Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

In your previous post you wrote:

"What they attempted was to produce a phonetically accurate representation of what happens at the phonological level"

To this I say: it is a mere guess.

Further down you say:

"The third syllable carries the stress, and is thus long– נֵי"

which to my understanding equates stress to length.

Then you state that:

"So using the MT system COMBINATION looks like this: כָּמבֱּנֵישְׁן"

To which I say: not to me. Where did you get the qamatc for CO?

––––––––––––

It is not clear to me what is "the abstract layer of language"

You say:

"most shewas would not be included in the alphabet"

which is true, but the NAQDANIYM wanted possibly to occupy the space in order to prevent a later insertions. In fact, by doing that, they forced later generations to invent the convenient subterfuge of the schwa "mobile". 

I think that the patax-xatap is but the compromise patax-schwa. XATUP, in my opinion, is a misnomer. 

I am sorry, but your statement to the effect that "The Masoretes came up with a system that would preserve what they heard as native speakers", is in my opinion a grand fallacy ––– the "Masoretes" did not punctuate the Hebrew bible according to what they "heard", but according to what they knew. 

Isaac Fried, Boston University 

On Jan 8, 2013, at 9:04 PM, Jonathan Mohler wrote:

Isaac:

You wrote:

2. I am sorry, but I would not outguess the NAQDANIYM.

you need to elaborate on this.

3. In my opinion, and experience, there is no such thing in Hebrew as a schwa mobile.

I am simply describing what is happening at the abstract layer of language.  I don't see this "mobile schwa" comment as relative. The shortening of long vowel sounds to short vowel sounds and even shewas is no different than what happens in English.  The only thing that confuses people is that they misinterpret what the vowel pointing system really is.  In a modern writing system that includes consonants and vowels, most shewas would not be included in the alphabet, nor would say the qamets-chatuf, as these would be considered by linguists as "allophones" not "phonemes." The qamets, the pathaq, the qamets-chatuf, and the chateph-pathaq would all be represented by one signifier, the "a," because a native speaker would not recognize them as separate vowels, just slight variations of the same vowel.  This is what linguists call sounds (phones) that are in "complementary distribution."

4. It is true that stress and theatrics may be achieved by elongation.

Stress has nothing to do with theatrics. I am simply talking Linguistics 101.  Stress is a product of a native speakers unconscious instinct to formulate words according to discoverable deep structure rules.  The Masoretes came up with a system that would preserve what they heard as native speakers.  We try to build a "formal" grammar around these signifiers, but they don't represent a "formal" phenomenon, they represent a "deep structure" principle in that particular idiom (the Tiberian tradition).

Jonathan E Mohler