Correct pronunciation of קבורה

Page 1 of 5 (90 items) 1 2 3 4 5 Next >
This post has 89 Replies | 3 Followers

Posts 240
Lankford Oxendine | Forum Activity | Posted: Wed, May 25 2011 10:10 PM

As I patiently await the Hebrew audio pronunciation resource can a Hebrew scholar help me with the correct pronunciation of קבורה?  Thanks!

 

Posts 9946
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, May 25 2011 11:01 PM

Lankford Oxendine:

As I patiently await the Hebrew audio pronunciation resource can a Hebrew scholar help me with the correct pronunciation of קבורה?  Thanks!

 

Are you looking at הַקְּבוּרָה in 2 Chron 26.23?  That would be Ha-Qə-Buh-rah' (the ' indicates accent and the ə is what is known as a shewa which is little more than a grunt).

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 240
Lankford Oxendine | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, May 25 2011 11:16 PM

Thanks George.  I'm looking at how to pronounce the Hebrew lemma of קְבֻרַת־ in Genesis 35:20.

Posts 9946
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, May 25 2011 11:48 PM

Lankford Oxendine:

Thanks George.  I'm looking at how to pronounce the Hebrew lemma of קְבֻרַת־ in Genesis 35:20.

That wouldn't be much different.  Qə-Buh-RaT  The qibbuts (ֻ) which takes the place of the shureq (וּ) in my previous example has the same pronunciation.  The "T" might be aspirated (th).

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 277
Ben | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, May 26 2011 1:58 AM

George Somsel:

Lankford Oxendine:

Thanks George.  I'm looking at how to pronounce the Hebrew lemma of קְבֻרַת־ in Genesis 35:20.

 

That wouldn't be much different.  Qə-Buh-RaT  The qibbuts (ֻ) which takes the place of the shureq (וּ) in my previous example has the same pronunciation.  The "T" might be aspirated (th).

2 Peter 3:18  But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

Posts 726
Theolobias | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, May 26 2011 5:07 AM

George Somsel:
The "T" might be aspirated (th).

Not only the "T" but also the "B" - there's no Dagesh lene, so it would be Qə-Vuh-RaT(h).

MS Windows 7 Home Premium 32-bit SP1 | Intel Core 2 Duo CPU T5250 @ 1.5GHz, 2.0GB RAM, ATI Radeon XPress 1250 | theolobias.de

Posts 912
David Knoll | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, May 26 2011 6:41 AM

Theolobias:
Not only the "T" but also the "B" - there's no Dagesh lene, so it would be Qə-Vuh-RaT(h).

Yes

Posts 726
Theolobias | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, May 26 2011 6:55 AM

David Knoll:

Theolobias:
Not only the "T" but also the "B" - there's no Dagesh lene, so it would be Qə-Vuh-RaT(h).

Yes

Thanks for the support, David. Smile

I noticed that a lot of more recent grammars don't make a spelling difference between Bet with and without Dagesh lene anymore, I guess for simplicity's sake (as it is in modern Ivrit, if I'm not mistaken). I was lucky or unlucky enough (depends on the point of view ... - I was lucky because I loved learning Hebrew in detail) to use Ernst Jenni's schoolbook and to memorize every last footnote, so I won't miss this difference anymore. Big Smile

MS Windows 7 Home Premium 32-bit SP1 | Intel Core 2 Duo CPU T5250 @ 1.5GHz, 2.0GB RAM, ATI Radeon XPress 1250 | theolobias.de

Posts 9946
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, May 26 2011 7:43 AM

Theolobias:

George Somsel:
The "T" might be aspirated (th).

Not only the "T" but also the "B" - there's no Dagesh lene, so it would be Qə-Vuh-RaT(h).

You're right.  I managed to overlook that.  I don't do too much pronunciation of the words, but that's no excuse since I do know better.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 912
David Knoll | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, May 26 2011 7:55 AM

Theolobias:
I noticed that a lot of more recent grammars don't make a spelling difference between Bet with and without Dagesh lene anymore, I guess for simplicity's sake (as it is in modern Ivrit, if I'm not mistaken).

In practice. The Academy for the Hebrew Language insists that these rules must still be adhered to. People like me still try to follow these rules and sometimes we are being considered a bit posh.

Theolobias:
Ernst Jenni's schoolbook

Important scholar whose books on the prepositions are simply too expensive to buy. What is going on in the German publishing world Theolobias?

