Ver. 2.1
February 5, 2012
A Review of
Phonology and Morphology of Biblical Hebrew (PMBH) [1]
by David Steinberg
David.Steinberg@houseofdavid.ca
Home page
http://www.houseofdavid.ca/
PMBH is a translation and reediting of
תורת ההגה
והצורות של
לשון המקרא
מאת יהושע
בלאו (Blau 2010a). בקרת
3. Target Audience
and their Interests
4. Requirements
not Met in this Book
(a) Uniform
Lines of Derivation of Phonology, Words, Structures etc.
(b) Tables
and Short Prose Syntheses
(c) Clear
and Classified Statements of Conclusions
(d) Sound
Files
(a) Scope
and Nature of Introductory Section
(b) Terminology
(d) Transcriptions of Proto-Tiberian
and Tiberian Hebrew
(f) oe,
ę or ɛ?
(h) Notation for Anceps vowels
(i) Possible
Errors or Omissions
Dr. Blau was one the leading Hebraists and Arabists of the
twentieth century. Anyone who has studied his papers must be impressed by his
profound learning and closely argued logic. Thus he is well suited to writing the Bauer and Leander of the first
half of the twenty-first century. I am writing this note in the hope that: (a) some
of my comments might be helpful to those using this major work; and, (b) my
observations will be of use in revising the book at some future date.
1. A
Peculiar Situation
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[2] 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 the Tiberian
Masoretes 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[3].
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.
PMBH lies within the tradition described
above.
2. What
PMBH Provides
PMBH
follows the evolution of many linguistic elements from Proto-Semitic (PS - say prior to 3000 BCE) until the period
of the authorship of the Hebrew Bible (mainly c. 750-400 BCE) and then their
evolution within the precursors of the Tiberian reading tradition (PTH) until its crystallization in the
pointed Tiberian Hebrew (TH) of the Masoretic Text (MT) c. 850 CE.
Modern
Jewish traditions of pronunciations of pronunciation of the MT and the Samaritan reading
tradition are drawn on where relevant as is other evidence exterior
to the Tiberian tradition (comparative Semitics, Greek transcriptions (BHGk-Lat), Qumran Hebrew (BHQum), Babylonian pointing (BHBab)).
Basically
the material in this book (excluding chapter 1) can be looked as providing the
equivalent of a massive series of diachronic footnotes which could be appended
to any synchronic grammar of TH such as A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar by Naude, Kroeze,
Van Der Merwe (1999).
3. Target Audience and their Interests
There
would seem to be two main audiences for this book:
a)
scholars and students of languages, particularly Semitic languages;
b)
scholars and students of Biblical Hebrew (BH) and the Hebrew Bible.
These
readers, particularly students of Biblical Hebrew verse and wordplay, will be mainly
interested in reconstructing as closely as possible the synchronic linguistic
systems (quality and quantity of vowels and consonants, stress system,
syllabification etc.) of the varieties of Hebrew occurring in the Hebrew Bible
at the time of authorship or final editing (*/EBHP/, *[EBHP], */LBHP/,
*[LBHP]).
At a
most basic level, such scholars require a guide on how to vocalize the
consonantal text to resemble as closely as possible its form when written. Such a guide is presented, for example
in Beyer
1969 (Althebräische Grammatik: Laut- und
Formenlehre), Harris 1941 (Linguistic Structure of Hebrew
pp. 144 ff.), my own Biblical Hebrew Poetry and Word
Play - Reconstructing the Original Oral, Aural and Visual Experience
and in the following quote from Sáenz-Badillos 1993 ( pp. 69-70)
On the assumption that
the consonantal system of pre-exilic Hebrew has in general been satisfactorily
preserved, there have been various attempts to reconstruct the vocalization and
pronunciation of classical BH, which certainly differs considerably from that
established by the Masoretes fifteen centuries later. Basing themselves primarily on comparative grammar, scholars have tried
to highlight the most important changes, mainly phonetic, which can be detected
in Hebrew after 600 BCE.
