Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Why not patah?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
  • To: Uri Hurwitz <uhurwitz AT yahoo.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Why not patah?
  • Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 21:27:44 -0500

I said it before, I will say it again. It is true that the Hebrew speaker sometimes replaces a schwa by an E to enhance the proper hearing and understanding of his utterances. One thing he does systematically is make a distinction between a radical B and an auxiliary B. Thus, BE-MITZ, BE-TEL-AVIV, but BTUL-AH, 'virgin', BRUK- AH, 'blessed' (but BE-RUX-AH, 'in her imagination'). On the other hand, he will say $AMAR-TIY, 'I have guarded', yet RAQAD-E-TIY 'I have danced', with an extra E to cleave the DT pair.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Jan 18, 2011, at 8:49 PM, Uri Hurwitz wrote:

It is unclear to me why you keep referring to modern Hebrew pronounciation, when questions refer to a tradition of
reading which existed well over a thousand years ago.

As for hearing or not hearing a shwa na in modern Heb., may
I remind you of SHTUYOT BEMITZ? *

Cheers,

Uri Hurwitz

*stuff and nonsense



I think you should add the explanation that the claim of "proper"
pronunciation is a theoretical corollary of the dubious proposition
that a schwa following a qamats is a schwa "NA", which should
actually be "moved". I must say that I have never heard a-me-ru, sha-
le-xu, which also barely sound Hebrew to me.

Isaac Fried, Boston University






_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page