Posts 912
David Knoll | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, May 26 2011 7:57 AM

George Somsel:
I managed to overlook that.  I don't do too much pronunciation of the words, but that's no excuse since I do know better.

Come come George you were simply letting us know that you are a supporter of Paul Kahle weren't you?

Smile 

Posts 726
Theolobias | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, May 26 2011 8:08 AM

David Knoll:
In practice. The Academy for the Hebrew Language insists that these rules must still be adhered to. People like me still try to follow these rules and sometimes we are being considered a bit posh.

Well, I'm an advocate for correct and classy German, so I understand your approach! Big Smile

David Knoll:
Important scholar whose books on the prepositions are simply too expensive to buy. What is going on in the German publishing world Theolobias?

I remember actually laughing when I first heard that Jenni wrote a whole book (about 350 pages, I think) about the preposition Lamed - I didn't realize back then how important this one and the others really are! Yes, the German publishing world isn't what it was once - but at least there are a few publishers left willing to publish books that will only find readers in very small academic circles nowadays - it's hard to find them in other countries. It's only that you have to be a professor with a high salary in order to being able to purchase these books ... Let's just hope they discover the advantages of electronic publishing in time ...

MS Windows 7 Home Premium 32-bit SP1 | Intel Core 2 Duo CPU T5250 @ 1.5GHz, 2.0GB RAM, ATI Radeon XPress 1250 | theolobias.de

Posts 726
Theolobias | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, May 26 2011 8:11 AM

David Knoll:

Come come George you were simply letting us know that you are a supporter of Paul Kahle weren't you?

Smile 

Now, this is becoming a discussion for real Hebrew experts! Big Smile

MS Windows 7 Home Premium 32-bit SP1 | Intel Core 2 Duo CPU T5250 @ 1.5GHz, 2.0GB RAM, ATI Radeon XPress 1250 | theolobias.de

Posts 9946
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, May 26 2011 8:21 AM

David Knoll:

George Somsel:
I managed to overlook that.  I don't do too much pronunciation of the words, but that's no excuse since I do know better.

Come come George you were simply letting us know that you are a supporter of Paul Kahle weren't you?

Smile 

No subliminal messages -- just midnight sleepiness and inattention to detail.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 4761
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, May 26 2011 3:53 PM

This is, as they say, "art vs. science" to some degree. There are some things we know and some things we don't (with perfect certainty). But when it comes to Hebrew, even in Biblical studies, there is a huge amount of pollution from Modern Hebrew (and its many variations) in the pronunciation of Biblical Hebrew. This is compounded by the fact that most, and I do mean most, BH grammars openly admit that they are using MH pronunciations. That is a travesty in my book, but it is what it is. Add on top of this the fact that most Jews pronounce with MH pronunciations (which is to be expected, I suppose), and it becomes very much an uphill battle to advocate for BH pronunciation.

My approach is that we ought not pronounce things in ways that are obviously (with a little study and examination) wrong. The two biggest areas where MH encroaches on BH are in the BGDKPT letters (and there aspirations), and the vowel pronunciations. The tendency of languages over time is to reduce complexity (through a kind of "lowest common denominator" social laziness). This happened in Greek also through a process called "iotazation", wherein the older classic Greek language had about a dozen or so different vowel sounds but today Modern Greek has less than half as many, most sounds becoming an "iota". The same thing happens in English, too. I remember as a grade-schooler noticing some dictionaries wanted to convert almost every verb that wasn't long into a "schwa"...which is nonsense that should be tarred, feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail. Thankfully, we seem to have pulled back on that trend, but you still occasionally see that idea pop up here and there.

This unfortunate situation isn't helped at all by the "linguist" crowd, who seem on the whole to have adopted a kind of hippie-ish free spirit attitude toward language. They laud and applaud the "free-flowing" nature of language, not lamenting the fact that words frequently come to adopt usages that are 100% contrary to their entomological and semantic roots. Linguists call this phenomenon "living language". In biology, it's called cancer.

