Correct pronunciation of קבורה
As I patiently await the Hebrew audio pronunciation resource can a Hebrew scholar help me with the correct pronunciation of קבורה? Thanks!
Comments
-
Lankford Oxendine said:
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
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Thanks George. I'm looking at how to pronounce the Hebrew lemma of קְבֻרַת־ in Genesis 35:20.
0 -
Lankford Oxendine said:
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
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:Lankford Oxendine said:
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.
0 -
George Somsel said:
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).
"Mach's wie Gott - werde Mensch!" | theolobias.de
0 -
Theolobias said:
Not only the "T" but also the "B" - there's no Dagesh lene, so it would be Qə-Vuh-RaT(h).
[Y]
0 -
David Knoll said:Theolobias said:
Not only the "T" but also the "B" - there's no Dagesh lene, so it would be Qə-Vuh-RaT(h).
Thanks for the support, David. [:)]
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. [:D]
"Mach's wie Gott - werde Mensch!" | theolobias.de
0 -
Theolobias said:George Somsel said:
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
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Theolobias said:
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 said: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?
0 -
George Somsel said:
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?
[:)]
0 -
David Knoll said:
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! [:D]
David Knoll said: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 ...
"Mach's wie Gott - werde Mensch!" | theolobias.de
0 -
David Knoll said:
Come come George you were simply letting us know that you are a supporter of Paul Kahle weren't you?
Now, this is becoming a discussion for real Hebrew experts! [:D]
"Mach's wie Gott - werde Mensch!" | theolobias.de
0 -
David Knoll said:George Somsel said:
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?
No subliminal messages -- just midnight sleepiness and inattention to detail.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
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" [+o(]) 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 [:O]) 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 (תּ). 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.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
0
-
David Paul said:
contrary to their entomological and semantic roots.
What has this to do with insects?
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:David Paul said:
contrary to their entomological and semantic roots.
What has this to do with insects?
[:$] LOL...The whole subject of Modern Hebrew infecting Biblical Hebrew "bugs" me. [I] At least I'm quick on my feet! [A]
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
Pray tell us: How do you define Modern Hebrew?
0 -
David Paul said: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:
.JPG)
from page 282-283 of 'A History of the Hebrew Language' by Angel Saenz-Badillos translated by John ElwoldeHowever, 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
0 -
BKMitchell said:
Those new to this discussion, may be wondering what's got David Paul's goat? Basically, the reconstructed pronunciation of classical Hebrew found in chiefly in the Tiberian codices has been largely ignored by both teaching grammars and by native users of Israeli Hebrew. Here, is A brief description of some of the issues that he brought up
Actually David Paul goes against the Tiberian Hebrew tradition! He says the exact opposite of what Saenz-Badillos is saying.
0 -
David Paul said:
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.
Were you a fly on the wall of Isaiah's house or with Moses on the mount that you know so well precisely how it was pronounced at that time?
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
David Knoll said:
Actually David Paul goes against the Tiberian Hebrew tradition! He says the exact opposite of what Saenz-Badillos is saying.
Really, I thought he was commenting of the fact that of Israeli Hebrew pronunciation is being used by students of classical Hebrew. And, I wanted to post a descriptions of some the differences in Israeli Hebrew in regard to the bgdkpt phonemes.
However, I have not compared the description of Hebrew in chapter 3 'pre-exilic Hebrew', and chapter 4 'Biblical Hebrew in it's various traditions' with David Paul's complaint and preferred pronunciation.
As, for me I kind of like the Yemenite Pronunciation of Hebrew.
חַפְּשׂוּ בַּתּוֹרָה הֵיטֵב וְאַל תִּסְתַּמְּכוּ עַל דְּבָרַי
0 -
David Paul said:
The tendency of languages over time is to reduce complexity (through a kind of "lowest common denominator" social laziness).
The problem with this theory is that it does not explain how languages gained the complexity to reduce[;)]
David Paul said: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.