Among the most
significant of these, including some which had already begun to take place
before the exile, are the following: elision of syllable- or
word-final alef, which probably
occurred quite early, spirantization of the bgdkpt consonants, which resulted
originally in their dual realization as plosives or fricatives, with fricative
realization clearly dominant later, neutralization of velar
and pharyngeal phonemes (/ḫ/>/ḥ/, /ġ/>/c/)…, neutralization of /ś/ and /s/, 'segolatization' which introduced anaptyctic
vowels to avoid sequences of two consonants (*kalbu > keleb, *sipru >
seper), pretonic vowel lengthening and consonant reduplication, perhaps
with displacement of the accent to the final syllable, Philippi's law, by which
short /i/ changes to /a/ in closed accented syllables … and the law of
attenuation by which /a/ in certain environments changes to /i/ (*massima
> missim), reduction of certain vowels to shewa or, in the environment of a
laryngeal consonant, to another ultrashort vowel, reduction of final doubled consonants,
vowel changes before and after the laryngeals, reduction of double laryngeals
and of double /r/, disappearance of intervocalic /h/, weakening of
the pharyngeal and laryngeal consonants, possibly a further contraction of diphthongs or the use of anaptyctic
vowels (*baytu > bayit, *mawtu > mawet), etc.
… It is not always easy to determine the
precise date of each of these events. But it is certain that they occurred
between the time when Hebrew was still a living language and the era of the Masoretes.
In addition to recording the actual changes in language, which in many
instances were not confined to Hebrew, the Masoretic pointing system also
reflects the linguistic views of the Masoretes in a variety of ways, with
evidence of Aramaic influence and of unduly subjective reconstruction.
Approaching the matter from the opposite direction, that is, by eliminating
from Masoretic Hebrew whatever has resulted from the processes listed above,
various attempts have been made, with differing degrees of success, to
reconstruct pre-exilic Hebrew, including its morphology.
See also Linguistic
Changes Affecting the Pronunciation of Biblical Hebrew 2000 B.C.E. - 850 C.E.
According to Various Scholars and Phases of Biblical
Hebrew and its Antecedents
Given the ubiquity of web connections, in a modern book these should
be duplicated in online sound files as is done for Akkadian poetry, Chaucer's
Middle English poetry (also http://www.bl.uk/learning/langlit/changlang/activities/lang/chaucer/chaucerpage1.html
) and for Old
English ( http://faculty.virginia.edu/OldEnglish/Beowulf.Readings/Grendel.html
).
Regrettably, this book does not provide any
accessible guide to the reconstruction of the synchronic linguistic system of
Biblical Hebrew. Indeed, some
of the histories of forms ignore the intermediate forms
most likely to have existed during the period of Biblical Hebrew
(900-c. 400 BCE). It, as implied above, really provides
diachronic background to the synchronic system of Tiberian Hebrew which binds
together a consonantal skeleton of the mid first millennium BCE and a
vocalization system of the late first millennium CE. In truth, as regards pre- and
early post-exilic BH, it conforms to Dr. Blau's
description of de
Saussure's view (p. 1) -
(de Saussure) disparaged
historical linguistics as “atomistic”; he believed that it focused on mere
details and neglected what really matters. He extolled a synchronic approach as
capable of discovering the system of a language, which he
saw as the goal of genuine linguistics. In his opinion, a language makes up a
closely knit system, comparable to a chessboard. A small change in the position
of one chess piece, even one of inferior rank, may completely change the
relations between all the pieces and thus the whole system.
Dr.
Blau himself indicated that what is needed (a synchronic description of the
original Biblical Hebrew language system) could be accommodated within a
diachronic study -
1.1.15.[4] Though historical(-comparative) linguistics is, as
a rule, atomistic, this need not be the case. In principle, it may compare
the linguistic systems of different languages or of one language at different
periods. Thus the tense system of Biblical Hebrew, in which the participle
does not constitute an integral part of the tense system, may be compared with
that of Rabbinic Hebrew, in which the participle has been, to a great extent,
absorbed into the tense system. Thus historical and synchronic approaches may
be united.
4. Requirements not Met in this Book
(a) Uniform Lines of Derivation of Phonology, Words, Structures
etc.