In my study, I have concluded that there is no such thing as a "V" or an "F" sound in Biblical Hebrew. Those are impositions of European languages over the last 2000 years. Others have come to the same conclusion. The aspirated "B" (non-dagesh) is NOT a "V" sound, it is simply a softened (less plosive) B. Another big mistake, especially prevalent in the US, is turning a non-dagesh "T" (and sometimes even the non-dagesh "D" Ick!) into an English pronounced "th". There is NO "th" sound in BH. Even Jews have jumped on this bandwagon, though, as can be seen in any synagogue that calls itself BETH This-or-That. This is an Anglicized anomaly...it certainly isn't Hebrew.

This also means that a ו isn't a "vav", it is a "waw". Granted, vav is easier to pronounce than waw, but it isn't BH. And since ו is a part of YHWH's name, I dare anyone to say "it doesn't matter" how we treat (i.e. pronounce) the Name. I'm not saying we know definitively how to pronounce the Name. I'm saying there is a huge difference between "not knowing" and "not caring", and especially "not bothering" to care. I do suspect it is this "what does it matter?" attitude that is somewhat in consideration when YHWH speaks about giving his people a "pure language" (NKJV). As Zeph. 3:8 & Zeph. 3:9 indicates, "attitude leads to opportunity"--specifically, a poor attitude will prevent opportunity to speak His Name is the "restored" pure language.

Perhaps the worst single offence of all is the debacle that occurs when folks suggest (or in the case of most Hebrew grammars, TEACH Surprise) that ח and כ are pronounced the same way--a thoroughly absurd assertion. 

So, regarding the pronunciation of your particular word, I would suggest q'bhuuraah, which not coincidentally is precisely how I would transliterate it as well. One of the prime culprits in fostering mistaken and inane pronunciation is the propensity most folks have for utilizing half-baked transliteration schemes that literally induce bad pronunciation. Even the word "torah" is an example of this. It should be transliterated and pronounced tohraah (i.e. not tor-uh but toe-raah). I will mention here that I have developed an English transliteration method for Hebrew that does what no other scheme even contemplates: it provides an exact one-to-one correspondence for each consonant AND vowel, which inherently produces proper pronunciation, and most amazingly of all it allows virtually any word written in transliterated English to be changed back into exact Hebrew INCLUDING VOWEL POINTS. This is accomplished without resorting to arcane symbols that are unfamiliar to everyone who isn't a language expert...all that is needed is a regular 101-keyboard.

Again, the lemma (קְבוּרָה) for your word would be q'bhuuraah, and the word used in your verse (קְבֻרַת־רָחֵל) would be q'bhuratth raahheil. I am going to disagree with George that shuureq and qibhbuts are pronounced the same way. Shuureq (וּ), which I transliterate as "uu", makes the sound of "moon", whereas the qibhbuts (ֻ), which I transliterate as "u", makes a sound something like "put" or "but"...thus "q'-buh-ratth" rather than "q'-boo-ratth". As you can see, I do agree with George's description of the sh'wa (ְ)...it is such a slight sound it is little more than the briefest pause. For that reason, I use an apostrophe (as others do) for it, while most people just use an "e", which inevitably leads to over-pronunciation. I transliterated the long qaamaats (ָ) as "aa" and the short patthahh (ַ) as "a", with no difference in sound other than the literal longer pronunciation of the long vowel. Again, the way I transliterate the two "A" sounds promotes precisely the kind of pronunciation that is appropriate for each vowel..."aah" versus "ah", as in the word "haalakh" (to walk or go).

George and David are both right to point out the aspirated nature of the non-dagesh "taaw" (ת), as opposed to a dagesh taaw (). While this is true enough, there is a problem with how this truth is "promoted". Normally, aspiration of a consonant is conveyed by appending an "H" behind the letter ("dh", "kh", "bh"). Since those constructions are not often found in English, the point is taken. But when attempting to indicate an aspirated "T", that produces "th"...and that's a problem. Because we know what "th" sounds like in English, right?--it's "this thing". But in Hebrew, there is no "th" sound, whether a soft "this" or hard "thing". So what to do? The answer is, sadly...nothing innovative. And so folks, even Jews,  just spell "house" as "beth" and let it sound like a girl's name. But it should sound more like "bait", with a slight softening of the "T" sound. To effectively say this sound, I suggest that people attempt to produce a normal hard "T" sound, but when pronouncing that sound, stick their tongues out between their teeth...producing a softened hard "T". It's NOT an English "th". Eventually, after practice, one can produce this sound without having to rely so much on the tongue. The way I transliterate this sound is with "tth", which seems a bit clunky for a minute or two, right up until you start using it and it starts helping you produce the correct sound. With this in force, I spell the construct form of "house" as "beiytth".