This misrepresents what linguists do - they describe how language is used. They do not make value judgements about the language any more than a biologist would make a judgment between earthworms and roundworms. Dictionaries are also descriptive not prescriptive. As a member of the hippie generation who is trained as a philologist I prefer not to be maligned.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
BKMitchell said:
As, for me I kind of like the Yemenite Pronunciation of Hebrew.
As least for chanting the psalms with traditional tones.[:D]
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Lankford Oxendine said:
can a Hebrew scholar help me with the correct pronunciation of קבורה?
Given the direction this thread has taken I will give you the full answer despite not knowing Hebrew, The "correct" pronunciation varies over time, geographical space and social situation. What you need to learn is any of the common pronunciation patterns that will make your pronunciation understandable to others. This is NOT to be confused with the pronunciation used by the human author of the text which is unknowable although some aspects can be reasonable posited. If your beliefs include the idea that God speaks Hebrew, it is not to be mistaken for the pronunciation used by God. Neither is it necessarily the pronunciation most used by any particular Jewish liturgical tradition.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
David Paul said:
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"
) 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.I agree on that - the "v" sound is just a very simple and in all its simplicity not quite correct way to mark the difference to a Bet with Dagesh lene. For beginners, I think it's better than to mark no difference at all - but, of course, for someone who wants to know exactly, I'd explain it the way you did.
David Paul said:This also means that a ו isn't a "vav", it is a "waw".
Correct, too. As a matter of fact, "v" isn't even used in transliteration schemes in e.g. German speaking areas. The problem hoewer is that a German "w" comes close to an English "v" - there's simply no letter that matches the Hebrew ו, so again, this is nothing more than an assistance for "beginners".
"Mach's wie Gott - werde Mensch!" | theolobias.de
0 -
BKMitchell said:
Students learning classical Hebrew with a modern accent 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.
I think I have to disagree on that one. Trying to make a difference in the pronouncation of BGDKPT letters isn't just an anachronism. At least if you learn Hebrew with the Tiberian Masorah, it helps understanding certain aspects of the Hebrew grammar better than by ignoring the difference. It might take one longer at the beginning, but it definitely helps.
"Mach's wie Gott - werde Mensch!" | theolobias.de
0 -
I see, what your saying and I think I did fail to communicate with that one.
Theolobias said:I think I have to disagree on that one.
However, at present it is impossible for us to disagree because we are not talking about that same thing. What, I meant has not only to do with accent but method as well.
I have edited my post to better reflect my point notice now I think it is clearer that I am contrasting 'dead language' pedagogically to that of spoken/living:
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.We, do not natural learn our native language through the 'stop parse' and analysis that word method, do we?
I think students can learn both classical/Tiberian Hebrew pronunciation as well as learning classical Hebrew through the means of a more communicative approach. Students of classical Hebrew in theory should be exposed to all periods of language in as much as a scholar of Shakespeare would also know modern English in addition to middle English he/she specializes in.
חַפְּשׂוּ בַּתּוֹרָה הֵיטֵב וְאַל תִּסְתַּמְּכוּ עַל דְּבָרַי
0 -
BKMitchell said:
I see, what your saying and I think I did fail to communicate with that one.
Theolobias said:I think I have to disagree on that one.
However, at present it is impossible for us to disagree because we are not talking about that same thing. What, I meant has not only to do with accent but method as well.
I have edited my post to better reflect my point notice now I think it is clearer that I am contrasting 'dead language' pedagogically to that of spoken/living:
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.We, do not natural learn our native language through the 'stop parse' and analysis that word method, do we?
I think students can learn both classical/Tiberian Hebrew pronunciation as well as learning classical Hebrew through the means of a more communicative approach. Students of classical Hebrew in theory should be exposed to all periods of language in as much as a scholar of Shakespeare would also know modern English in addition to middle English he/she specializes in.
Ah, now I got you. Agreed!
"Mach's wie Gott - werde Mensch!" | theolobias.de
0 -
Theolobias said:
I agree on that - the "v" sound is just a very simple and in all its simplicity not quite correct way to mark the difference to a Bet with Dagesh lene. For beginners, I think it's better than to mark no difference at all - but, of course, for someone who wants to know exactly, I'd explain it the way you did.
