Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>]

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