attempt to 
pronounce short vowels of other languages of of earlier forms of their own 
language, they substitute long vowels for the original short ones. So the 
North African dialects of Arabic."

Blau mentions this, that the North African dialects of Arabic have long 
vowels in place of original short vowels.  This is not because of stress -the 
vowels aren't stressed- but rather because in North African Arabic, short 
vowels no longer occur in open syllables.

So the change that Blau is suggesting for the lengthening of vowels that are 
(at least now) in pretonic position in Hebrew, is a living, linguistic 
reality in North African dialects of Arabic.


I can see what you mean: To say that having lost the ability to pronounce 
short vowels in open syllables, they made them long, would seem to be a 
contradiction: having lost the short vowel, how can it be lengthened?  But it 
is not that nobody retained the ability to pronounce such short vowels.  
North African Arabic speakers have been exposed to recitations of (more 
classical) Arabic, in which the short vowels were NOT lost.  They therefore 
had the option of retaining the quality of the vowels of (the more classical) 
Arabic.  Evidently, they saw fit to do so, restoring the quality of the 
vowels of prestigious, classical Quranic Arabic (spoken properly amongst them 
by an religious minority) to their own dialect, by pronouncing long vowels 
(of same quality) in their place.  So an archaic Arabic pronunciation has 
influenced modern Arabic dialects, spoken by communities which pronounce its 
short vowels as long vowels (of same quality) when they occur in open 
syllables.

It is not totally ridiculous to suggest that the same thing could have 
happened to spoken Hebrew:  at a certain time, perhaps during or after the 
exile, a religious minority may have been properly pronouncing short vowels 
in open syllables, whereas the majority were succumbing to Aramaic tendency 
to reduce such vowels.  Those aspiring to speak the ancestral Biblical 
language, but unskilled at pronouncing short vowels in open syllables, could 
learn the quality of such vowels from the religious minority, and then 
pronounce them carefully and with greater quantity in order to avoid reducing 
them.

If it has happened with North African dialects of Arabic, I don't at all 
count it absurd that it should have happened to Hebrew at a time when Aramaic 
was dominating as a spoken language.

On the other hand, if such vowels were stressed or accented in some way, 
there would be additional reason to lengthen the vowel/syllable.

Garth> Blau has been doing this for ages, and and has also 
> presented the notion that the lengthened syllable was originally accented, 
> but has countered it.
> ***
Arnaud> That theory really seems the better of the two !
> I wonder why he changed his mind.

Blau gives his reasons: would you like me to relate them?

Probably the big point is that he gives good evidence that the syllable AFTER 
such vowels is accented, and seems to have been for a while.

If it is possible that both syllables were accented in some way, perhaps this 
possibility has been overlooked??
Do you think that it is possible that both syllables were once accented in 
some way?

Garth Grenache,
Australia.