Anyway, I could continue explaining the reasoning behind every letter, but this will then get longer than the too-long it already is. I will just explain something about my transliteration method that I have used throughout this post but haven't mentioned yet. When transliterating Hebrew into English, I nearly always BOLD the syllable that ought to be emphasized. While I suspect most folks will feel unmotivated to commit to this practice, I am convinced it ought to be standard practice for transliterated Hebrew, because IT SUPPORTS AND ENFORCES PROPER PRONUNCIATION. Without it, there is nearly zero chance that proper pronunciation will be promoted. This is almost undeniable, especially since even the vast majority of English-speaking Jews don't pronounce Hebrew properly. (That statement, besides being true, is also a set up. Anyone who takes exception to it will have to defend against the claim, and it can't be done.)

Btw, Lankford, the Hebrew pronunciation guide you long for will almost certainly teach you the wrong way to pronounce Hebrew. I would love to be proven wrong on that point, but I doubt I will be. That's why I hope it remains in limbo for a loooong time. Pronouncing it wrong with a bunch of other people who are repeating conditioned ignorance is no better than having no clue what is correct. In fact, it could be worse, since it could foster an impression of knowledge when it hasn't been attained, leading to a lack of desire to continue searching for the correct way. Btw, how did I come to conclude that the Hebrew grammars were mostly teaching mistakes? I read them...more than just one...and they tend to all have two kinds of problems: 1) they either all disagree about fundamentally basic concepts, or 2) they universally agree the impossible is true. Modern Hebrew is a horrific disaster, for a whole host of historical reasons, and it is incredibly successful at tamping down all attempts to resurrect the sensible sensibility of Biblcial Hebrew. So good luck with learning to pronounce Hebrew, but if MH is what you learn...then you won't have arrived. The only way to get at BH will be to do significant self-study.

Posts 912
David Knoll | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, May 26 2011 4:59 PM

David Paul:
This is, as they say, "art vs. science" to some degree.

I disagree with the above.

Posts 9946
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, May 26 2011 5:06 PM

David Paul:
contrary to their entomological and semantic roots.

What has this to do with insects?

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 4761
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, May 26 2011 5:40 PM

George Somsel:

David Paul:
contrary to their entomological and semantic roots.

What has this to do with insects?

Embarrassed LOL...The whole subject of Modern Hebrew infecting Biblical Hebrew "bugs" me. Idea At least I'm quick on my feet! Angel

 

Posts 912
David Knoll | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, May 26 2011 6:11 PM

Pray tell us: How do you define Modern Hebrew?

Posts 468
BKMitchell | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, May 26 2011 7:05 PM

David Paul:
This is, as they say, "art vs. science" to some degree. There are some things we know and some things we don't (with perfect certainty). But when it comes to Hebrew, even in Biblical studies, there is a huge amount of pollution from Modern Hebrew (and its many variations) in the pronunciation of Biblical Hebrew. ...and it becomes very much an uphill battle to advocate for BH pronunciation.

Those new to this discussion, may be wondering what's got David Paul's goat? Basically, the reconstructed pronunciation of classical Hebrew found  chiefly in the Tiberian codices has been largely ignored by both teaching grammars he used(or is aware of) and by native users of Israeli Hebrew. Here, is A brief description of some of the issues that he brought up:

s

from page 282-283 of  'A History of the Hebrew Language' by Angel Saenz-Badillos translated by John Elwolde

However, I argue that teaching Hebrew as dead language, no matter which pronunciation is used does not necessarily lead to fluency. Students learning classical Hebrew through the means of modern Hebrew(or spoken Hebrew classes) acquire the ability to better internalize the language they can then move more rapidly in their studies, understanding, and enjoyment of texts then those using the old fashioned 'stop and parse' method.  For evidence of this compare the fluency of Biblical Hebrew of the average Mdiv/MTh seminary graduate with that of a Yeshivot(Jewish Seminary/college) graduate.

It is hard to imagine a scholar of Shakespeare who is not also fluent in modern English as well as being knowledgeable about other periods of it's language development.

חַפְּשׂוּ בַּתּוֹרָה הֵיטֵב וְאַל תִּסְתַּמְּכוּ עַל דְּבָרַי

Page 1 of 5 (90 items) 1 2 3 4 5 Next > | RSS