Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] qamatz and patax

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
  • To: Will Parsons <wbparsons AT alum.mit.edu>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org, jonathan.mohler AT gmail.com
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] qamatz and patax
  • Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 00:08:52 -0400

The only point I was making, or trying to make, is call attention to the undeniable fact (fact!) that the present-day "minimalist" Hebrew reading custom, that makes no distinction between a qamatz, a patax and the xatapiym, as well as between the segol and the cere, and which ignores the dagesh "forte" and the dagesh "lene" in GDT, is still fit to fully preserve the meaning of the biblical text.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Aug 11, 2013, at 10:05 PM, Will Parsons wrote:

On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 11:08:55 -0500, Jonathan Mohler <jonathan.mohler AT gmail.com> wrote:

On Aug 10, 2013, at 8:22 PM, Isaac Fried wrote:

The "modern" Hebrew, or the Eretz Israel, crisp, minimal, Torah
reading system is based on a careful calibration of both the
Ashkenazi and the Sephardi traditions, both of which certainly
carry in them very old reading traditions. The point is that in
this reading system the qamatz, the patax and the xatapim are
pronounced exactly the same way, and this, with no apparent injury
to the context. The common present-day reader of the HB (including
yours sincerely) upon seeing the punctuated line below, would not
know if it is truly עֹלַת שַׁבַּת בְּשַׁבַּתּוֹ עַל-עֹלַת הַתָּמִיד וְנִסְכָּהּ or עֹלַת שַׁבַּת
בְּשַׁבַּתּוֹ עַל-עֹלַת הַתַּמִיד וְנִסְכַּהּ or עֹלָת שָׁבָּת בְּשָׁבָּתוֹ עָל-עֹלָת הָתָמִיד וְנִסְכָּהּ Spoken
Hebrew decisively proves thereby that, notwithstanding what the
punctuators of the HB "heard", (where? In the street, in the
synagogue?) equating the reading of qamatz to the reading the patax
leaves the meaning of the biblical text immutable.

I have no problem with the above statement. In fact, I only argue
that MT pronunciation when studied through the lens of modern
linguistics shows evidence of being a natural language, not a
liturgical construct. If modern Hebrew proves anything, it's that
Hebrew is no different than any other natural language of man, in
that it is subject to natural linguistic phenomena that produce
change over time in a language.

Modern Hebrew proves nothing of the kind. The history of Hebrew *is*
different from that of, say, Greek.

In Greek, we have a prime example of the evolution of a language over
a long period of time, a *very* long time indeed, stretching from the
earliest written records in Linear B to the present time. But
throughout that long history, Greek has continued to be spoken as the
mother language of a community.

Hebrew is different - it ceased to be a mother tongue of a community
in ancient times. True, it continued to be *used*, and continued to
evolve as a secondarily learned language. In this, it can be compared
to Latin or Sanskrit, but like Latin or Sanskrit, that evolution was
conditioned by the host language(s). Even more to the point, the
pronunciation of Modern Hebrew does not represent a natural
continuation of the Mishnaic/Mediaeval tradition, but a conscious
choice to prefer, for example, BH forms over MH, and the conscious
choice of preferring the Sephardic pronunciations of taw (without
daghesh) and qamets over the Ashkenazic values.

--
William Parsons





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page