You shouldn't. It has nothing to do with European languages. At first there was only one set of plosive unaspirated. After that the plosive unaspirated positioned after a vowel turned to aspirated plosives. The third stage was the turning of the aspirated BGDKPT to fricatives and the plosive set of allophones were aspirated. That's all there is to it.
You can choose whatever stage you like providing that it is coherent and you are consistent. It has NOTHING to do with European languages. Israeli Hebrew has nothing to do with it. If you read the vocalized Tiberian text I think it makes sense to use something close to the Tiberian vocalization. It is a very old tradition of pronunciation spanning more than a thousand years. All other pronunciations are guesswork of historical linguistics.
I wonder how this theory of Paul would work with the Q and Sin. Does he actually pronounce them as they were in the 8th cent. BC? How would you pronounce them Theolobias?
0 -
David Knoll said:
You shouldn't. It has nothing to do with European languages.
I should have been more clear - I wasn't agreeing on the influence of European languages but on the fact that the "v" sound doesn't match the pronouncation of the Hebrew letter Waw exactly.
David Knoll said:I wonder how this theory of Paul would work with the Q and Sin. Does he actually pronounce them as they were in the 8th cent. BC? How would you pronounce them Theolobias?
I pronounce Sin (diacritical point on the left) like a German unvoiced "s", Shin (diacritical point on the right) like a German "sch" (comes close to an English "sh", but with more body than that) - I know that the difference in pronouncation disappeared more or less, but I'm not sure at which point in time exactly. I just pronounce it differently in order to being able to distinguish possible different meanings. If by Q you mean Kaf/Chaf, I pronounce Kaf like a voiceless velar "k", Chaf like a voiceless uvular "ch" (like in German "kochen"). How would you pronounce them?
"Mach's wie Gott - werde Mensch!" | theolobias.de
0 -
Theolobias said:
How would you pronounce them?
I am not such a Feinschmecker. I pronounce ק as the letter c in the word "cat". I pronounce plosive כ the same way. ק should have been pronounced historically as in Classical Arabic: An unvoiced uvular emphatic stop (Palestinian Arabs usually pronounce it as a glottal stop nowadays.)
As for the fricatives, I pronounce פ as the letter v in the German word Vogel, כ as ch in the word machen and ב as w in the word Welle. I don't pronounce the other fricatives differently but the Tiberians did. ג should be pronounced roughly as the Arabic gayin which is a voiced velar fricative ד as the letters th in the word "this" and ת as th in the word "thin". All these articulations are attested in ancient Semitic languages! In fact some of these sounds did not exist in English in the 14th century (as anyone who studied Chaucer must remember). No European influence can be postulated. It is sheer nonsense.
I pronounce the letters שׂ and ס as I pronounce the letter s in the word "stop". The original pronunciation of the שׂ must have been an unvoiced lateral fricative. I wonder if David Paul keeps the "original" pronunciation of ק and שׂ just as he retains the middle stage and not the original pronunciation of בגדכפת.
Enough time wasted.
0 -
David Knoll said:Theolobias said:
How would you pronounce them?
I am not such a Feinschmecker. I pronounce ק as the letter c in the word "cat". I pronounce plosive כ the same way. ק should have been pronounced historically as in Classical Arabic: An unvoiced uvular emphatic stop (Palestinian Arabs usually pronounce it as a glottal stop nowadays.)
As for the fricatives, I pronounce פ as the letter v in the German word Vogel, כ as ch in the word machen and ב as w in the word Welle. I don't pronounce the other fricatives differently but the Tiberians did. ג should be pronounced roughly as the Arabic gayin which is a voiced velar fricative ד as the letters th in the word "this" and ת as th in the word "thin". All these articulations are attested in ancient Semitic languages! In fact some of these sounds did not exist in English in the 14th century (as anyone who have studies Chaucer must remember). No European influence can be postulated. It is sheer nonsense.
I pronounce the letters שׂ and ס as I pronounce the letter s in the word "stop". The original pronunciation of the שׂ must have been an unvoiced lateral fricative. I wonder if David Paul keeps the "original" pronunciation of ק and שׂ just as he retains the middle stage and not the original pronunciation of בגדכפת.
Enough time wasted.
Well, we would definitely understand each other when talking (or at least reading aloud ...) Hebrew, since I think this is exactly the way I pronounce it! [Y]
"Mach's wie Gott - werde Mensch!" | theolobias.de
0 -
A lot of posts since my last. I may post other responses, but I want to say a couple of things here. First, I don't suggest that I know exactly how David pronounced his Psalms or how Moses sounded when addressing Israel. But the fact that my pronunciation suggestions can't be verified with recordings of Abraham is missing the main point I'm trying to make. There is no question that much of what is written in "Biblical" Hebrew grammars is not in fact Biblical Hebrew (whatever form that may take) because the grammars themselves usually TELL YOU POINT BLANK that they are using Modern Hebrew pronunciation. So I can't comprehend anyone taking umbrage at my pointing that out...unless something else is driving their comments.
I recognize that Hebrew is an OLD language, and that in the last two thousand years Jews spread across the world where they picked up local language habits that got mixed into the Hebrew language. I can accept that and understand it, but I don't have to accept that the changes which percolated down through time are how I ought to pronounce Hebrew. There are major differences between Sephardic and Ashkenazi Hebrew which are well recognized, and there is also a common recognition that the European countries in which these variations developed contributed to these differences. Suggesting that European languages didn't affect these developments is silly. They did. Suggesting that the well-established language variations that existed in Hebrew at the end of the 19th century didn't influence Ben-Yehudah and the development of Modern Hebrew is...also silly.
Zuckerman's perspective in the following quote makes my point:
Israeli linguist Ghil’ad Zuckerman, whose new Hebrew book, “Hebrew as Myth,” will appear this coming year, thinks I am wrong to call “denigrating” Yiddish linguist Dovid Katz’s use of the term “Israeli” rather than “Hebrew” for the contemporary language of Israel. Mr. Zuckerman writes:
“On the contrary! It is time to acknowledge that the language spoken by Israelis is very different from the Hebrew of the past…. Israeli speakers are still brainwashed to believe that they speak the language of Isaiah (with mistakes), i.e., that today’s revived Hebrew is purely Semitic… Israeli is a hybrid language, simultaneously Semitic and Indo-European. I would argue that both Yiddish (the revivalists’ mother tongue) and Hebrew (as a literary and liturgical language) acted equally as its primary contributors, accompanied by many secondary contributors: Russian, Polish, German, Ladino, Arabic, English, etc…. Thus, the term ‘Israeli’ is far more appropriate than the misleading ‘Israeli Hebrew,’ let alone ‘modern Hebrew’ or ‘Hebrew’ tout court.”
For those interested, the rest of the article is here. I'm not trying to agree with either one or the other individual expressing opinions in the article, I'm just drawing attention to the undeniable fact that Modern Hebrew has NUMEROUS influences that make it significantly different from Biblical Hebrew. Not completely different, obviously...but very different in some significant ways. That said, I don't think it makes any sense to "learn" Modern Hebrew when Biblical Hebrew is what we are all interested in and focused on becoming proficient in. Oh, btw, it is BIBLICAL HEBREW...not some other hack language...and all other languages are hack languages by comparison. For that reason, it deserves reverence and respect...not dismissive non-chalance.
Yet nearly all of the "Biblical" Hebrew grammars use Modern Hebrew, and as a result all those folks who decide to make an effort to learn Hebrew because of their interest in the BIBLE are spending time learning NON-BIBLICAL Hebrew. In my opinion, that's practically a crime. That's all I'm saying, in the big picture. When we get into details, there are dozens of specifics to quibble over. I may not be 100% correct about what I suggest as pronunciations, but I think I'm mostly right about what I think is wrong in the current "status quo" Hebrew that is being introduced and taught to Bible students.
David, you clearly have a more expansive knowledge of Hebrew than I do. I admit that. But that doesn't make your opinion about all topics Hebrew always right. Like I've tried to communicate, I am trying to get people to avoid the inherent mistakes and contradictions that come into play when they try to meld BH with MH, often without even realizing it. You may feel that your knowledge is superior to mine, David. By and large, you may be right. But I'm not wrong in what I'm trying to convey. We can quibble about details...but the issue needs to be addressed one way or another. That's the lion's share of what I'm attempting to do--shed light on an area that is shrouded in both ignorance and, most surprisingly, apathy.
EDIT: I want to make clear that when I said Bible students shouldn't learn Modern Hebrew, I meant learn MH while believing or assuming it is BH or not caring that it isn't BH. I do think learning MH can be helpful in learning many aspects of the Hebrew language...one must, however, always distinguish the two.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David Paul said:
Yet nearly all of the "Biblical" Hebrew grammars use Modern Hebrew, and as a result all those folks who decide to make an effort to learn Hebrew because of their interest in the BIBLE are spending time learning NON-BIBLICAL Hebrew. In my opinion, that's practically a crime. That's all I'm saying, in the big picture. When we get into details, there are dozens of specifics to quibble over. I may not be 100% correct about what I suggest as pronunciations, but I think I'm mostly right about what I think is wrong in the current "status quo" Hebrew that is being introduced and taught to Bible students.
Examples required. Why don't you open a Hebrew grammar and point out for us these influences. The main differences that Zuckerman is talking about are in syntax and semantics. Zuckerman has a point but it is directed at the Israeli education system. In his view we should respect Israeli Hebrew in its own right. The state of Israel should not teach Biblical Hebrew but only Modern Israeli Hebrew. The policy of teaching Biblical Hebrew is in his view a political practice aimed at the creation of a false link between the biblical people of Israel and the modern people of the state of Israel. This has nothing to do with what you are trying to prove. How could Israeli Hebrew influence Thomas Lambdin? Was he living in Israel? Does he speak Modern Hebrew? That's absurd.
Your argument against בגדכפת has nothing to do with Israeli Hebrew. That pronunciation is almost a thousand years older than the establishment of the state of Israel. Check your facts.
0 -
David Paul said:
“On the contrary! It is time to acknowledge that the language spoken by Israelis is very different from the Hebrew of the past…. Israeli speakers are still brainwashed to believe that they speak the language of Isaiah (with mistakes), i.e., that today’s revived Hebrew is purely Semitic… Israeli is a hybrid language, simultaneously Semitic and Indo-European. I would argue that both Yiddish (the revivalists’ mother tongue) and Hebrew (as a literary and liturgical language) acted equally as its primary contributors, accompanied by many secondary contributors: Russian, Polish, German, Ladino, Arabic, English, etc…. Thus, the term ‘Israeli’ is far more appropriate than the misleading ‘Israeli Hebrew,’ let alone ‘modern Hebrew’ or ‘Hebrew’ tout court.”
Then I would suppose that we should not call the language which we speak English since it differs quite decidedly from that of Shakespeare or Chaucer -- and even more so from that of Beowulf and Piers Plowman. Greek likewise changed over the years. That which we learn today with what is known as the Erasmian pronunciation bears little or no resemblance to any Greek which was ever spoken. This is made evident by the errors in orthography which have crept into manuscripts which were copied by dictation when each scribe spelled it according to either his knowledge of the words or according to what he perceived the sound to be. From this it is evident that the pronunciation of the Greek of the NT was much closer to modern Greek than to Erasmian. I would recommend that students learn the more modern pronunciation of Greek. I would also recommend that Hebrew students learn the modern pronunciation.
Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote
The droughte of March hath perced to the roote
And bathed every veyne in swich licour,
Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
Whan Zephirus eek with his sweete breeth
Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
Hath in the Ram his halfe cours yronne,
And smale foweles maken melodye,
That slepen al the nyght with open eye-
(So priketh hem Nature in hir corages);
Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages
And palmeres for to seken strange strondes
To ferne halwes, kowthe in sondry londes;
And specially from every shires ende
Of Engelond, to Caunterbury they wende,
The hooly blisful martir for to seke
That hem hath holpen, whan that they were seeke.george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
David Paul said:
For that reason, it deserves reverence and respect...not dismissive non-chalance.
This statement helps me make sense of your stance. You imply that the language of scripture (and I would say of liturgical language as well for consistency) is to be given a special, frozen status as a mark of respect as in Church Latin, Old Church Slavonic, ...
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
This statement helps me make sense of your stance. You imply that the language of scripture (and I would say of liturgical language as well for consistency) is to be given a special, frozen status as a mark of respect as in Church Latin, Old Church Slavonic, Avestan, Pali ...
You can spread the wealth in this respect if you like, but I only feel that Hebrew deserves to be honored in this way...not even Greek. Hebrew is unique.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
George Somsel said:
Then I would suppose that we should not call the language which we speak English since it differs quite decidedly from that of Shakespeare or Chaucer -- and even more so from that of Beowulf and Piers Plowman.
Did God write the Bible in English? Is the word "Law" found every 50 letters in an English Bible? No?
That's why there is no equivalence in your supposition.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David Paul said:
There is no question that much of what is written in "Biblical" Hebrew grammars is not in fact Biblical Hebrew (whatever form that may take) because the grammars themselves usually TELL YOU POINT BLANK that they are using Modern Hebrew pronunciation.
While that might be the case for more recent Hebrew grammars and those designed for being used in special settings (as I stated before) that don't consider themselves being specifically academic, I have to say that this is definitely not true for e.g. Ernst Jennis approach, on which my suggestions for pronunciation in this thread were grounded. So it makes no sense to point out those grammars over and over again when we weren't even talking about them.
"Mach's wie Gott - werde Mensch!" | theolobias.de
0 -
David Paul said:
You can spread the wealth in this respect if you like, but I only feel that Hebrew deserves to be honored in this way...not even Greek. Hebrew is unique.
I'm very comfortable that I understand you now. You are speaking within the semantic domain of theology. David Knoll and myself were speaking within the semantic domain of linguistics. The two domains use different base data. While linguistics can serve theology, I can't think of any but extremely narrow cases of the reverse.
I would also note that I make a greater distinction between grammar and phonetics than you appear to do.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
David Knoll said:David Paul said:
I may not be 100% correct about what I suggest as pronunciations, but I think I'm mostly right about what I think is wrong in the current "status quo" Hebrew that is being introduced and taught to Bible students.
Examples required. Why don't you open a Hebrew grammar and point out for us these influences.
Ok...in my mind the most egregioius offense is the absurd claim that ח and כ are pronounced the same way. Grammar evidence?
Futato's Beginning Biblical Hebrew:
...and Cohn-Sherbok's Biblical Hebrew for Beginners:
There are hard copies of other grammars that I have that speak this same lie. The evidence that these two letters are properly pronounced DIFFERENTLY is overwhelming.
But I want you to notice the word common in the titles of both of these books (which are used as TEXTBOOKS(!) for those just learning the language)--the word "Biblical". The pronunciations suggested for these two letters are anything but Biblical.
That's my example.
David Knoll said:Your argument against בגדכפת has nothing to do with Israeli Hebrew. That pronunciation is almost a thousand years older than the establishment of the state of Israel. Check your facts.
True that the current pronunciation of the non-dagesh בגדכפת letters is signigicantly older than 1948, or even Ben-Yehuda and the Zionist movement. But even if it pre-dates Medieval Judaism by centuries, it is still NOT Biblical. You may choose to take shots at my perspective, but my use of the term Modern Hebrew is essentially two-fold. I fully realize that it technically refers to Zionist Hebrew from the mid-to-late 1800's down to this time. But I also use the term more broadly to include all significant changes to the language in the last 2000-2500 years that have resulted in the language as it is spoken and written today. The language taught as "Biblical" is NOT Biblical. With all you know, you shouldn't have any trouble recognizing that.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
Theolobias said:David Paul said:
There is no question that much of what is written in "Biblical" Hebrew grammars is not in fact Biblical Hebrew (whatever form that may take) because the grammars themselves usually TELL YOU POINT BLANK that they are using Modern Hebrew pronunciation.
While that might be the case for more recent Hebrew grammars and those designed for being used in special settings (as I stated before) that don't consider themselves being specifically academic, I have to say that this is definitely not true for e.g. Ernst Jennis approach, on which my suggestions for pronunciation in this thread were grounded. So it makes no sense to point out those grammars over and over again when we weren't even talking about them.
I am not familiar with the Jennis grammar, so I can't respond to that aspect...but I am not speaking just to the individuals who are participating in this thread. I am addressing my comments to any and all who may read this thread, even those not commenting. And I don't know if Jennis is available on Logos, but the two examples I posted above ARE available on Logos. Chances are that those just learning Hebrew will use a more recent grammar to learn the language. I want them, and as many others as possible, to be cognizant of the non-Biblical aspect of these so-called "Biblical" grammars.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David Paul said:
There are hard copies of other grammars that I have that speak this same lie
Er.. Ah.. these aren't grammars, as you pointed out they are textbooks i.e. teaching tools.
As for historical Hebrew phonetics ... this is all I know (and I learned it within the last 5 minutes)
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
David Paul said:
Ok...in my mind the most egregioius offense is the absurd claim that ח and כ are pronounced the same way. Grammar evidence?
First of all what about ק and כּ? What about שׂ and ס? What about ט and ת? and we mustn't forget the א and the ע. Do you pronounce all these historically ? In fact you require the student of Biblical Hebrew to learn Classical Arabic where all these sounds are retained. I guess 2 months of every Hebrew course would be dedicated to phonetics and phonology and 90% of the participants would leave after they attempted to pronounce some of these phonemes.
Second. You could actually be wrong. In this particular instance of ח and fricative כ there was probably an original similarity in some cases. The letter ח is supposed to have stood for two distinct phonemes. One is an unvoiced pharyngeal fricative like Arabic ح which is the sound that was retained by the Tiberians. In Israel some people (usually those who immigrated from Arabic speaking countries) retain this pronunciation so again it has nothing to do with Israeli Hebrew. The other sound is the sound of the fricative כ that is an unvoiced velar fricative like Arabic خ. BTW notice that Arabic just like Biblical Hebrew originally used the same letter for these two distinct phonemes. The diacritic point above the letter was added at a later stage.
David Paul said:With all you know, you shouldn't have any trouble recognizing that.
I don't have a problem with your opinion. I respect almost all opinions. My problem is that you have so many mistakes and inconsistencies in detail. People who read your posts may rely on them and think that the fricative בגדכפת are a result of Israeli or European influence which clearly they are not. It is much like that Interlinear comment on כנף you were on about not long ago.
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
As for historical Hebrew phonetics ... this is all I know (and I learned it within the last 5 minutes)
The best book in my opinion is the recently revised (and translated into English) "Phonology and Morphology of Biblical Hebrew" by Joshua Blau (published by Eisenbrauns). Perhaps Logos could offer that in the future...
0 -
Hmmmmmm.... 45 replies between 6 individuals. What does that say about the linguistic skills or interests of the rest of us? P.s. Not qualified to contribute to the discussion. Time to get out the interlinear. Oh dear, no pronunciation. Will wait until it is made free in Platinum.
Mission: To serve God as He desires.
0 -
David Knoll said:
The best book in my opinion is the recently revised (and translated into English) "Phonology and Morphology of Biblical Hebrew" by Joshua Blau (published by Eisenbrauns). Perhaps Logos could offer that in the future...
Would be good if you could make a suggestion for this. I'd be interested too!
"Mach's wie Gott - werde Mensch!" | theolobias.de
0 -
Theolobias said:
Would be good if you could make a suggestion for this. I'd be interested too!
How can I refuse...
0 -
While, we wait for David Knoll's suggestion to be implemented one book of interest that Logos currently has is, Linguistic and Biblical Hebrew and despite the age of Gesenius' Grammar one can still learn a lot from it's pages(also in Logos).
Now, I wonder what David Paul thinks of David Kimhi's Hebrew Grammar(MIkhlol) translated by William Chomsky into English?
Hey, three very different David's are mentioned in this post!
חַפְּשׂוּ בַּתּוֹרָה הֵיטֵב וְאַל תִּסְתַּמְּכוּ עַל דְּבָרַי
0
