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: Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>
  • To: Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arnaud AT wanadoo.fr>
  • Cc: Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Piel Participles of ayin-waw-yod
  • Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 17:44:33 -0700

Thank you for this. I think that the points can be clarified,
though we may be using different degrees of testing.
when speaking across dialects and with different emic
systems, misunderstandings will occur that hinder conversation
and that require questions, clarifications and restatements,
though communication itself continues forward without
coming to a stop and an impass.

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Arnaud Fournet
<fournet.arnaud AT wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> 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.

while I would expect the the ancient system to be fairly homogenous
I have been in language situations where questions or statements are
missed or mistaken and need paraphrashing at times. Word breaks can
become a problem, too, though this is usually solved by either or both
sides speaking at 3/4 speed.
the magnitude of the problem in this case is simply unknown.
As for dialects, in the pre-rapid-transit world dialect communities were
often quite small. Remember the story Jud 12 with the Ephraimite tribes
from two sides of a river having a dialect test.

>>
>>> 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.

Yes, the features are phonemic, all the time. What I'm 'selling' is that
language has enough redundancy in it so that people from two different but
overlapping systems can often communicate quite well, despite
these differences. Most people 'fill in' what they hear to great degrees
without even realizing that they are doing it. A dialect shift causes extra
stress and processing energy, plus occasional to frequent clarifications.
In Arabic today we get people saying 'yiktib' 'yaktib' 'yaktub' 'yuktub' and
communicating with each other [maybe with a pan-dialect rule: just keep
that second vowel high], even though all of those vowels are
phonemic.

>
>>
>>> 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.

Actually, the vowels were distinctly colored by fricative (non-stops)
consonants Het and `ayin. It is true that Tet and Qof did not emically affect
vowels, but this was when recorded at a period (9th-10CE) when we are
fairly certain that they were using 'retracted-tongue-root' co-articulation as
in Arabic. Yet the vowels did not change with Tet and Qof. But vowels did
change subphonemically with Het and `ayin, like with the 'a'
helping vowels that were added to final Het and `ayin.


>
>>
>>> 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.
> ***

glottal stop started to be lost during the biblical period itself as testified
by spelling divergencies with alef.

>>
>>> 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.

You are forgetting to distinguish who 'they' is.
It is likely that David did not distinguish begedkefet
letters, and probably not Jeremiah. It depends on when and how
the phenomenon entered the language. We know that the
phenomenon probably entered Aramaic sometime between the
8 to 6th centuries BCE. Whether or not Hebrew was prior,
simultaneous, or post the Aramaic phenomenon is irrelevant,
because the recording by the Massoretes is long after.

>
>> 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.

I don't know when it was borrowed, but the Phoenician alphabet didn't
have a symbol for a lateral fricative, nor Ugaritic. So either it was
very early,
second millenium, or some north-coastal dialects were preserving archaic
features that apparently were part of the prestige dialect in the south
(Jerusalem).

>
>>
>>> 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.

You are referring to the loss of a proto-Semitic sound that merged into
'pharygealized-d [=retrated tongue root co-articulation]' in Arabic,
retracted-tonue-root k in early Aramaic, and 'ts/retracted tongue root s
in Hebrew and Ugaritic. As far as we can tell, this sound was not part of
biblical Hebrew, so it wasn't lost. It hadn't been inherited.

>
>>
>> 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.

Your nonsense is actually my experience.
I've read English to people while using approximate
Chaucerian phonological values and they are able to understand and
to follow, though they find it quite amusing. Especially when they find
out that English actually sounded like that. This is not too different
from using your 'French letter values'. However, in the English
case the vowels have moved into other phnemic areas and moved
the whole system around, while the Hebrew vowels tended to stay
in the same place in the mouth while they lost length and then re-fitted
themselves into syllable patterns CV and CVC.

>
> 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

Yes,
it doesn't take much to cause someone to stumble or for someone to trip,
but communication is still able to continue. That is a bigger picture.
I've spoken Arabic across enough confusing dialects and Hebrew with
people from enough backgrounds to be reasonably confident that a time-
transported Hebrew speaker would be able to communicate with many
today. Would there be problems, false starts, needs for clarification
left and right? Undoubtedly. But communication would take place and
would work out, either slowly or more quickly. I would place the gap as
less than that between Samaritan Hebrew and Masoretic Hebrew or
between Samaritan and BH read with a modern sefardic accent.

Randall Buth

--
Randall Buth, PhD
www.biblicalulpan.org
randallbuth AT gmail.com
Biblical Language Center
Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page