Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Piel Participles of ayin-waw-yod

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud AT wanadoo.fr>
  • To: "Randall Buth" <randallbuth AT gmail.com>, "Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Piel Participles of ayin-waw-yod
  • Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 21:27:19 +0100


From: "Randall Buth" <randallbuth AT gmail.com>

A couple of points on the thread:

1. Arnaud katav

If we look at phonetics, we can characterize the discontinuities between
Ancient Hebrew and Modern Hebrew:

This list over-dramatizes the differences between ancient and modern.
***

Actually some members of the list downplay them, or even negate them... :)
A.
***


1. Prosody: lost

it is not clear that #1 would block communication except at the very
first encounters. People get used to hearing languages pronounced
'funny' from speakers of other dialects.
***
Prosody is always a problem when divergent.
In addition there is no reason to think Ancient Hebrew had so many "dialects".
That language was not sprawling over a whole continent, as far as I know.
A.
***



2. Vowels: length is lost

#2 would produce occasional but rare points of ambiguity. See
following point.

3. Weak and accented vowels: thoroughly transformed

Many of our 'long' and 'short' vowels have been modified to fit
unaccented syllable shape. But they usually preserve general
points of articulation or else are non-phonemic, non-meaning
bearing.
***
"occasional but rare points of ambiguity" means phonemic.
So people would always respect vowel length, even when there is no minimal pair.
This is what phonology is about.
You're trying to sell the idea that it's phonemic, but at the same time, it does not matter.
It does matter and it matters all the time.
A.
***



4. Glottalized emphatics: lost

This assumes that the Ethiopic languages are preserving the
original sound and are not areal features borrowed from Cushitic.
of course, even with 'retracted-tongue-root' "emphatics" one
still has to deal with Tet and Qof assimilating to tav and kaf.
Also, Sa(de) with samex (but see #8 below).
***
Hebrew itself very clearly indicates that emphatics must have been glottalized in Ancient Hebrew, as vowels are not at all colored in any way by emphatics.
Conclusive.
A.
***


5. Laryngeals and pharyngeals: lost

not it all dialects. It is enjoyable to hear a speech today with correctly
enunciated Het and `ayin. Music to my ears.
***
What about glottal stop?
A.
***


6. Fricatives: lost

If this refers to begedkefet letters, these were not 'emic' in
antiquity. So the loss/addition is mainly esthetic.
***
This sounds to me as nearly absurd.
If they bothered indicate that, it was emic.
A.
***

If this refers to ghayin vs. `ayin, and xaf vs. Het, then yes,
some loss has occurred but within a level that was apparently
tolerated by ancient speakers as is evidenced by their
alphabet.

7. Laterals fricatives: lost

This was already lost in some dialects by the time Ahiram and Shlomo
were talking to each other (10 BCE), as evidenced by the Phoenician
alphabet.
***
How do you explain Greek ba-ls-am < baSam "perfume" then?
When do you think this word was borrowed into Greek?
A.
***



8. Affricates: lost (except Tsade)

Tsade emically preserves what may have been a pharyngealized sibilant.
***
It represents the fusion of a glottalized affricate and a glottalized lateral stop.
A.
***


So in summation,
it appears that these features were already handled in antiquity
between speakers of different dialects and it would
appear that communication accross the centuries would thus be
expected to be reasonably trouble-free after a brief accomodation
period. Phonology would not be a major blockage.
***
This is like saying that English when read with French prosody and French letter values is not a major blockage.
I consider this to be nonsense.
A.
***


Nor morphology.
***
yes
Morphology is apparently what is best preserved.
A.
***


Neologisms, new culture and technology, and new idioms would be
the major blockage. Sequential verbs might trip-up an Israeli without
extensive biblical exposure and practice, and their lack would likewise
be a bit confusing to Moshe. But communication would be possible
and would get on track after a short while.
All we would need would be a time/dimension machine with a situation
like Moshe, Eliyahu and Yeshua conversing together on a mountain
somewhere (cf. Matt 17.3).

I'll have to side with Uri that communication in a pub would work.
***
I understood this idea as ironic!?

Do you know that story from Chaucer himself that he said eggs or eyes to a southern English lady, and she did not understand him, because her plural was eyen.
Sometimes it does not take much to block communication.

Arnaud Fournet
***







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page