Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

I am not convinced that the different NQUDOT were all made for  
indicating different sounds. I suspect that certain things said about  
the NIQUD are possibly but hilarious farces due to misguided literal  
interpretations of the terminology. Take, for example, the xatap- 
patax. In my humble opinion, the xatap means only schwa, namely, the  
sign is but the combination schwa+patax. Yet, it is an opinion  
entrenched in the Hebrew "grammar" books that the name implies that  
it should to be read B-XATAP, in haste. Not that they actually do  
that, (I have never heard a xatap-patax being read "in haste" or as a  
"half" vowel, not in casual speech and not by a professional reader  
of the Torah), but, they say, it used to be so.
Is it not possible that the  xatap-patax is but a notational  
compromise for a schwa or a patax?

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On May 2, 2011, at 7:06 PM, Joseph Roberts wrote:

> After looking at the vowel system of Hebrew, I was curious if its uses
> of so many vowels was artificial and rise from a liturgical use or is
> that how it was originally spoken. I have seen similarities between
> Hebrew and Arabic. Arabic of course has a Dhama which makes the "u"
> sound, a Kasra which makes a "i" sound and a Fatah which makes an "a"
> sound. These are considered short vowels and they have corresponding
> long vowels which seem to just lengthen the time that one makes the
> vowel sound. Did Hebrew originally function like this? is the Cholem a
> later invention? It just seems like there are a lot of sounds that are
> not present in other semitic languages that i am familiar with.
>
> Joseph Roberts
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew