3 February 2012
Biblical
Hebrew Poetry and Word Play
Reconstructing
the Original Oral, Aural and Visual Experience
By David
Steinberg
David.Steinberg@houseofdavid.ca
Home page http://www.houseofdavid.ca/
I The Purpose of this Web Page
Box 4 - The Three Orthographic Elements in the Masoretic
Text
1.
Biblical Skeleton, Changing Script and
Orthography, Medieval Vowel Signs, Modern Pronunciation
Table
1 - Changes in the Noun from PH to TH - General Case
Table
2 - Changes in the Noun from PH to TH - Possible Special Cases
Table 3 - Change in Case Ending Vowel
(ms. noun) with Attached Pronominal Suffix
Table
4 - Phase 3 *EBHP
(*/EBHP/+ *[EBHP])
Imperfect, Jussive and Preterite
Table 5 - Phase 4
*LBHP (*/LBHP/ *[LBHP]) Imperfect, Jussive and
Preterite
Table 6 - End of Phase 5 TH (/TH/+ *[TH])
Imperfect, Jussive and Preterite
|
“It’s not just a
question of what the theatre practices were like at the time… I feel that you
can, if you wanted to, reconstruct everything except the audience. And the
real exciting thing in the theatre is how you bridge the gap between what’s
happening on the stage and what’s happening in the audience - because we only do it for the audience.” William Christie in a talk
accompanying the DVD of the Rameau’s
opera - Les Boreades |
William Christie made this statement in regard to French Baroque opera, on which he is a leading expert, supporting the use of modern dance techniques to act as a cultural interpreter within his production of Les Boreades. The modern opera-goer has grown up in a society whose values, structures, cultural and linguistic associations and assumptions are totally different from that of the mid-eighteenth century courtiers who were Rameau’s audience. In addition their life experiences, how they are maintained, life expectancies, sanitation and a thousand other factors were very different from the modern audience. Indeed, the use of familiar words, apparently analogous events etc. may be faux amis leading the viewer even further astray. For Baroque Opera, we can compensate for this problem by learning relevant socio-cultural information that would have been in the bones of the original audience but must be studied, as one studies the values and literature of an extinct civilization, by the modern opera-goer. We can do this because scholars have examined and digested masses of official and unofficial documents, historical and philosophical writings, music, paintings, clothing, buildings etc. from the period and social context that produced French Baroque opera. Thus, properly prepped, we can understand, intellectually if not viscerally, cultural allusions, linguistic nuances etc. as they were understood by the original audience.
When lovely woman stoops to folly,And finds too late that men betray, What charm can sooth her melancholy,What art can wash her guilt away? The only art her guilt to cover,To hide her shame from every eye, To give repentance to her lover,And wring his bosom--is to die.
Psalms 48
Great is the LORD and greatly to be praised in the
city of our God. His holy mountain, beautiful in elevation, is the joy of all
the earth, Mount Zion, in the far north, the city of the great King. Within its
citadels God has shown himself a sure defense. Then the kings assembled, they
came on together. As soon as they saw it, they were astounded; they were in
panic, they took to flight, trembling took hold of them there, pains as of a
woman in labor …. As we have heard, so have we seen in the city of the
LORD of hosts, in the city of our God, which God establishes forever….
Psalms 2
Why do the nations conspire, and the peoples plot
in vain? The kings of the earth set
themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD and his
anointed, saying, "Let us burst
their bonds asunder, and cast their cords from us." He who sits in the heavens laughs; the LORD
has them in derision. Then he will speak
to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury, saying, "I have set my king on Zion, my holy
hill." I will tell of the decree of
the LORD: He said to me, "You are my son; today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your
heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron, and
dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel." Now therefore, O kings, be
wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth….
To enable
advanced students of Biblical Hebrew to recover, as closely as possible, the pronunciation that a
scribe in Jerusalem 700-600 BCE would have used in reading poetry to upper class Judeans
or members of the king’s court with the aim of better appreciating Biblical
Hebrew poetry and wordplay whose effectiveness depends on similarities of sound[1].
|
Box 1
- Sense and Nonsense from Robert Alter |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
In his justly influential book The
Art of Biblical Poetry, Robert
Alter correctly writes - “…even
where there are doubts about the poem's meaning, it may exhibit perfectly
perceptible formal patterns that tell us something about the operations of
the underlying poetic system.”[2] Equally
the following is justified - "The actual sound of biblical poetry will remain at
least to some extent a matter of conjecture. Certain distinctions among
consonants have shifted or blurred over the centuries, and what is worse, we
cannot be entirely sure we know where accents originally fell, what the
original system of vowels and syllabification was, or whether there were audible changes in these phonetic
features during the several hundred years spanned by biblical poetry. (The
indications of stress and vocalization of the Masoretic text were codified
well over a millennium after the composition of most of the poems and
centuries after Hebrew had ceased to be the vernacular.) On the level of
meaning, although comparative Semitic philology in a remarkable age of
archaeological discovery has done heroic work in restoring the original sense
of poorly understood words, it would be foolhardy to imagine that we can
always recover the real nuances of biblical terms, or the relation between
poetic diction and colloquial diction (of which there is no record) or
between poetic diction and other specialized usages of the ancient
language." [3] However, he goes on from there to use a transcription system based on
the vowels and some of the consonants (eg. waw transcribed as v ) of current Israeli pronunciation which we have every reason to believe are
substantially different from the pronunciation of biblical Hebrew at the time
of writing ([EBHP] and [LBHP]. It
is as if we were to say: (1) we cannot know exactly how Geoffrey Chaucer would have pronounced his poetry;
therefore, (2) we will read it as if it were educated New York English of
today!
An example of the result is found at the
foot of p. 5 (Gen. 4:23-24)
Robert Alter's
transcription -
ʿaˈdah vetziˈlah sheˈmaʿan qoˈli
neˈšei ˈlemekh haʾˈzena ʾimraˈti
ki ˈʾish haˈragti lefitzˈʿi
veˈyeled leḥaburaˈti
ki šivʿaˈtayim ˈyuqam ˈqayin
veˈlemekh shivˈʿim veshivˈʿah
The following
would be my attempt to approach much closer to the original pronunciation
-
See Short Poems of the
Hebrew Bible You will note that Alter's transcription
eliminates vowel and consonant length - a very prominent feature of Ancient Hebrew. It is interesting to hear how the three
major reconstructions of this originally oral
poem compare.
|
The underlying assumption is that a clear understanding of
the probable approximate pronunciation of the Hebrew of the Bible, at time
of its writing[6],
is vital to appreciating the rhythm of biblical poetry[7]
and to detecting word play[8]
etc.
|
Box
2 - Wordplay in the
Hebrew Bible |
|
“…the biblical authors consistently opted
for word play, especially the alliterative type, whenever the opportunity
arose. When a choice of synonyms was available, the writers typically chose
the word that produced the greater alliterative effect. This can be seen
especially in the case of rare words, even hapax legomena.”[9] As stated by the Encyclopedia Judaica “Within this framework of rhythmical
parallelism there is a whole gamut of sound repetition and sound patterns,
freely distributed, but clearly embellishing the text.” All of these can be
vitally effected by changes in pronunciation. (1)
Alliteration based on sounds that were heard as
similar by the author not necessarily by the modern reader. E.g. the
biblical writer could play off חן
חסד
and חבה
against each other because, in each case, he would have pronounced the ח
as ḥ [ħ]. He could similarly play off החביא
and נוח
against each other because, in each case he would have pronounced the ח
as /ḫ/ = kh [x]. However, to his ear /ḫ/ [x] may have more closely resembled /k/ [k] = כּ
than it would have resembled /ḥ/ [ħ]. Likewise, to the biblical writer /ḥ/
[ħ] may have more closely resembled /h/ [h] = ה
than it would have resembled /ḫ/ [x]. (2) Puns on similar sounding words requires
and understanding of what did, and what did not sound the same. שׂ
= /ś/ [ɬ] clearly sounded similar to both צ=
/ṣ/ [sˁ] and ס
= /s/ [s] and eventually merged into the latter. E.g.
שׂחק
= צחק
and סתם
= שׂתם
but never שׂחק
= שׁחק. Thus we should watch out for these
similarities in looking for word play. (3) General resemblances of
words. Due to
the distortion of modern pronunciation one might think that there is a play
on words between word וְאֵיבָה
“hostility”
(Gen. 3:15) and חַוָּה
“Eve”.
However, that this is not the case is shown by the fact that in EBHP, ואיבה
would probably have been pronounced something like /waʾayˈbâ/ [wɐʔɐyˈbɐː] or [wɐʔɛyˈbɐː] with only the final vowel in common with /ḥawˈwâ/ [ħɐwˈwɐː] “Eve”. The development of the pronunciation
of ואיבה
would have been something like /waʾayˈbâ/ (EBHP) > /waʾệˈbâ/, which might have been completed as
early as the 6th century BCE, which developed into TH /wәʾẹˈba/ [wәʾẹːˈvɐː] by the ninth century CE. The development of
the pronunciation of חוה
from [ħɐwˈwɔː] [TH] to [xɐˈvɔ], and ואיבה
from (4) Assumption for common root meaning. a) There were two roots, both spelled
עלם
but pronounced distinctively differently in the First Temple period. עלם (see) √ġlm –
root meaning = to be agitated, strong. This is probably the root of the nouns
עלם/עלמה = boy/girl. עלם = √clm –
root meaning = to conceal Although one might postulate, on the basis of TH and modern pronunciation, that all children are
devious and conceal what they can, this would have no basis in historical
linguistics. b) בָּחוּר
occurs in Eccl. 11:9 with the meaning of 'young man' and in Ps. 89:20 as the
passive participle meaning 'chosen'. One might think that there was an
association i.e. that בָּחוּר
in Eccl.
11:9 refers to a select or favored youth. However, it is probable that the two are unrelated
and would have constituted a Minimal Pair in pre-exilic Hebrew i.e. */baˈḫūr/
: */baˈḥūr/ meaning
respectively youth and chosen[10]. c) In
the Hebrew Bible נַחֲלָה
= “inalienable, hereditary property”, נַחַל
= “stream, wadi”, and possibly date palms”. Given the fundamental importance
of water for fertility one might associate the two words. However,
historically they were unrelated. In EBHP the first was pronounced /naḥaˈlâ/ [nɐħɐˈlɐː] and the second /ˈnaḫl/ [ˈnɐxl] or [ˈnɐxәl]. |
Box 3
The Functions of Puns
|
The
literary impact of a pun is based on its perception as a linguistic anomaly.
On account of its striking phonetic or semantic characteristics the pun
stands out against the coherence of the "main" text, attracts the
attention of the audience, and itself becomes a medium of communication A
pun, therefore, is a menace to the textual coherence of the “grammatical”
text (the main text) on the one hand, but may generate a new text on the
other. The coherence of this new text is based on the kind of pun, whether of
the semantic or phonetic type[11]. With regard to the intention of the
utterance, this text competes with the grammatical text. In some cases, the
sense of the "pun-text" even may superimpose the sense of the
grammatical text. The following functions of puns can be
distinguished: (1) emphatic; (2) exegetic; and (3) symbolic. In the first
case—the emphatic function—the pun is arbitrary and only underlines the sense
of the main text in which it is embedded. In the second case—the exegetic
function—the pun creates a new semantic level. In the third case—the symbolic
function—the pun-text is the symbol of a non-linguistic phenomenon. …the emphatic pun is a literary device used
to shape the "main text." The exegetic pun, by contrast, creates a
second literary level, a new text, which competes with the main text. The
textuality, of this pun-text is created by distinctive semantic or phonetic
features that appear as deviations from the norm of the main text. These
deviations separate the pun-text from the main ("grammatical") text
and constitute the pun-text as an independent text. The sense of the pun-text does not follow
the rules of a grammatical text, namely the rules of syntax, but is founded
only on phonetic links (in the case of sound-based puns) or on semantic links
(in the case of sense-based puns). It seems clear, that the possibilities of
such links normally are much fewer than the possibilities of creating a
grammatical text. Quoted from "Between Science and Magic: The Function
and Roots of Paronomasia" in The
Prophetic Books of the Hebrew Bible by Stefan Schorch[12] pp. 206, 207,
211. |
1.
Biblical Skeleton, Changing Script and Orthography,
Medieval Vowel Signs, Modern Pronunciation
The Three Orthographic Elements in the
Masoretic Text
|
"Of the three distinct
orthographic elements in the MT. the consonantal
text (including graphemes for consonants which quiesced in the course of
time), the m.l., and the vowel points, the third was the
last to he added to the text. While the first two elements were certainly
combined by the 3rd century B.C.E., as evidenced by the proto-Massoretic
text types found at Qumran[13],- the vowel points
were not added before the 6th century C.E.[14] The relative lateness of these signs does
not indicate that the tradition of pronunciation which they were intended to
record and preserve originated in the period of the Massoretes themselves.
The text without vowel signs was read orally long before the diacritical
marks were invented to indicate vowels. The vowel signs were intended to
guide readers in the correct pronunciation of the words according to
traditions known to the different schools of Massoretes. As A. Dotan
indicates (Masorah, cols 1401-82, Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 16, Keter,
Jerusalem, 1971: ref. is to col. 1409)[15]: … the notes concerning the text of the Bible and the instructions for
its proper pronunciation and its exact copying were handed down orally from
generation to generation before they were set down in writing. It may be assumed that these comments could be written
down and were committed to writing ... apparently in the sixth or seventh century C.E. Therefore, one must
differentiate quite clearly between the oral Masorah which is endless and cannot be defined even though there are
allusions to it and evidence
thereof, and between the written Masorah
whose notations were written in the margins of the codices and which
is simply called "the Masorah." This of course does not imply that the massoretic
traditions
accurately reflect the manner in which these texts were pronounced by their
authors. Nevertheless, the traditions do reflect an archaic phonology.
Investigations of Qumranic and Mishnaic Hebrew (ca. 50 B.C.E.-200 C.E.)
indicate that postbiblical Hebrew phonology was different than that of biblical Hebrew; e.g., the laryngeals
’ and h and the pharyngeals c and ḥ became weakened (Kutscher 1974: 505-7; 1971: cols.
1586, 1595-96). Massoretic
vocalisation indicates that these were not weakened or leveled in the reading
tradition, but that they were preserved (Kutscher 1974: 510-11)." Quoted from Zevit 1980, p. 9. See also Did the Tiberian Masoretes Simply Encode
Tradition of Did they "Do Grammar"? |
When dealing with vocalized texts
from the past, though occasionally historic spellings cause complications,
scholars normally have graphemes representing both consonants and vowels from
the same period. This is true whether we are referring to texts in Old and
Middle English, Old and Middle French etc. When studying these languages,
scholars will use the texts, and any other relevant information, to reconstruct
a synchronic consonantal and vowel phonology of a given dialect in a given
period.
With Biblical Hebrew, the
traditional approach is quite different and when you think about it, rather
bizarre. The printed text of the Hebrew Bible
consists of -
(a) The consonantal skeleton of Biblical Hebrew (c. 850-550 BCE) i.e.
letters representing consonants and some vowels (PMT) written in a
script and, more importantly, an orthography[16] different from that used when the texts were originally written down. (See Phonemic
Structure of Hebrew).
(b) The superimposed pointing of the Tiberian
Masoretic tradition i.e. the
vowel signs and the cantillation
signs, which indicate
syllabic word
stress, of the Masoretic Text.
These represent the extinct
pronunciation tradition of the Masoretes of Tiberias (c. 850 C.E.) which they
used in reading the biblical text. It must be pointed out that the Jewish
scribes, who presumably maintained the traditions of pronunciation of this
ancient form of Hebrew, during the millennium and a half up to the time of the
Masoretes, were always familiar with various forms of Aramaic and for most or
all of this period had an evolving Western (Palestinian) Jewish Aramaic as
their native tongue. An evolving, and
highly Aramaicized, form of Hebrew was still
spoken by some elements of the Judean peasantry until the mid second century
CE. The most prominent scholar of this form of Hebrew has written -
… Aramaic had a far-reaching impact and left its mark on all facets of the language, namely, orthography, phonetics and phonology, morphology including inflection, syntax, and vocabulary. There is room for investigation as to whether Mishnaic Hebrew was a Hebrew-Aramaic mixed language. This question may be posed owing to the fact that A(ramaic) had a pervading influence in all spheres of the language, including inflection, which is generally considered to be impenetrable to foreign influence….
Thus, the pointed Hebrew Bible imposes on a mid-first
millennium BCE consonantal structure a vocalization system, influenced by
Aramaic, of about 1,500 years later!
The reason that this strange arrangement is maintained
is that, though the
Tiberian pointing is the latest of the sources of information regarding the
pronunciation of Biblical Hebrew, it alone provides a complete transcription of its vowel phonemic system as well
as enough additional information to
reconstruct its phonetic system (*[TH]) with some
certainty. In addition, the
superbly crafted and comprehensive nature of the Tiberian masoretic system, in
many cases preserves evidence of early
pronunciations lost in the various non-Tiberian traditions[17].
However, the strange approach does not end there. The conventional scholarly transcription of
TH
(THCST/THSBL) does not, in fact reflect the known pronuncition of
the Tiberian Masoretes (/TH/ *[TH]) and the actual pronunciation of the text by
scholars ([BHIH]
or [THCSP
IS-ENG])
reflects modern pronunciations
quite at variance with BH
(*EBHP/*LBHP), TH and THCST/THSBL. [BHIH] and
[THCSP
IS-ENG] are
particularly problematic in that, effectively, most
English and German speaking learners approach Biblical Hebrew through the
pronunciation of Israeli Hebrew. However, aspects of the pronunciation of
pre-exilic Hebrew had more in common with English and especially German that it
has with Israeli Hebrew. In particular Biblical Hebrew, as did Akkadian,
and as does German, Arabic, and to a lesser extent English, maintained phonetic
and phonemic distinctions of vowel length. This sharply contrasts with Israeli
Hebrew (see Vowel System - Modern
Israeli Hebrew)
in which vowels of a given quality do not significantly vary in length. The
patterning of long and short vowels and consonants, a characteristic going back
to proto-Semitic would have been important in the language's sound structure
and rhythm. Nb. the distinction between long and short vowels and consonants
is a clear requirement if we are to fully appreciate biblical poetry word play.
2. The Problem of Music
Harper's Bible Dictionary[18] states -
Music
- Instrumental and vocal sounds having rhythm, melody, or harmony. Secular and
sacred music played no less a role in the lives of the people of biblical times
than it does in our own day. It added to the pomp of national celebrations,
bolstered the soldier's courage, enlivened work and play, lent comfort in times
of sadness, and provided inspiration in religious expression. The sound of
early ear Eastern music would seem less strange to the modern ear than
previously thought. Though we are not informed about ancient rhythms and
tempos, we do know that heptatonic, diatonic scales, familiar to us from
Western music, also existed in antiquity. A number of stringed instruments
would have produced sounds similar to modern small harps, lyres, and lutes.
Other instruments, notably woodwind, percussion, and the simpler stringed
instruments, were merely less sophisticated forms of modern orchestral or folk
instruments, and some are still in use in the traditional cultures of the
contemporary Near East.
Much of the biblical poetry
was probably intended to be sung or chanted to the accompaniment of
instruments. This is clearest with the Psalms -
In
addition to the titles used for the Book of Psalms there are numerous musical
terms in the book which indicate that the Psalms were written to be sung. The
words “psalm” (Heb. mizmor, used 57
times) and “song” (Heb. šir, found in the heading of 30 Psalms, frequently with mizmor) are both musical terms.32 In 55
Psalms there is a reference to the “choir director.”33 Various
musical instruments are mentioned in the Psalms, both stringed (e.g. Pss.
4,6,54,55), wind instruments, such as the flute (Ps. 5), and perhaps the harp (Pss. 8,81,84).34 Some of
the musical terms in the superscriptions are difficult to interpret. These
terms may be instructions to the various sections of the choir, such as the
sopranos and the basses.35 In Psalms 45 and 69 it is possible,
if not probable, that the reference to “the Lilies” is the name of a well-known
tune, to which the words of the song were to be sung (cf. the superscription in
the NIV).[19]
As stated by Watson[20] -
Our
knowledge of the extent to which musical accompaniment was a feature of ancient
oral poetry is derived by inference from ... field studies[21]...
and from indications in Greek poetry.
Yugoslav poets sing to the sound of the gusle (a one-stringed violin);
in ancient Greece the kitharis (a harp) was used. Such instruments were
used (a) to mark the accentual stresses in a line of verse; (b) to fill out the
line, especially at the beginning or end; (c) to provide emphasis at important
points, and (d) to hide the poet's hesitation as he improvised, allowing him
time to think.
In the Second Temple the
Levitical choir of men and boys sung psalms. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia " Singing seems to have been the principal feature of their art, the
instruments being used by the singers for their self-accompaniment only ."
One would expect that the
musical accompaniment probably was founded on stress patterns and/or syllabic structure. Beyond that it
is impossible to say much. We have to be aware that this represents a major
lacuna in any attempt to recover the sound of Biblical Hebrew poetry.
3.
Phases of Biblical Hebrew and
its Antecedents (BHA) and the Development of the Biblical Hebrew Reading
Tradition of the Tiberian Masoretes[22]
(For
more detail see the examples in Excursus 2
and Excursus 3.
For various opinions see Linguistic Changes
Affecting the Pronunciation of Biblical Hebrew 2000 B.C.E. - 850 C.E. According
to Various Scholars)
1. BHA Phase 1 - *Proto-Northwest Semitic
Time Period - Commenced c. 2000 BCE when the dialects that
would develop into the Canaanite languages and Aramaic
languages underwent the sound shift of word-initial [w] >
[y] which distinguishes them from the other Semitic languages. Phase 1 ended c. 1200 BCE with the establishment of
a uniform penultimate word stress. Middle-Late Bronze Age.
Geographical Coverage - Southern Levant.
Languages/Dialects in Contact - Egyptian in extreme south, proto-Arabian in east, non-Semitic languages
in extreme north, Akkadian in extreme northeast. In the Canaanite heartland the only foreign language heard would have been that of the Egyptian administrators and soldiers.
Akkadian familiar to chancery scribes (see Amarna Letters).
Political Situation - many city states. No large political units which could have crystallized one
or more widely used standard literary language(s). Egyptian dominance
in the center and south, Mittanian and then Hittite dominance in the north. Akkadian used as language of diplomatic correspondence (see Amarna
Letters).
Stress - This is the earliest period for which stress patterns can be deduced. There are two views regarding stress in this period:
1. Stress was on the penultimate
syllable, if it was long closed
(CvC) or containing a long vowel or was the first syllable of the
word. Otherwise on the antepenult.[26]
OR,
2. If:
(a) a word contained one or more long vowels, then the stress was on the
long vowel most closely preceding the case and mood endings; OR,
(b) if the word contained only short
vowels, then the syllable preceding the case or mood ending is stressed.[27]
Phonemic System - During
this period vowel and consonant quality and length were phonemic. N.b. a convenient way to learn to hear and
articulate vowel length is to listen carefully to: (a) recordings of a couple
of spoken Arabic dialects; or, (b) recordings of Akkadian poetry.
Since it was the presence or absence of long vowels or long syllables, and if
present, the location of the final long vowel or syllable of the word, that
determined stress, the place of stress was not phonological.
These conditions still pertain to most varieties
of colloquial
Arabic today.
Important Linguistic Developments -
- Canaanite shift [28] (Here is the song, "The Canaanite
Shift.")- There are two views:
1. Stressed [aː] shifts to [oː] (This
continued into phase
2.)[29].
2. Irrespective of stress, [aː] shifts to [oː]. [30]
This is the isogloss that separates proto-Canaanite (including proto-Hebrew)
from proto-Aramaic).
N.b.
We have very little evidence regarding this phase of the language. Some of
the linguistic developments listed under phase 2
may have taken place or commenced in phase 1.
b) BHA Phase 2 - *Proto-Hebrew (PH)[31]
Time Period - c. 1200 - c. 1000 BCE. Iron Age 1
Geographical Coverage - Territory
of the future kingdoms of Israel and Judah, particularly the highland area from the Negev desert to
the Valley of
Jezreel.
Languages/Dialects in Contact - Similar to the
following phase - see the table Linguistic
Influences on the Regions of Judah and Israel.
Political Situation - Israelite
highland settlement with declining Late Bronze Age Canaanite city states in the
lowlands. Residual Egyptian military presence early in this era.
Stress - Phase 2 commenced with the establishment of a uniform
penultimate word stress[32]. Phase 2
ended with the loss of most or all word-final short vowels which occurred in three stages:
§
Nouns in the
construct state dropped their final short case ending[33] vowels; then,
§
verbs; and finally,
§
nouns (including
participles) in the absolute state. In the words of Blau[34] -
As for the
dropping of the final short vowels, it took place apparently in three stages. At first, nouns in status constructus
dropped their final short vowels[35]
…, then verbs[36]
and at last nouns (including participles) in status absolutus.[37] Owing to the elision of
short final vowels in the status
absolutus, short vowels in the preceding open syllable which now had become
closed, were compensatorily lengthened (viz. a to ā, i
to ē, and u to ō;
as ˈdagu > דָּג (ˈdåg) "fish" [Cf. Harris 1939 pp. 60-62] (as against ˈqallu > קַל
"light", because it was originally closed); yaˈšinu > יָֹשֵן (yåˈšēn) "sleeping"; yaˈguru > יָגוֹר
"being afraid"). This compensatory lengthening did not take place
during the dropping of the final short vowels from the status constructus
and verbs, and since during its operation these word classes already exhibited
closed final syllables, they were not lengthened at all (therefore:־ דַּג; שָמַר "he
kept", with final short vowels, viz,
pataḥ. Since the ṣere
and ḥolem in יָשֵן "he
slept" and יָגוֹר "he was afraid" correspond to pataḥ, they have to be considered
short as well, whereas the same words when serving as participles contain long ṣere and ḥolem; similarly נִשְמַר qţl as against the participle נִשְמָר, הֻבְדַּל/ יֻבְדַּל qţl/yqţl against the participle מֻבְדָּל).
1. In the case of a verbal form being used as a name the
stressed vowel undergoes compensatory lengthening[38]. E.g.
<ycqb> (/EBHP/): /yicˈqub/ "he over reaches
etc."; /yicˈqoːb/ "Jacob"
both
derived from BHA phase 2 /yacˈqubu/
<ntn> (/EBHP/): /naˈtan/ "he gave"; /naˈtaːn/ "Nathan" both derived
from BHA phase 2
/naˈtana/
2. In some cases, if the preceding syllable was closed or when
open contained an unchangeable long, vowel, /a/ remained short though in
similar situations /u/ lengthened to /oː/
and /i/ to /eː/. Egs.
PH */ʾiṣˈbacu/ > /EBHP/ /ʾiṣˈbac/ 'finger', PH */šuːˈšanu/ > /EBHP/ /šuːˈšan/ 'lily', PH */mapˈtiḥu/ >
/EBHP/ /mapˈteːḥ/ 'key', PH */ša:ˈpiṭu/ > /EBHP/ /šoːˈpeːṭ / 'judge', PH */ṣipˈpuru/ > /EBHP/ /ṣipˈpoːr/ 'bird',
PH */'mutu/ > /EBHP/ */ˈmoːt/ 'man'. However, in many cases, the EBHP form assimilated to the /da'ba:r/ class, i.e. the stressed /a/
lengthened to /a/. Egs. PH */miqˈdašu/ > /EBHP/ /miqˈda:š/ 'sanctuary', PH */ca:ˈlamu/ > /EBHP/ /coːˈla:m/ 'world, age'.[39]
|
Table 1 - Changes in the Noun from PH to
TH - General Case |
|||||
|
|
|
*PH (c. 1200 BCE) |
(c. 850-550 BCE) |
(c. 400 CE) |
(c.
850 CE) |
|
דבר 'word' |
s. |
*/daˈbaru/[40] */daˈbara/[41] */daˈbari/[42] |
*/daˈbaːr/ *[dɐˈbaːɾ] |
*/daːˈbaːr/ |
דָּבָר /dåˈbår/ *[dɔːˈvɔːr] |
|
*/dabaˈrāmi/ |
*/dabaˈraym/ |
|
|
||
|
*/dabaˈrīm/ *[dɐbɐˈɾiːm] |
*/dәbaːˈrīm/ |
דְּבָרִים /dәbåˈrim/ *[dәvɔːˈriːm] |
|||
|
|
constr. s. |
*/daˌbar/ |
*/daˌbar/ *[dɐˌbɐɾ] |
*/dәˌbar/ |
דְּבַר /dәˌbar/ *[dәˌvɐːr] |
|
|
constr. du. |
*/dabaˌrā/ */dabaˌray/ |
*/dabaˌray/ *[dɐbɐˌɾɐy]
or *[dɐbɐˌɾɛy] |
*/dibәˌrê/ |
דִּבְרֵי /dibˌrẹ/ *[divˌrẹː] |
|
|
constr. pl. |
*/dabaˈrū/ */dabaˈrī/ |
|||
|
דג 'fish' |
*/ˈdagu/ */ˈdaga/ */ˈdagi/ |
*/ˈdaːg/ *[ˈdaːg] |
*/ˈdaːg/ |
דָּג /ˈdåg/ *[ˈdɔːġ] |
|
|
*/daˈgūma/ */daˈgīma/ |
*/daˈgīm/ *[dɐˈgiːm] |
*/daːˈgīm/ |
דְּגִים /dåˈgim/ *[dɔːˈġiːm] |
||
|
שנה 'year' |
*/šaˈnatu/ */šaˈnata/ */šaˈnati/ |
*/šaˈnâ/ *[šɐˈnɐː] |
*/šaːˈnâ/ |
ֹשָנָה /šåˈnå/ *[šɔːˈnɔː] |
|
|
ידות 'handles' |
*/yaˈdōtu/ */yaˈdōta/ */yaˈdōti/ |
*/yaˈdōt/ *[yɐˈdoːt] |
*/yaːˈdōt/ |
יָדוֹת /yåˈdot/ *[yɔːˈðoːθ] |
|
|
√קטל (qal a.p.) |
ms. |
*/qōˈṭeːl/ *[qoːˈṭẹːl] |
*/qōˈṭeːl/ |
קֹטֵל /qoˈṭẹl/ *[qoːˈṭẹːl] |
|
|
fs. (form 1) |
*/qōṭiˈlâ/ *[qoːṭɪˈlɐː] |
*/qōṭәˈlâ/ |
קֹטְלָה /qoṭәˈlå/ *[qoːṭәˈlɔː] |
||
|
fs. (form 2) |
*/qōˈṭilt/ > *[qoːˈṭɐlt] |
*/qōˈṭelet/ |
קֹטֶלֶת /qoˈṭɛlɛt/ |
||
|
du. |
*/qōṭiˈlāmi/ */qōṭiˈlaymi/ |
*/qōṭiˈlaym/ |
|
|
|
|
mp. |
*/ˈqāṭilῑma/ > |
*/qōṭiˈlῑm/ *[qoːṭɪˈliːm] |
*/qōṭˈlīm/ |
קֹטְלִים /qoṭәˈlim/ *[qoːṭәˈliːm] |
|
|
fp. |
*/qāṭiˈlātu/ > |
*/qōṭiˈlōt/ *[qoːṭɪˈloːt] |
*/qōṭˈlōt/ |
קֹטְלוֹת /qoṭәˈlot/ *[qoːṭәˈloːθ] |
|
|
√שׁלח (qal a.p.) |
ms. |
*/ˈšāliḥu/ > |
*/šōˈleːḥ/ *[šoːˈlẹːḥ] |
שֺׁלֵחַ /šoˈleaḥ/ *[šoːˈleːɐḥ] |
|
|
√קטל (piel a.p.) |
ms. |
*/muqaṭˈṭeːl/ *[mʊqɐṭˈṭẹːl] |
*/mәqaṭˈṭeːl/[50] |
מְקַטֵּל /mәqaṭˈṭẹl/ *[mәqɐṭˈṭẹːl] |
|
|
|
fs. mp. fp. |
*/muqaṭṭiˈlatu/ */muqaṭṭiˈlīma/ */muqaṭṭiˈlōti/ |
*/muqaṭṭiˈlâ/ *[mʊqɐṭṭɪˈlɐː] */muqaṭṭiˈlīm/ */muqaṭṭiˈlōt/ |
*/mәqaṭṭәˈlâ/ */mәqaṭṭәˈlīm/ */mәqaṭṭәˈlōt/ |
/mәqaṭṭәˈlå/ *[mәqɐṭṭәˈlɔː] /mәqaṭṭәˈlim/ /mәqaṭṭәˈlot/ |
|
√קטל (hithpael participle) |
ms. |
*/muhitqaṭˈṭilu/ */muhitqaṭˈṭila/ */muhitqaṭˈṭili/ |
*[mɪtqɐṭˈṭẹːl] |
*/mitqaṭˈṭeːl/ |
מִתְקַטֵּל /mitqaṭˈṭẹl/ *[miθqɐṭˈṭẹːl] |
|
|
fs. mp. fp. |
*/muhitqaṭṭiˈlōtu/ |
*/mitqaṭṭiˈlâ/ */mitqaṭṭiˈlīm/ */mitqaṭṭiˈlōt/ |
*/mitqaṭṭәˈlâ/ */mitqaṭṭәˈlīm/ */mitqaṭṭәˈlōt/ |
/mitqaṭṭәˈlå/ /mitqaṭṭәˈlim/ /mitqaṭṭәˈlot/ |
|
√קטל (qal inf. constr.) |
not
in construct relationship |
*/ˈquṭulu/
> */quˈṭulu/
Similar in form to imperative
(ms.) possibly due to shared origin before the functions were distinguished.[52] |
*/quˈṭoːl/[53] *[qo̞ˈṭo:l] > *[qŏˈṭo:l |
*/qˈṭoːl/ |
קְטֹל /qәˈṭol/ *[qәˈṭoːl] |
|
in construct
relationship |
*/quˌṭul/ |
*/quˌṭul/ *[qʊˌṭʊl] > */qˌṭul/ *[qәˌṭɔl]
|
*/qˌṭul/ |
קְטֹל /qәˌṭol/ *[qәˌṭoːl] |
|
|
with suffixes |
*/quṭuˈlakã/
etc. |
*/quṭˈlaka(ː)/ *[qʊṭˈlɐkɐˑ] etc. |
*/quṭlˈkaː/ etc. |
קָטְלְךָ /qǫṭlәˈkå/ *[qɔṭlәˈkɔː] |
|
|
√קטל (hiphil inf.
abs.) |
|
*/haqˈṭilu/ */haqˈṭila/ */haqˈṭili/ |
*/haqˈṭeːl/ *[hɐqˈṭẹːl] |
*/haqˈṭeːl/ |
הַקְטֵל */haqˈṭẹl/ *[hɐqˈṭẹːl] |
|
Table 2 - Changes in the Noun from PH to TH - Possible Special Cases |
||||||
|
|
|
*PH (c. 1200 BCE) |
(c. 850-550 BCE) |
(c. 400 CE) |
(c.
850 CE) |
Comments |
|
Prim-itive
qaṭul |
ms. |
*/gaˈdulu/ */gaˈdula/ */gaˈduli/ |
*/gaˈdoːl/ *[gɐˈdoːl] |
*/gaːˈdoːl/ |
גָּˈדוֺל /gåˈdol/ *[gɔːˈðoːl] |
|
|
fs. |
*/gaduˈlatu/ */gaduˈlata/ */gaduˈlati/ |
*/gaduˈlâ/ *[gɐdʊˈlɐː] or |
*/gәdoːˈlâ/ |
גְּדוֺˈלָה /gәdoˈlå/ *[gәðoːˈlɔː] |
Assumes that, in
feminine and plural forms, */u/ > /ō/ due to pretonic
lengthening, i.e. |
|
|
mp. |
*/gaduˈlῑm / *[gɐdʊˈliːm] or |
*/gәdoːˈlῑm/ |
גְּדוֺˈלִים /gәdoˈlim/ *[gәðoːˈliːm] |
|||
|
fp. |
*/gaduˈlōtu/ */gaduˈlata/ */gaduˈlati/ |
*/gaduˈlōt / *[gɐdʊˈloːt] or |
*/gәdoːˈlōt/ |
גְּדוֺˈלוֺת /gәdoˈlot/ *[gәðoːˈloːθ] |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ms. |
*/gaˌdul/ |
*/gaˌdul/ *[gɐˌdʊl] or |
*/gәˌdoːl/ or |
גְּˌדוֹל /gәˌdol/
*[gәˌðoːl] or גְּדָל־ */gәdǫl-/
*[gәðɔl] |
Construct |
|
|
fs. |
*/gaduˌlat/ |
*/gaduˌlat/ *[gɐdʊˌlɐt] or |
*/gәdoːˌlat/ |
גְּדוֺˌלַת /gәdoˌlat/ *[gәðoːˌlɐːt] |
||
|
mp. |
*/gaduˌlū/ */gaduˌlῑ/ |
*/gaduˌlay/ *[gɐdʊˌlɐy] or |
*/gәdoːˌlê/ |
גְּדוֺˌלֵי /gәdoˌlẹ/
*[gәðoːˌlẹː] |
||
|
du. |
*/gaduˌlā/ */gaduˌlay |
|||||
|
fp. |
*/gaduˌlōt/ |
*/gaduˌlōt/ *[gɐdʊˌloːt] or |
*/gәdoːˌlōt/ |
גְּדוֺˌלוֺת /gәdoˌlot/ *[gәðoːˌloːθ] |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ms. |
*/gaˈdulu/ */gaˈdula/ */gaˈduli/ |
*/gaˈdoːl/ *[gɐˈdoːl] |
*/gaːˈdoːl/ |
גָּˈדוֺל /gåˈdol/ *[gɔːˈðoːl] |
|
|
|
fs. |
*/gaduˈlatu/ */gaduˈlata/ */gaduˈlati/ |
*/gadoːˈlâ/ *[gadoːˈlɐː] |
*/gәdoːˈlâ/ |
גְּדוֺˈלָה /gәdoˈlå/ *[gәðoːˈlɔː] |
Assumes that in Biblical
Hebrew grammatical analogy in which fs., mp., fp. forms based on new EBHP ms.
form.[54] |
|
|
mp. |
*/gadoːˈlῑm/ *[gɐdoːˈliːm] |
*/gәdoːˈlῑm/ |
גְּדוֺˈלִים /gәdoˈlim/ *[gәðoːˈliːm] |
|||
|
fp. |
*/gaduˈlōtu/ */gaduˈlata/ */gaduˈlati/ |
*/gadoːˈlōt/ *[gɐdoːˈloːt] |
*/gәdoːˈlōt/ |
גְּדוֺˈלוֺת /gәdoˈlot/ *[gәðoːˈloːθ] |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Part. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ms. |
*/kaˈbidu/ */kaˈbida/ */kaˈbidi/ |
*/kaˈbeːd/ *[kɐˈbẹːd] |
כָּˈבֵד /kåˈbẹd/ *[kɔːˈvẹːð] |
|
||
|
fs. |
*/kabiˈdatu/ */kabiˈdata/ */kabiˈdati/ |
*/kabiˈdâ/ *[kɐbɪˈdɐː] or |
*/kәbeːˈdâ/ |
כְּבֵˈדָה */kәbẹˈdå/ *[kәvẹːˈðɔː] |
Assumes that, in
feminine and plural forms, */i/ > /eː/ due to pretonic
lengthening, i.e. |
|
|
mp. |
*/kabiˈdūma/ */kabiˈdῑma/ |
*/kabiˈdīm/ *[kɐbɪˈdiːm] or |
*/kәbeːˈdīm/ |
כְּבֵˈדִים /kәbẹˈdim/ *[kәvẹːˈðiːm] |
||
|
fp. |
*/kabɪˈdōt/ *[kɐbɪˈdoːt] or |
*/kәbeːˈdōt/ |
כְּבֵˈדוֹת /kәbẹˈdot/ |
|||
|
√כבד
'heavy of-' |
ms. |
*/kaˌbid/ |
*/kaˌbid/ *[kɐˌbɪd] |
*/kәˌbad/ |
כְּˌבַד */kәˌbad/ *[kәˌvaːð] |
Construct |
|
fs. |
*/kabiˌdat/ |
*/kabiˌdat/ *[kɐbɪˌdɐt] |
*/kibәˌdat/ |
כִּבְˌדַת /kibˌdat/ *[kivˌðɐːt] |
||
|
du. |
*/nikbaˌdā/ */nikbaˌday/ |
*/kabiˌday/ *[kɐbɪˌdɐy] or *[kɐbɛˌdɛy] |
*/kibәˌdê/ |
כִּבְˌדֵי /kibˌdẹ/ |
||
|
mp. |
*/kabiˌdū/ */kabiˌdῑ/ |
|||||
|
Fp. |
*/kabiˌdōt/ |
*/kabiˌdōt/ *[kɐbɪˌdoːt] |
*/kibәˌdōt/ |
כִּבְˌדוֹת /kibˌdot/ *[kivˌðoːθ] |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√כבד
'heavy' |
ms. |
*/kaˈbidu/ |
*/kaˈbeːd/ *[kɐˈbẹːd] |
*/kaːˈbẹːd/ |
כָּˈבֵד /kåˈbẹd/ *[kɔːˈvẹːð] |
|
|
fs. |
*/kabiˈdatu/ |
*/kabeːˈdâ/ *[kɐbẹːˈdaː] |
*/kәbeːˈdâ/ |
כְּבֵˈדָה */kәbẹˈdå/ |
Assumes that in Biblical
Hebrew grammatical analogy in which fs, mp., fp. forms based on new EBHP ms. form.[56] |
|
|
mp. |
*/kabiˈdūma/ */kabiˈdῑma/ |
*/kabeːˈdīm/ *[kɐbẹːˈdiːm] |
*/kәbeːˈdῑm/ |
כְּבֵˈדִים /kәbẹˈdim/ |
||
|
fp. |
*/kabiˈdōtu/ |
*/kabeːˈdōt/ *[kɐbẹːˈdoːt] |
*/kәbeːˈdōt/ |
כְּבֵˈדוֹת /kәbẹˈdot/ |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√כבד 'honorable,
honored' |
ms. |
*/nikˈbadu/ */nikˈbada/ */nikˈbadi/ |
*[nɪkˈbaːd] |
*/nikˈbaːd/ |
נִכְˈבָּד /nikˈbåd/ *[nixˈbɔːð] |
|
|
fs. |
*/nikbaˈdatu/ */nikbaˈdata/ */nikbaˈdati/ |
*/nikbaˈdâ/ *[nɪkbɐˈdɐː] |
*/nikbaːˈdâ/ |
נִכְבָּˈדָה /nikbåˈdå/ *[nixbɔːˈðɔː] |
Assumes that, in
feminine and plural forms, */a/ > /aː/ due to pretonic
lengthening, i.e. |
|
|
mp. |
*/nikbaˈdūma/ */nikbaˈdīma/ |
*/nikbaˈdῑm/ *[nɪkbɐˈdiːm] |
*/nikbaːˈdῑm/ |
נִכְבָּˈדִים /nikbåˈdim/ *[nixbɔːˈðiːm] |
||
|
fp. |
*/nikbaˈdōtu/ */nikbaˈdōta/ */nikbaˈdōti/ |
*/nikbaˈdōt/ *[nɪkbɐˈdoːt] |
*/nikbaːˈdōt/ |
נִכְבָּˈדוֺת /nikbåˈdot/ *[nixbɔːˈðoːθ] |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√כבד 'hon- |
ms. |
*/nikˌbad/ |
*/nikˌbad/ *[nɪkˌbɐd] |
*/nikˌbad/ |
נִכְˌבַּד־ /nikˌbad/ *[nixˌbɐːð] |
Construct |
|
fs. |
*/nikbaˌdat/ |
*/nikbaˌdat/ *[nɪkbɐˌdɐt] |
*/nikbәˌdat/ |
נִכְבְּˌדַת־ /nikbәˌdat/ *[nixbәˌðɐːθ] |
||
|
du. |
*/nikbaˌdā/ */nikbaˌday/ |
*/nikbaˌday/ [nɪkbɐˌdɐy] or [nɪkbɐˌdɛy] |
*/nikbәˌdê/ |
נִכְבְּˌדֵי־ /nikbәˌdẹ/ *[nixbәˌðẹː] |
||
|
mp. |
*/nikbaˌdū/ */nikbaˌdῑ/ |
|||||
|
fp. |
*/nikbaˌdōt/ |
*/nikbaˌdōt/ *[nɪkbɐˌdoːt] |
*/nikbәˌdōt/ |
נִכְבְּˌדוֺת־ /nikbәˌdot/ *[nixbәˌðoːθ] |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√כבד 'honor-able,
hon- |
ms. |
*/nikˈbadu/ */nikˈbada/ */nikˈbadi/ |
*/nikˈbaːd/ *[nɪkˈbaːd] |
*/nikˈbaːd/ |
נִכְˈבָּד /nikˈbåd/ *[nixˈbɔːð] |
|
|
fs. |
*/nikbaˈdatu/ */nikbaˈdata/ */nikbaˈdati/ |
*/nikbaːˈdâ/ *[nɪkbaːˈdɐː] |
*/nikbaːˈdâ/ |
נִכְבָּˈדָה /nikbåˈdå/ *[nixbɔːˈðɔː] |
Assumes that in Biblical
Hebrew grammatical analogy in which fs, mp., fp. forms based on new EBHP ms. form. |
|
|
mp. |
*/nikbaˈdūma/ */nikbaˈdῑma/ |
*/nikbaːˈdῑm/ *[nɪkbaːˈdiːm] |
*/nikbaːˈdῑm/ |
נִכְבָּˈדִים /nikbåˈdim/ *[nixbɔːˈðiːm] |
||
|
fp. |
*/nikbaˈdōtu/ */nikbaˈdōta/ */nikbaˈdōti/ |
*/nikbaːˈdōt/ *[nɪkbaːˈdoːt] |
*/nikbaːˈdōt/ |
נִכְבָּˈדוֺת /nikbåˈdot/ *[nixbɔːˈðoːθ] |
||
|
√קטל |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ms. |
*/muquṭˈṭalu/ */muquṭˈṭala/ */muquṭˈṭali/ |
*[mʊqʊṭˈṭaːl] |
*/mәquṭˈṭaːl/ |
מְקֻˈטָּל /mәquṭˈṭål/ *[mәquṭˈṭɔːl] |
|
|
|
fs. mp. fp. |
*/muquṭṭaˈlatu/ */muaquṭṭaˈlῑma/[59] */muquṭṭaˈlōtu/ |
*/muquṭṭaˈlâ/ *[mʊqʊṭṭɐˈlɐː] */muquṭṭaˈlῑm/ */muquṭṭaˈlōt/ |
*/mәquṭṭaːˈlâ/ */mәquṭṭaːˈlῑm/ */mәquṭṭaːːˈlōt/ |
מְקֻטָּˈלָה /mәquṭṭåˈlå/ *[mәquṭṭɔːˈlɔː] /mәquṭṭåˈlim/ /mәquṭṭåˈlot/ |
Assumes that, in
feminine and plural forms, */a/ > /aː/ due to pretonic lengthening,
i.e. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ms. |
*/muquṭˌṭal/ |
*/muquṭˌṭal/ *[mʊqʊṭṭɐˌlɐː] |
*/mәquṭˌṭal/ |
מְקֻˌטַּל /mәquṭˌṭal/ *[mәquṭˌṭɐːl] |
Construct |
|
|
fs. mp. fp. |
*/muquṭṭaˌlat/ */muquṭṭaˌlῑ/ */muquṭṭaˌlōt/ |
*/muquṭṭaˌlat/ *[mʊqʊṭṭɐˌlɐt] */muquṭṭaˌlay/ */muquṭṭaˌlōt/ |
*/mәquṭṭәˌlat/ */mәquṭṭәˌlê/ */mәquṭṭәˌlōt/ |
/mәquṭṭәˌlat/ *[mәquṭṭәˌlɐːθ] /mәquṭṭәˌlẹ/ /mәquṭṭәˌlot/ |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ms. |
*/muquṭˈṭalu/
|
*/muquṭˈṭaːl/ *[mʊqʊṭˈṭaːl] |
*/mәquṭˈṭaːl/ |
מְקֻˈטָּל /mәquṭˈṭål/ |
|
|
|
fs. mp. fp. |
*/muquṭṭaˈlatu/ */muquṭṭaˈlῑma/ */muquṭṭaˈlōtu/ |
*/muquṭṭaːˈlâ/ *[mʊqʊṭṭaːˈlɐː] */muquṭṭaːˈlῑm/ */muquṭṭaːˈlōt/ |
*/mәquṭṭaːˈlâ/ */mәquṭṭaːˈlῑm/ */mәquṭṭaːˈlōt/ |
/mәquṭṭåˈlå/ *[mәquṭṭɔːˈlɔː] /mәquṭṭåˈlim/ /mәquṭṭåˈlot/ |
Assumes
that in Biblical Hebrew grammatical analogy in which fs, mp., fp. forms
based on new EBHP ms. form. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√קטל |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ms. |
*/mәˈhuqṭalu/
> */mәhuqˈṭalu/ |
*/muqˈṭaːl/ *[mʊqˈṭaːl] OR *[mo̞qˈṭaːl] |
*/muqˈṭaːl/ *[muqˈṭaːl] OR |
מֻקְˈטָל /muqˈṭål/ *[muqˈṭɔːl] OR מָקְˈטָל /mǫqˈṭål/ *[mɔqˈṭɔːl] |
|
|
|
fs. Form
1 |
*/mәhuqˈṭalatu/
> */mәhuqṭaˈlatu/ |
*/muqṭaˈlâ/ *[mʊqṭɐˈlɐː] OR |
*/muqṭaːˈlâ/ |
/muqṭåˈlå/ OR /mǫqṭåˈlå/ |
Assumes
that, in feminine and plural forms, */a/ > /aː/ due to pretonic
lengthening, i.e. |
|
|
Fs. Form
2 |
*/mәhuqˈṭalatu/ > */mәhuqˈṭaltu/ |
*/muqˈṭalt/ *[mʊqˈṭɐlt] |
*/muqˈṭelet/ |
/muqˈṭɛlɛt/ OR
/mǫqˈṭɛlɛt/ |
|
|
|
mp. |
*/mәuqṭaˈlῑma/
|
*/muqṭaˈlῑm/ *[mʊqṭɐˈliːm] |
*/muqṭaːˈlῑm/ |
1./muqṭåˈlim/ *[muqṭɔːˈliːm] OR 2./mǫqṭåˈlim/ *[mɔqṭɔːˈliːm] |
|
|
|
fp. |
*/mәhuqṭaˈlōtu
/ |
*/muqṭaˈlōt/ *[mʊqṭɐˈloːt] |
*/muqṭaːˈlōt/ |
1./muqṭåˈlōt/ OR 2./mǫqṭåˈlōt/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ms. |
*/mәhuqˌṭal/ |
*/muqˌṭal/ *[mʊqˌṭɐl] |
*/muqˌṭal/ *[muqˌṭal] OR |
מֻקְˌטַל /muqˌṭal/ *[muqˌṭɐːl] OR מָקְˌטַל /mǫqˌṭal/ *[mɔqˌṭɐːl] |
Construct |
|
|
Fs. Form
2 |
*/mәhuqˌṭalt/ |
*/muqˌṭalt/ *[mʊqˌṭɐlt] |
*/muqˌṭalt/ |
/muqˌṭɛlɛt/ OR
/mǫuqˌṭɛlɛt/ |
|
|
|
du. |
*/mәhuqˌṭā/ */mәhuqˌṭay/ |
*/muqṭaˌlay/ *[mʊqṭɐˌlɐy] or *[mʊqṭɐˌlɛy] |
*/muqṭәˌlê/ |
/muqṭәˌlẹ/ |
|
|
|
mp. |
*/mәuqṭaˌlū/ */mәuqṭaˌlῑ/ |
||||
|
|
fp. |
*/mәhuqṭaˌtōt/ |
*/muqṭaˌlōt/ *[mʊqṭɐˌloːt] |
*/muqṭәˌlōt/ |
1./muqṭәˌlot/ OR 2./mǫqṭәˌlot/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ms. |
*/mәˈhuqṭalu/ > */mәhuqˈṭalu/ |
*/muqˈṭaːl/ *[mʊqˈṭaːl] OR |
*/muqˈṭaːl/ *[mʊqˈṭaːl] OR |
מֻקְˈטָל /muqˈṭål/ *[muqˈṭɔːl] OR מָקְˈטָל /mǫqˈṭål/* [mɔqˈṭɔːl] |
|
|
|
fs. Form
1 |
*/mәhuqˈṭalatu/ > */mәhuqbaˈratu/ |
*/muqṭaːˈlâ/ *[mʊqṭaːˈlɐː] OR *[mo̞qṭaːˈlɐː] |
*/muqṭaːˈlâ/ |
/muqṭåˈlå/ OR /mǫqṭåˈlå/ |
Assumes
that in Biblical Hebrew grammatical analogy in which fs, mp., fp. forms
based on new EBHP ms. form. |
|
|
Fs. Form
2 |
*/mәhuqˈṭalatu/ >
*/mәhuqˈṭaltu/ |
*/muqˈṭalt/ *[mʊqˈṭɐlt] |
*/muqˈṭelet/ |
/muqˈṭɛlɛt/ *[muqˈṭɛːlɛθ] OR
/mǫqˈṭɛlɛt/ *[mɔqˈṭɛːlɛθ] |
|
|
|
mp. |
*/mәuqṭaˈlῑma/ |
*/muqṭaːˈlῑm/ *[mʊqṭaːˈliːm] |
*/muqṭaːˈlῑm/ |
1./muqṭåˈlim/ *[muqṭɔːˈliːm] OR 2./mǫqṭåˈlim/ *[mɔqṭɔːˈliːm] |
|
|
|
fp. |
*/mәhuqṭaˈlōtu/ |
*/muqṭaːˈlōt/ *[mʊqṭaːˈloːt] |
*/muqṭaːˈlōt/ |
1./muqṭåˈlot/ OR 2./mǫqṭåˈlot/ |
|
Phonemic System -
vowel and consonant quality and
length were phonemic . Reduction in
number of consonantal phonemes due to following mergers
(some of these shifts may have occurred in some dialects during phase 3 - see also diglossia) -
/ṱ / > /ṣ/; /ď/ > /ṣ/;
/δ/
> /z/; [θ]
> [š]
Important Linguistic Developments -
-
ʾ/ʔ/
(א) closing a stressed
syllable was elided with compensatory lengthening. The â
[aː] created by this elision shifted to ô
[oː] as in -
/ˈraʾšu/
> */ˈrâšu/
→
/ˈrôš/
'head'; /ˈyaʾḫuð/
> /ˈyâḫuð/ >
/ˈyôḫuð/
> /ˈyôḫid/ →
(TH) יֺחֵז
'let him take').
This shows that the shift [aː] > [oː] still
functioned during this period.
- Homogeneous diphthong
contraction[60].
Accented PS
short vowel followed by an unvoweled homogeneous consonant and another
consonant (other than a pharyngeal or [r]) contracted with the first consonant
to form the corresponding long vowel.[61]
Examples -
1.
úw
> û [uː]
e.g. ˈhúwšabtima
> ˈhûšabtima
> hûšabˈtima (TH הוֹּשַבְתֶּם) = 'you were made to dwell'
2.
úy
> î [iː] e.g. wayˈyuyśam
> wayˈyîśim
(TH
וַיִּשֶֺם )
'he put'.
3.
íw
> û [uː] e.g. ˈyíwkalu
> ˈyûkalu
> yûˈkalu
(TH
יוּכַל )
'he was able'.
4.
íy
> î [iː]
e.g. ˈyiybašu
> ˈyîbašu
> yîˈbašu
(TH
יִיבַשׁ)
'it will be dry'.
5.
íwy
>úːy >íyy
> î [iː]
e.g. ˈkíwyu
> ˈkûy
> ˈkiyy > (/EBHP?/) ˈkiy
>
(/EBHP?/) ˈkî
(TH) כִּי'burning'
6. [áʾ] not
immediately followed by a vowel shifts to â [áː] and then via the Canaanite shift to ô [óː] e.g/ˈraʾšu/
> /ˈrâšu/
→
(/EBHP/+) /ˈrôš/
'head'.
-
Use of article
- Preterite yaqtul replaced, except for its use in waw conversive, by suffix conjugation.
This was eventually extended, by analogy to the suffix
conjugation.
-
[n]
immediately preceding a consonant assimilates resulting in the gemination of the
following consonant
- [ki] >[tiː]
as suffix 1st singular of suffix conjugation
c) BHA Phase 3 - Pre-Exilic Classical
Biblical Hebrew (CBH);
Pronunciation (*/EBHP/+
*[EBHP])
Sources - Pre-exilic biblical texts
such as Samuel-Kings; First Temple Period;
epigraphic remains (EH)
Time Period - c.
1000-586 BCE with the majority of texts being after 750 BCE.
Geographical Coverage - Kingdom
of Judah, a few from Kingdom of Israel
Languages/Dialects in Contact - See the table Linguistic
Influences on the Regions of Judah and Israel. Under
Assyrian suzerainty, from the mid-eighth century BCE, Akkadian would probably
have been heard from some Assyrian officials, soldiers and merchants. However,
much more important would have been scribal familiarity with Aramaic
used as the lingua franca.
(See The Impact of Aramaic).
Political Situation - Jerusalem
capital of the Kingdom of Judah until destruction of Judah
in 586 BCE. Samaria capital of Israel until its
destruction in 722 BCE.
Stress
- Remained
on the same syllable as it had been in phase 2.
However, with the dropping of the final short vowels, words that, during phase 2., had ended
in such vowels, now became stressed on their last syllable, whereas those that
terminated in consonants or long vowels continued being stressed on the
penultimate.
Phonemic System - Vowel and consonant quality and
length[62] were phonemic as was place of
stress.
Important linguistic developments
-
Elision of feminine marker (/at/ >> /â/)
in noun and verb. N.b. - this could only have occurred after the dropping of
the final short vowels.
- The suffix
/at/ of fem. sing. noun becomes /áː/ e.g.
*/malˈkat/ >> */malˈkâ/[63] 'queen'.
- The suffix /at/ in SC
of verb (3rd fem. sing.) becomes /aː/
e.g. */maˈlakat/ >> */maˈlakâ/[64] 'she
ruled'.
- in final open stressed syllables:
[iʾ ] > [ê] (e.g. Ar. θamānī, Heb. šəmōnê)
[uʾ ] > [ô]
[iːʾ ]
> [iː]
[uːʾ ]
> [uː]
[aːʾ ]
> [aː]
- Noun form maqtal → miqtaːl e.g. */madˈbar/ → /midˈbaːr/ 'desert'
ˈqutul (qal inf. constr. and ms. imp.) >
qtul/qutl
-
Final diphthongs previously uncontracted due to stress contracted
e.g. (PH) */yibˈnayu/
>> (early
phase
3) */yibˈnay/
>> (*/EBHP/+) /yibˈnê/
-
Preposition [bi] > [ba]
-
Dissimilation the /a/ of the discontinuous pronominal morpheme in the prefix
conjugation changed to /i/ when the theme vowel was /u/ or /i/. i.e. the 3
forms of the qal PC became
-
*yiqtil
*yiqtal
- [y] and [w], directly following a consonant, and
now word final after the loss of the final short vowels shift
[y] > [iː] e.g. (PH) */ˈbikyu/ > (/EBHP?/) */ˈbiky/ →
(/EBHP?/) */ˈbikî/ → (TH) בֶּכִי /bˈki/ *[bәˈxiː]; (pausal[66]) /ˈbɛki/
*[ˈbɛːxiː] 'crying'
·
[w] > [uː] e.g. (PH) /ˈśaḥwu/ >> (/EBHP+/) /ˈśaḥû/
→ (TH) שָׂחוּ'swimming'.[67]
- ʾ/ʔ/
directly following a consonant, and now word
final after the loss of the final short vowels was dropped in (informal?) speech
though maintained in writing as */ˈḫiṭʾu/ > */ˈḫiṭʾ/→
(TH) חֵטא /ˈḥẹṭ/ *[ˈħẹːṭ]
'sin'.
-
[y][68]
and [w] between 2 vowels frequently quiesces.
When two vowels brought into contact by this, they merge into a monophthong
e.g. [a] + [u] > [oː]
- [h] between 2 vowels mostly quiesces
e.g. - Third Person
Masculine Pronominal Suffix */ahu/>>*/aw/ >> /ô/
[oː]
- Philippi's law by which short [i] changes to [a] in closed stressed
syllables e.g. šōˈmirt > šōˈmart
MT שֺׁמֶרֶת
- Law of attenuation by which short [a] in closed unstressed syllables changes to
[i]
-
The vowel before the second person (m.s.)
pronominal suffix becomes either [a] or [i] e.g. 'your (m.s.) horse (m.s.)'
Change in Case Ending Vowel (ms. noun) with Attached Pronominal Suffix
|
Case |
|||
|
nominative |
*/sūˈsukã/ |
*/sūˈsaka(ː)/
or |
/susәˈkå/ *[suːsәˈxɔˑ] (pausal - /suˈsɛkå/ *[suːˈsɛːxɔˑ]) |
|
accusative |
*/sūˈsakã/ |
||
|
genitive |
*/sūˈsikã/ |
d) BHA Phase 4
-
Post-exilic Reading Traditions of Biblical Hebrew
Sources
- PCBH
biblical
texts such as Chronicles[69]
Time
Period
- late
6th century BCE to the extinction of Hebrew as a spoken language in the mid-second
century CE.
Geographical
Coverage - Judea
Languages/Dialects in Contact - The dominant
influence was Aramaic.
(See The Impact of Aramaic). Greek would have had an increasing impact from the late fourth century BCE.
Political
Situation
- Judea was a province of
successive Persian,
Ptolemaic, Selucid and Roman
empires except for a short period of independence under the Hasmoneans. Jerusalem
was destroyed in 70 CE during the first revolt against Rome and Judea largely depopulated of Jews
with the suppression of the Bar Kochba rebellion
in 135 CE.. This effectively displaced or destroyed the last Hebrew speaking
population center.
Stress -
As in Phase 3 except that a number of forms,
having penultimate stress in phase 3
now became ultimately stressed except for pausal forms.
The distinction between the PCjus and PCimp,
previously based on place of stress, is erased. For examples see Evolution
of Pronunciation and Stress Patterns.
Phonemic System - Vowel and consonant quality and
length were phonemic as was place of stress. Reduction
in number of consonantal phonemes due to mergers
(see below).
Important
linguistic developments
(i)
Developments that probably started, at least in
spoken Hebrew, in Phase 3 -
- [iy] > [î] - /ḥẹṣî/ =
"half"; /yihî/ =
"may he be"
- Elision of syllable or
word-final aliph. This
probably occurred early in this period.
- [ś]
> [s]
- Reduction of final doubled consonants
- Disappearance
of intervocalic [h]
- Spirantization of the bgdkpt Consonants
- Reduction
of certain unstressed vowels to shewa or, in the
environment of a laryngeal consonant, to another ultra-short vowel. Egs.
prepositions
[ba]
> [bә]
[la]
> [lә]
[ka]
> [kә]
(ii)
Developments that clearly occurred in Phase 4
- [ḫ] > [ḥ]; [ġ] > [c] before
c. 200 CE
-
in contrast to the general Semitic tendency open
pre-tonic syllables undergo lengthening and sometimes change of vowel quality:
a>ā, i>ệ. In the case of /u/, the short u remains, but the
following consonant is doubled. e.g. */luqaḥ/ > /luqqaḥ/ (see - Pretonic Vowel
Lengthening and doubling)
c. 300 BCE
(iii)
Developments that may have occurred in Phase 4 or in Phase 5.
- pausal lengthening of vowels
- earlier vowel allophones
become phonemes (ẹ ɛ o)
- tendency
toward stressing of the last
syllable[70]. With very
few exceptions open penultimate short stressed syllables were not preserved
except, frequently, in pause. The vowel changes which accompanied this stress
shift were different from those in the preceding stress period. Examples -
·
Nouns - */ˈpiryu/
> */ˈpiry/
or */ˈpirî/ (phase 3) → /ˈpri/ [ˈpriː] or [pәˈriː] (context TH), /ˈpɛri/ [ˈpɛriː]
(pausal TH)
·
Verbs PC
- most
root types and stems stress in the second person feminine singular, the second
person feminine plural and the third person masculine plural moves to the final
syllable in the contextual form but not in the pausal form due to the pausal
lengthening of the stressed vowel. The same is
true in the closely related qal imperative ( fs.and
mp.) of the strong verb.
·
Verbs SC
- most root
types and stems stress in the third person feminine singular and the third
person plural moves to the final syllable once again pausal lengthening blocks
this shift. E.g.
contextual
*/qaˈtalâ/ (/EBHP/+) → /qåtˈlå/ *[qɔːtәˈlɔː] (TH) but
pausal
*/qaˈtalâ/ (/EBHP/+) > */qåːˈtalåː/ → */qåːˈtaːlåː/ > /qåˈtalå/ *[qɔːˈtaːlɔː] (TH)
-
The waw conversive of the suffix
conjugation became mainly ultimately stressed thus becoming
distinct from the contextual form i.e.
qaːˈtaltῑ = "I
killed"
wәqaːtalˈtῑ = "and I
will kill"
- In the prefix conjugation, the
distinction in stress between PCjus and PCpret_sim,
on the one hand, and PCimp on the other
was effaced[71] -
Phase
3 *EBHP (*/EBHP/+ *[EBHP])
Imperfect, Jussive and Preterite
|
|
|||
|
Qal |
/yiqˈtul/ [yɪqˈtʊl] or [yɪqˈto̞l] |
/ˈyiqtul/ [ˈyɪqtʊl] or [ˈyɪqto̞l] |
/wayˈyiqtul/ [wɐyˈyɪqtʊl] or |
|
Piel |
/yaqatˈtil/ [yɐqɐtˈtɪl] or [yɐqɐtˈtɛl] |
/yaˈqattil/ [yɐˈqɐttɪl] or |
/wayyaˈqattil/ [wɐy.yɐˈqɐttɪl] or |
|
Niphal |
/yiqqaˈtil/ [yɪqqɐˈtɪl] or [yɪqqɐˈtɛl] |
/yiqˈqatil/ [yɪqˈqɐtɪl] or |
/wayyiqˈqatil/ [wɐy.yɪqˈqɐtɪl] or |
|
Hiphil |
/yaqˈtiːl/ [yɐqˈtiːl] |
/ˈyaqtil/ [ˈyɐqtɪl] or [ˈyɐqtɛl] |
/wayˈyaqtil/ [wɐy.ˈyɐqtɪl] or |
|
Hithpiel |
/yitqatˈtil/ [yɪtqɐtˈtɪl] or [yɪtqɐtˈtɛl] |
/yitˈqattil/ [yɪtˈqɐttɪl] or |
/wayyitˈqattil/ [wɐy.yɪtˈqɐttɪl] or |
Phase 4 *LBHP (*/LBHP/ *[LBHP])
Imperfect, Jussive and Preterite
|
|
PCimp |
PCjus |
Preterite |
|
Qal |
/yiqˈtol/ [yɪqˈtol] |
/yiqˈtol/ [yɪqˈtol] |
/wayyiqˈtol/ [wɐy.yɪqˈtol] |
|
Piel |
/yqatˈtil/ [yәqɐtˈtɪl] or [yәqɐtˈtel] |
/yqatˈtil/ [yәqɐtˈtɪl] or [yәqɐtˈtel] |
/wayqatˈtil/ [wɐyqɐtˈtɪl] or [wɐyәqɐtˈtel] |
|
Niphal |
/yiqqaːˈtil/ [yɪqqaːˈtɪl] or [yɪqqaːˈtel] |
/yiqqaːˈtil/ [yɪqqaːˈtɪl] or [yɪqqaːˈtel] |
/wayyiqˈqaːˈtil/ [wɐyyɪqqaːˈtɪl] or [wɐyyɪqqaːˈtel] |
|
Hiphil |
/yaqˈtiːl/ [yɐqˈtiːl] |
/yaqˈtil/ [yɐqˈtil] or [yɐqˈtel] |
/wayˈyaqˈtil/ [wɐy.yɐqˈtil] or [wɐy.yɐqˈtel] |
|
Hithpiel |
/yitqatˈtil/ [yɪtqɐtˈtɪl] or [yɪtqɐtˈtel] |
/yitqatˈtil/ [yɪtqɐtˈtɪl] or [yɪtqɐtˈtel] |
/wayyitqatˈtil/ [wɐy.yɪtqɐtˈtɪl] or [wɐy.yɪtqɐtˈtel] |
End of Phase 6 TH (/TH/+ *[TH])
Imperfect, Jussive and Preterite
|
|
PCimp |
PCjus |
Preterite |
|
Qal |
/yiqˈtol/ [yiqˈtoːl] |
/yiqˈtol/ [yiqˈtoːl] |
/wayyiqˈtol/ [way.yiqˈtoːl] |
|
Piel |
/yәqatˈtẹl/ |
/yәqatˈtẹl/ [yәqɐtˈtẹːl] |
/wayqatˈtẹl/ [wɐyqɐtˈtẹːl] |
|
Niphal |
/yiqqåˈtẹl/ [yiq.qɔːˈtẹːl] |
/yiqqåˈtẹl/ [yiq.qɔːˈtẹːl] |
/wayyiqqåˈtẹl/ [wɐy.yiqqɔːˈtẹl] |
|
Hiphil |
/yaqˈtil/ [yɐqˈtiːl] |
/yaqˈtẹl/ [yɐqˈtẹːl] |
/wayyaqˈtẹl/ [wɐy.yɐqˈtẹːl] |
|
Hithpiel |
/yitqatˈtẹl/ [yitqɐtˈtẹːl] |
/yitqatˈtẹl/ [yitqɐtˈtẹːl] |
/wayyitqatˈtẹl/ [wɐyyitqɐtˈtẹːl] |
e) BHA Phase
5
- Reading Tradition of Biblical Hebrew leading to Proto-Tiberian Hebrew (*PTH)
Sources
- Inferred from
Masoretic
Text
Time
Period - mid-second
century CE to c. 500 CE
Geographical
Coverage - Unknown
Languages/Dialects in Contact - Mishnaic
or Rabbinic Hebrew becomes extinct as a spoken language in the
mid-second century CE in the wake of the suppression of the Bar
Kochba rebellion. The dominant influence was Aramaic
(See The Impact of Aramaic) though the speaking of Greek was wide-spread and
presumably had some impact.
Political
Situation - Jews a small
minority under first Roman-pagan and then Byzantine-Christian rule. Judaea
almost totally non-Jewish after 135 CE; Samaria mixed gentile and Samaritan;
Galilee goes from about 75 percent Jewish in the second century[72] to about half
Jewish in the mid-third century[73] to about
10-15 percent in the early seventh century[74].
Stress - As in Phase
4 except that the phonemicization of anaptyctic
vowels creating new classes of phonologically penultimately stressed
nouns-
*/ˈmawt/
(/LBHP/) *[ˈmawĕt]
([LBHP]) →
/ˈmåwɛt/
(/TH/+) * [ˈmɔːwɛθ] ([TH]) 'death'
*/ˈbayt/
(/LBHP/) *[ˈbayĭt]
([LBHP]) →
/ˈbayit/ (/TH/+) * [ˈbaːyɪθ] ([TH]) 'house'[75]
*/ˈmalk/
(/LBHP/) *[ˈmalĕk]
([LBHP]) →
/ˈmɛlɛk/ (/TH/+) * [ˈmɛːlɛk]
([TH]) 'king' and
similarly for the other classes of 'segolates'.
Phonemic
System
- Vowel and consonant quality and length were phonemic
as was place of stress.
Important
linguistic developments (as far as possible in chronological order)
-
Weakening of the pharyngeal and
laryngeal consonants; vowel changes before and
after the laryngeals including the insertion of helping (anaptyctic)
vowels ; reduction of double laryngeals and of double [r][76]
- A number of consonants loose the ability to geminate when followed by [ә]
- [y] and [q] loose the ability to geminate when followed
by [ә]
e) BHA Phase
6
- Reading Tradition of Biblical Hebrew leading to Tiberian Hebrew (TH)
Sources
- Masoretic
Text
Time
Period - sixth century
CE to c. 850 CE
Geographical
Coverage - Scholarly
families in Tiberias known as the Masorites
Languages/Dialects in Contact - The dominant
influence was Aramaic.
(See The Impact of Aramaic). Arabic would have had an increasing impact from the eighth century CE.
Political
Situation - Jews a small
minority under Muslim rule. Rabbinic - Karaite struggle.
Stress - As in Phase
5.
Phonemic
System
- vowel and consonant quality and
place of stress were phonemic.
Important
linguistic developments (as far as possible in chronological order)
-
/aː/ > /ɔː/; in some situations /u/ > /ɔ/
- /ɛ/:/ẹː/ > /ẹ/:/ẹː/; /a/:/aː/ > /a/:/ɔː/[77]
- All
unreduced short vowels in open syllables and all stressed short vowels are
lengthened. Often this lengthening is accompanied by a "change
in timbre (quality): [i] > [ẹː]; [u]
> [oː]
- Vowel
and consonant length cease to be phonological. Regarding vowel length
Steiner[78]
wrote -
- "Outside
of closed unstressed syllables, which excluded long vowels, Ancient Hebrew had
a contrast between long and short vowels. However, between the tannaitic
period and the time of the Masoretes, short vowels in stressed syllables
lengthened, erasing the contrast in those syllables. Thus, while Hebrew was
still a spoken language, the o of
infinitival yåˈko(w)l ‘be able’ was long, while the o of sg. 3m.
perfect yåˈkol ‘he was able’ was short, like the ancestor of å in yәkålˈtäm.
In the Pre-Tiberian reading tradition, the o of sg. 3m.
perfect yåˈkol lengthened,
splitting off from the ancestor of å in yәkålˈtäm
and merging with the long o of infinitival yåˈkowl[79].
"As
a result of this change, length became to a large extent conditioned by stress."
Khan
wrote[80] -
"Vowel
length is in most cases predictable from syllable structure and the placement
of stress.
Meaningful contrasts between words were not usually made by differences in
vowel length alone. Differences in length are in virtually all cases relatable
to differences in syllable structure or stress placement. Length was not an
independent contrastive feature of vowels.[81] The vowel qameṣ may have been an exception, since pairs of words can be found in which
a contrast of meaning appears to have been made only by a difference in length
of vowel, e.g. [ʔɔxˈlɔː] 'food' vs. [ʔɔːxˈlɔː] 'she ate. Possible other minimal pairs were words such as [dɔˈmiː] 'silence and [dɔːˈmiː] 'my blood'. The validity of both such minimal pairs, however, is not
completely certain....
"The basic context for the occurrence of long vowels are (1) a stressed syllable or (2) an open unstressed syllable. Examples [ˈmɛːlɛx] 'king', [jiʃˈmaːʕ] 'he hears', [haːˈhuː] 'that'. Many words carry a secondary
stress in addition to the main stress, e.g. [ˌhaːʔɔːˈðɔːm] 'the man', [ˌniːθḥakkaˈmɔː] 'let us deal wisely'
(Ex. 1:10).
Regarding
consonant length Steiner[82]
wrote -
"Consonant length (like
vowel length) was phonemic in Proto-Hebrew, but it was not represented in the
biblical period, even in an unsystematic way. Thus, the spelling crwmym was used for
both members of the minimal pair
Job 5:12 [căru:mi:m עֲרוּמִים] not = Job 22:6 [cărum:i:m עֲרוּמִּים] ‘crafty (pl. m.) not = naked (pl. m.)’. And the spelling ntnw was used for
both [nåtan:u:] ‘we gave’ and [nåtănu:] ‘they gave’. It is only in
Mishnaic Hebrew that representation of consonant length began to appear….
"Most
of the Proto-Hebrew minimal pairs (based on consonant length) are no longer
valid for the Tiberian system…. The fact remains, however, that the Masoretes
considered consonant length important enough to create a sign for it (“strong” dagesh). Two minimal
pairs noted by the Masoretes themselves are Job 5:12 căruwmiym (עֲרוּמִים) not = Job 22:6 căruwm:iym (עֲרוּמִּים) ... and Lev. 7:30 tәbiy’äynåh (תְּבִיאֶינָה) not = Lev. 6:14 tәbiy’än:åh (תְּבִיאֶנָּה) ‘ they (f.) shall bring not = you/she shall bring it’. Although Arabic transcriptions suggest that,
in the first pair, the vowel preceding the lengthened consonant was shorter
than the vowel preceding its unlengthened counterpart, the Masoretes clearly
considered this difference to be secondary, unworthy of being represented.”
[1] I should mention that some important scholars deny that such a task is feasible eg. Ben-Hayyim 2000 pp. 4-5.
[2] P. 5.
[3] P. 4.
[5] Note, in
reconstructed [EBHP] transliterations and sound files -
1.there is no spirantization of the bgdkpt consonants - http://www.houseofdavid.ca/anc_heb_tequ.htm#bgdpt;
2. vowel qualities
are outlined here - http://www.houseofdavid.ca/anc_heb_6.htm#ebhp_vow_qual;
3. I use the most
probable form. Where no one form stands out as most probable, I select the one
closest to the MT vocalization.
4. when multiple forms are possible, the form used is underlined.
[7] Note the parallel with spoken Arabic "The relative length of
consonants and vowels contributes greatly to the rhythmic patterns of
speech...." (Mitchel
1993 p. 145).
[8] Put another way, the fact that many French speakers
pronounce the English words “hat” and “at” identically does not entitle them to
assume that there may therefore be some profound or ancient relationship
between the words and their meaning in English!
[9] Wordplay in
Biblical Hebrew: an Eclectic Collection by Gary A. Rendsburg in Puns and
Pundits: Word Play in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Literature
by Scott B. Noegel (Editor), Capital Decisions Ltd (March 2000), ISBN-10: 1883053498. P.p. 137-162.
[10] See Rechenmacher and Christo pp. 63-64.
[11] This corresponds with the
distinction between "sound-based" (paronomasia) and
"sense-based" (polysemous) puns.
[12] In Puns
and Pundits: Word Play in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Literature
by Scott B. Noegel (Editor), Capital Decisions Ltd (March 2000), ISBN-10: 1883053498. P.p. 205-222.
[13] E.g.. 4QExod(f):’wtw
( *’oto); cwIm (*cōIām); 4QJera: ntwš (*nātōš); 'zwr
(*'ẹzōr). Cf. Freedman 1962: 99-100
[14] ''They are not mentioned in the Jerusalem Talmud, which
was completed by the first half of the 5th century (C.E.), in the Babylonian Talmud, which was
completed by the end of the 5th century (C.E.), nor in the
earliest Midrashim. However, Asher b. Nehemia (the grandfather of Aaron Ben-Asher) lived,
at the latest, in the first half of the 9th century (C.E.). His grandfather Asher, "the Great
Elder," founder of the dynasty of Massoretes, lived in the second half of the 8th
century, which means that the vowel signs were fixed before that time
(Dotan 1971: cols. 1416-17). On the function of these signs and their early
development, cf. Morag 1962: 9-10, 17ff
[15] Cf. also
Goshen-Gottstein 1963: 90-98, especially pp. 94-96. Goshen-Gottstein's study is
of particular importance because it exposes the misunderstanding of massoretic activity
espoused by P. Kahle which was partially accepted by the authors of EHO. For a general appreciation of the
massoretic activities and traditions, cf. J. Barr 1968: 194-207; L. L. Grabbe
1977: 179-97.
[16] The
internal vowel letters, not resulting from diphthong reduction, as we know from
epigraphic finds, must have been added during the post-exilic period see Table - Matres Lectionis in JEH http://www.houseofdavid.ca/anc_heb_bib_heb_EH.htm#ML
.
[17] Kutscher 1982 §246 -
As in the Septuagint, (in the Secunda)
the short /i/ and /u/ of the Masoretic vocalization are transliterated by [e]
and [o].... (T)his apparently parallels the situation in Mishnaic Hebrew.
Therefore, it seems highly probable that this pronunciation represents the
sub-standard, that is to say, the pronunciation that prevailed in the spoken
Hebrew and Aramaic in Palestine at that time. But the original /i/ and /u/, as
preserved for us by the Masoretes, survived in the standard pronunciation, i.e.
in the reading of the bible text in synagogue. Although the vocalization of the
Masoretes is known to us only from a period about 600 years later that that of
the (Secunda) transliterations, it faithfully preserved older forms. This is
proved by the fact that nearly all short [u]'s and a large number of the [i]'s
in the Masoretic texts represent PS /u/'s and /i/'s. Therefore, of course they
must reflect an earlier stage of the language..... (T)he Septuagint also
sometimes reflects the substandard pronunciation rather than the standard.
[18] SBL 1985 p. 665.
[19] From http://bible.org/seriespage/what-psalm .
[20] Watson 1984 pp. 73-74.
[22]
My
debt to the work of various scholars is evident from Linguistic
Changes Affecting the Pronunciation of Biblical Hebrew 2000 B.C.E. - 850 C.E.
According to Various Scholars. In particular I have found Blau 1993
pp. 30-34; 213-214, Blau 1976/93 and Blau 2010
particularly useful.
Moscati neatly summarizes the changes EBHP →
TH
From Moscati 1964
p. 67
In Hebrew (at
least as far as can be judged from the Masoretic tradition) stress falls on
the last syllable—save for some cases of penultimate patterns. In contrast to Akkadian and Arabic,
stress in Hebrew may have distinctive or phonemic value: e.g. šābū
"they returned", but šābū "they took prisoner".
Stress patterns and syllabic constitution are bound up with complex rules of
vowel evolution which (leaving out of account the difficult question of their
origin) may be summarized as follows:
a) final short vowels are dropped (*qabara > *qabar);
b) stress shifts to the last syllable which the development
under (a) has left closed and therefore long (*qabar > *qabar);
c) short
accented vowels undergo lengthening or change of timbre, or both, either under
the influence of the word-accent or by contextual stress patterns (pause) …:
a>ā, i>ẹ/ệ, u>o (*dabaru > dābār;
*qābiru > qōbệr; *yaqburu > yiqbor; before two successive
consonants, however, i>a instead of i>ẹ/ệ (*zāqinta >
zāqanta);
d) in
contrast to the general Semitic tendency, and probably by a relatively late
process of restoration, open pre-tonic syllables undergo lengthening and
sometimes change of vowel quality: a>ā, i>ệ (or else ə
according to the development referred to under g);
u remains, but the following consonant is doubled …: e.g. *dabaru >
dābār, *cinabu >
cệnāb (but *ḥimāru > *ḥəmōr
> ḥămōr ), *luqaḥ > luqqaḥ;
e)
short vowels in closed unstressed syllables may undergo change of quality:
a>i, i>e, u>o (*madbār >midbār [dissimilation ?]; ʾimrātō;
and ʾemrātō; *ʾudnῑ [=*ʾuðnῑ
]> ʾoznῑ );
f) in
final open stressed syllables ῑ becomes ệ (Ar. tamānῑ
[=*ʾθamānῑ
], Heb. šəmōnē);
g) short vowels in open unstressed
syllables are reduced to ə in accordance with the general Semitic tendency
and in contrast to the instances listed under (d)
where pre-tonic syllables frequently undergo lengthening; it is likely that
these two opposed tendencies were operative at different periods: e.g. *dabarῑm
> dəbārῑm; *qābarū > qābərū.
[23] See O'Connor 2004
[24] See von Dassow 2004, Rainey 1996.
[29] This is emphatically Blau's view. See Blau 1976, Blau 2010. It is also the position of Bergstärsser and others.
[30] This is the view of Huehnergard and others.
[31] For the Proto-Hebrew verbal and case
system see Young, Rezetko, Ehrensvärd
2008
chapt. 12.
[33] See Blau 2010 §4.4.4; Hendel-Lambdin-Huehnergard p. 17.
[34] Blau 1976/93 pp. 30-31. Garr 1985 pp. 34-35 wrote (n.b. I
have slightly modified his orthography for lengthened vowels for typographic
convenience) -
As inferred from the
Masoretic vocalization, *á in nouns was
stress-lengthened, whereas in verbs it remained [á] [n. Ginsberg 1936 p. 139;
Brockelmann, review of Harris 1936 OZL 40 (1937)
and Harris 1939 p. 72].
Although there is no evidence for the quantity of this vowel in the epigraphic
texts, the consistency with which BH treats nominal vs. verbal *á suggests
that the Masoretic rules were operative in the epigraphic texts as well.... The
dialectical status of Ammonite, the Deir Alla dialect, Moabite and Edomite, in
this respect, is unknown.... Whereas *á in Hebrew forms was only stress-lengthened to [áː], in Phoenician *á was stress-lengthened to *áː and was then treated as an originally long, accented *ā,
becoming [óː]*.
Hebrew distinguished (stressed) *ā from (stressed) *â and *á ; the first always shifting to [óː], the second shifting only when *â resulted
from *aʾ
in a doubly closed syllable, and the third
retaining its quality but lengthening to [áː] in
nouns but remaining [á] in verbs.
* See also Fox
1996 p. 38.
[36]
From Blau 2010 §3.5.7.1.5 -
(I)t seems reasonable to
posit that in construct (and the finite verb) the final short vowels were dropped at an earlier
period than they were from absolute forms. At this earlier period, no law of
compensation yet operated. When it started operating, the final vowels in the
construct forms already stood in closed syllables and were, accordingly, not
lengthened. The case endings were dropped first from the construct because the
main stress on a construct + absolute phrase is borne by the absolute noun. As
for the reason for the earlier loss of final short vowels from the verb, one
can only guess. On the face of it, the simplest proposal seems to be that the
final short vowels in the verb were redundant and, accordingly, more prone to
drop. In the suffix-tense 3ms form the final -a was superfluous. In the prefix-tense, the opposition between the PCimp *yašmúru and the PCjus *yášmur was sufficiently indicated by the difference
in stress (see §3.5.12.2.14, p. 150, and Blau 1983).
[38] See Ginsberg 1936 p. 139.
[39] Cf. Gibson 1965 p. 40.
[40] Nominative
case.
[43] For the dual see Blau 2010 §3.5.1.1.3. N.b.The dual does not exist for this, and the great majority of nouns in BH but was probably more widely used in PH as is the case in Arabic and Ugaritic. I have included the dual form to illustrate the development of inflections since the BH construct mp. is a continuation of the dual construct not of the PH mp. construct. In addition, the possessive pronominal suffixes of ms. nouns in BH are added to the dual construct ending i.e. /ay/.
[44] From Blau 2010 §3.5.1.1.3.. -
According to the evidence from the other Semitic
languages, the nominative ending of the dual was -ani and that of the oblique case was -ayni. In Biblical Hebrew, as generally in Semitic languages that
lost case endings, the oblique case ending, representing two cases and
therefore being more frequent, superseded the nominative ending. The dual
ending is added to the singular noun (יָד - יָדַיִם).
The feminine ending is preserved before the dual ending
(ֹשְנָתַיִם).
In construct and status pronominalis the
-n is omitted....
... In forms from III-laryngeal-pharyngeal roots for
which we posit a short vowel (e.g., in contextual finite verbal forms, שִׁלַּח‘he
sent’; cf. שִׁבֵּר ‘he broke’), the e
is assimilated to
the following laryngeal-pharyngeal, to become a.
In contrast, in the
absolute state of nouns, where the ṣere is supposed to be long,
it remains, e.g., שֺׁלֵחַ ‘sending’.
(The same applies to pausal forms, in which pausal lengthening operated; see
§3.5.13, p. 154.)
[49] For the u prefix
vowel of the piel participle I follow Blau 2010 §4.3.5.4.5. -
The participle begins with m, which originally had the vowel u, based on the testimony of Akkadian, Classical Arabic, and Ugaritic....
[50] The loss of the
short vowel under the prefix is exactly parallels in Arabic. Some dialects
pronounce the participle of form II (= Hebrew piel) as [mqattil] and others
retain the classic [muqattil]. Eg. [mcallim], [mucallim] 'teacher'.
[51] From Blau 2010 §4.3.5.6.4.
...The
(original) ṣere in the (hithpael)participle
was long
(in the pre-Tiberian period), as in every absolute noun, but short in the finite forms
of the verbs, as proven by its alternation with pataḥ .
[52] Blau 1976/93 p. 124.
As stated (see §4.3.4.2.1, p. 213), the construct infinitive is, as a rule, formally identical to the
imperative, so that it was originally disyllabic as well, containing the same
vowel in both syllables: *quṭul, *qaṭal, *qiṭil (see §4.3.5.2.4.1, p. 224). The prevailing form is *quṭul > פְּעֹל (which has to be analyzed as containing long ō in the pre-Tiberian period, arising by
secondary lengthening from original short o < u, as is the rule in absolute
nouns). פְּעֹל is formed even from verbs with characteristic
a in the
prefix-tense: יִֹשְמַע ‘he will hear’, ֹשְמֹעַ(לִ). It appears that originally the prefix-tense
and the construct infinitive had the same characteristic vowel; with the
restriction of the yafcil prefix-tense, the corresponding i-infinitive fell into desuetude as well. In III-laryngeal/pharyngeal verbs, the o of the prefix-tense and the imperative, being
short, was assimilated to the laryngeal/pharyngeal to become a. In contrast, the long o of the infinitive was preserved (... see
§4.3.7.3.5, p. 240), thus giving rise to the structure of a in the prefix-tense and the imperative in
contrast to o in the construct
infinitive. This pattern (a in the prefix-tense : o in the construct infinitive) spread to verbs
that had original a in the
prefix-tense, such as יִרְכַּב
‘he will ride’ in contrast to the infinitive לִרְכֹּב,
rather than *lirkab. The vowel a in the infinitive has only been preserved in לִֹשְכַּב ‘to lie’ (alongside בְֹשָכְבְּךָ),
בִֹּשְפַל ‘when being low’.
4.3.5.2.6.1n. The i-infinitive was preserved mainly in weak
verbs: לָתֵת ‘to give’, לָצֵאת ‘to go out’, לָֹשִיר ‘to sing’.... It is remarkable that these a-infinitives have pataḥ rather than qamaṣ, in spite of its reconstruction above as a
long vowel! It appears that the pataḥ does not reflect the archaic a infinitive but instead exhibits the influence
of Rabbinic Hebrew on the Masoretes. In Rabbinic Hebrew, the trend of
development has been reversed and infinitives (following ל; as always in Rabbinic
Hebrew) with a as the
characteristic vowel spread in the wake of prefix-tenses with a .... In Rabbinic Hebrew, the construct infinitive
was felt to be derived from the prefix-tense and was restructured according to
it (as in לִקּח ‘to take’, in the wake of the prefix-tense יִקּח, in contrast to biblical לָקַחֵת).
[54]
See Blau 2010 1.15.3, 3.5.7.6.11. In 3.5.7.6.11 Blau wrote -
Usually ... ṣere stemming from originally short i (as in זְקֵנִים ‘old ones’) is reduced in open syllables in
construct (i.e., far from the stress). The preservation of such a ṣere in the second syllable of יְֺשֵנֵי ‘sleeping’ (p cstr) indicates that the first ṣere behaves as an originally
long vowel, which must be preserved in every position. In other words, a new
base with this pretonic long ē (יְֺשֵנִים
‘sleeping ones’) is formed, from which other forms are derived. This process
was furthered by the disappearance of the quantitative phonemic differences
between vowels in the Tiberian system; short and long ṣere were no longer phonemically
distinguished. Thus forms like יְֺשֵנֵי also
reflect the tendency to preserve originally short ṣere in the whole paradigm, as
if it were originally long.
[55] From Blau 2010 §4.3.5.2.5.1.
The participle of action verbs in the pācal pattern is pōcēl, historically *pācil; the participle of the stative patterns is an
adjective, as a rule identical to the 3ms of the suffix-tense: suffix-tense זָקֵן, יָגֹר, participle זָקֵן, יָגוֹר. There is, however, a difference in the length of the
last syllable (in the pre-Tiberian period): in the suffix-tense it is short
(as demonstrated by the pataḥ in the parallel action verb suffix-tense כָּתַב); in the
participle, it is long, as it is in every noun in the absolute (see §3.5.7.1.2, p. 119).
Therefore, the transcription of the forms according to the pre-Tiberian system,
which differentiates long and short vowels, is: suffix-tense zāqen, yāgor, participle zāqēn, yāgōr. However, these participles are basically identical to the
suffix-tense, which actually must be considered originally to have been a conjugated
adjective; cf. the qal participles קָם ‘rising’, קַל ‘light’, identical to the suffix-tense in verbs II-w/y and geminate verbs. However, in strong verbs these
stative adjectival participles were being superseded by the פּוֹעֵל of action verbs ( just as the stative suffix-tense
was being replaced by pācal ). In some cases pācel and pōcel coexist: ֹשָכֵחַ/ֹשוֹכֵחַ‘forgetting’,
זָעֵף/זוֹעֵף ‘vexed’ (in all likelihood pācēl was the original form). In other cases pōcēl alone serves as a veritable participle, pācēl being clearly relegated to nominal function: ֹשוֹכֵן ‘inhabiting’ in contrast to ֹשָכֵן
‘inhabitant’. Sometimes, however, pācēl has totally disappeared: from שָֹנֵא ‘he hated’, only the participle שֹנֵא survived.
[58]
Blau 2010 §4.3.5.5.2. According to the
evidence from Classical Arabic, apparently the original form of the suffix-tense was *puccila
with i in the second syllable. The Hebrew a in these forms (כֻּבַּד) seems to be
partly due to the analogical pressure of the prefix-tense (יְכֻבַּד) and partly
to the influence of Philippi’s Law. יְכֻבַּד itself arose, it seems, from *yup̄accal(u), as attested by Ancient Canaanite
... and Classical Arabic yuqattal(u): the u in the prefix was reduced in open unstressed syllables and,
because the passive was felt to be closely connected to u, it was restructured to יְפֻעַל with u (after the first radical) as the mark of the
passive. The participle, originally *muqattal, developed in a similar way....
[60] Homogeneous
diphthongs have both phases of the diphthongs are close in articulatory
position and share the lip gesture. See Levin 1988 (p. 292) - the highlights in bold are my own.
The analysis of English vowels [jy] and [ey] with and off-glide [y], and [uw] and [ow] with and off-glide [w], finally made linguists aware of an alternative to vowel-length. Physically the difference in sound between lengthening and off-glide may be quite small, especially between [iː] and [iy] or between [uː] and [uw]. In English both lengthening and an off-glide are often discernable in the very same syllable at the same time. but when we turn to the ancient Hebrew texts and examine the evidence, the only conclusion that makes sense is that the scribes could and did record off-glides. Vowels, whether lengthened or not, escaped their means of notation, a consonantal alphabet, just as accents and other supra-segmental features did.
[61] Manuel 1995 p.41.
[62] Outside of closed unstressed syllables,
which excluded long vowels, Early Biblical
Hebrew (i.e. late phase 3) pronunciation had a phonemic distinction between long and short vowels.
[65] IN EBHP and LBHP THE
JUSSIVE
(PCjus),
COHORTATIVE (PCcoh), IMPERFECT (PCimp)
AND
PRETERITE (PCpret_sim/PCpretWC)
are, in
some forms, distinguished by the
placement
of syllabic stress
when
not carrying object suffixes. See -
- http://www.adath-shalom.ca/history_of_hebrew3a.htm#indic_jus
AND
- http://www.adath-shalom.ca/history_of_hebrew3a.htm#Prefix_Conjugation
[67] Bergsträsser §17q.
[69] See the work of Rooker, Hurvitz, Polzin. See Some Factors in the Rise of
Late Biblical Hebrew
[70] See Blau 2010 §3.5.12.2.6 - 3.5.12.2.8. Note that this is in contrast to the ambient Aramaic which generally maintained its stress structure -
"The
pattern of word-stress ... appears, in general, to be that of Biblical Aramaic,
Targum Onqelos, and Syriac: stress is penultimate when the final syllable is a
vowel, except in the case of vowels
which are reflexes of original diphthongs or originally closed
syllables; otherwise it is ultimate. Evidence for the stress pattern comes from
three sources: the consonantal text, the vocalized text, and the position of
the accent signs." Fassberg 1991 p. 75.
[71] The following is quoted from Hetzron 1969 P.
20 (See also Lipinski 1997 §38.2)
-
“Evidence
brought from East Semitic (Akkadian),
Central Semitic (biblical Hebrew in its Tiberian form) and south Semitic …
points to the existence in proto-Semitic of a perfect *yʹaqtul,
with stress on the prefix and a jussive *yaqtʹul, with final
stress. Since the stress-system of each branch of Semitic was later
reorganized, this stress-opposition could not be maintained as such. This led
to radical changes in the verbal system, mainly to the gradual elimination of
the perfect *yʹaqtul.”
[72] Avi-Yonah 1976 p. 19.
[73] Avi-Yonah 1976 p. 133.
[74] Avi-Yonah 1976 p. 241.
[75] I have heard 'house' pronounced [bayɪt] in the spoken Arabic of the Lebanese Biqa valley and a Boston pronunciation of the English word 'mine' as [mayɪn].
[76] Kapeliuk 1989 pp. 303-305 discusses this as a general tendency in Semitic languages.
[78] Steiner 1997 p. 149.
[79] DS - In fact there was a distinction of both quality and quantity.
Qal of √YKL
|
|
|||||
|
/yaˈkoːl/ |
[yaˈkoːl] |
/yɔˈkol/ |
[yɔːˈkoːl] |
Vowel length and quality |
|
|
/yˈkolet/ |
[yәˈkoːlet] |
Vowel quality |
|||
|
3rd person m.s. |
/yaˈkul/ |
[yaˈkul] |
/yɔˈkol/ |
[yɔːˈkoːl] |
Vowel quality |
|
3rd person m.p. |
/yaˈkuluː/ |
[yaˈkuluː] |
/yɔkˈlu/ (pausal
/yɔˈkolu/) |
[yɔːkәˈluː] (pausal
[yɔːˈkoːluː] |
Stress in contextual form. Vowel length and quality |
|
1st person |
/yaˈkultiː/ |
[yaˈkultiː] |
/yɔˈkolti/ |
[yɔːˈkoːltiː] |
[80] Khan 1997a §6.2.1.
[81]
This is fairly similar to the BH
reading tradition of Yemenite Jews - see Morag
1963
pp. 73-208
[82] Steiner 1997 pp. 149-150.