Wherever
possible, all derivations should be explicitly traced: (see A Note on the
Use of Post-Exilic Evidence Regarding the pronunciation of BH)
i) from *Proto-Semitic (PS)
to *Proto-Northwest Semitic (PNWS) to *Proto-Hebrew (PH) to Classical Biblical Hebrew (CBH,
*/EBHP/+),
Post-Classical Biblical Hebrew (PCBH,
*/LBHP/ evidenced in the vowel letters of the Proto-Masoretic Text
(PMT)) The book is lacking in this requirement
- see Telescoped
Derivations; and then,
ii)
to *Proto-Tiberian Hebrew (*/PTH/+) and Tiberian Hebrew (/TH/+) bringing in evidence for parallel lines of
pronunciation tradition from (in order of importance) - Biblical
Hebrew as reflected in Greek and Latin transcriptions (BHGk-Lat); Biblical Hebrew as reflected in the
orthography of biblical Dead
Sea Scrolls (BHQum);
Biblical
Hebrew pointed with
Palestinian Vocalization (BHPal); Biblical
Hebrew pointed with
Babylonian Vocalization (BHBab) ;
and, the range of modern
pronunciations. The book generally meets this requirement.
(b) Tables and Short
Prose Syntheses
These
should head the dense paragraphs of diachronic examples and analyses in order
to form a synchronic understanding of the language systems. Wherever possible,
such tables should provide columns for PS, PNWS, PH, CBH, PCBH, PTH and TH. This
book is very weak in this area.
Bauer
and Leander was
not exemplary in this regard but did provide some useful tables (pp. 297, 300,
302, 304, 308, 314, 315, 318, 321, 388, 389, 410).
A
fundamental need is for tables showing the comparative linguistic structures
(phonemic systems, noun forms etc.) of *Proto-Hebrew, *Biblical Hebrew, *Proto-Tiberian
Hebrew and Tiberian Hebrew.[5]
(c) Clear
and Classified Statements of Conclusions
The
reader would be greatly helped if conclusions for each issue discussed would be
clearly stated and be flagged as to whether the conclusions are securely
indicated by the evidence or whether it is one of the issues where current evidence is inadequate to firmly decide the issue.
(d) Sound
Files - see above.
5. Specific Critique of PMBH
(a) Scope and Nature of Introductory Section
The existing introductory section is
very good but introductory sections should cover, in outline, the full range of
linguistic issues required to follow the book's arguments. Two important items
-
i) Dr. Blau's reconstruction of the
stress history of PS to PNWS to PH
to BH depends on four assumptions all of which are contested by a number of
respected senior scholars in the field[6]:
a) that many suffixes in PNWS and PH ended
in unstressed anceps vowels;
b) that in the transition between PH and BH all final
short vowels were dropped. Thus in BH all words
ended in either consonants or long vowels[7]. Earlier
anceps vowels either survived as long vowels or were dropped;
c) that in PS stress fell either -
i. on penultimate syllable, if it was long closed or containing a long vowel, and otherwise on the antepenult; OR,
ii. the long vowel most closely
preceding the case and mood endings the syllable containing that vowel is
stressed. If there is no such long vowel, the syllable preceding the case and
mood endings is stressed.
d) that in PH stress was uniformly penultimate;
e) that the Canaanite shift commenced
before the shift to uniformly penultimate stress and affected only long
stressed a i.e. [áː]. (Many
scholars in the field consider that the Canaanite shift affected all instances
of long a - stressed or not).
It
seems to me that the book should discuss these issues in the introduction
rather than leaving the reader to pick up bits here and there. An outline of
Dr. Blau's stress stages should be included in the introduction. A highly slimmed down version of Blau 1976/1993 p. 30-34 would do.
ii)
Somewhere it would be desirable to discuss the nature of long and short vowels and gemination.
(b) Terminology (terms should have
been listed and defined at the beginning of the book)
In PMBH the term "Biblical Hebrew" seems to be used
with a range of meanings which includes the precursor of the language of the
Bible (my Proto-Hebrew) which still
retained (some?) case endings (e.g. in 4.4.4.5) which must be dated prior to 1000 BCE and
TH of c. 850 CE. In my view a closely defined system, such as my own
Stages of the Hebrew Language, would clear up much confusion.
The comments in this paper use my terminology.
(c) Telescoped Derivations
The signs <,> are used whether the derivation is direct, or whether intermediate stages were going unnoticed. This is particularly important in cases where the skipped intermediate forms are likely to have existed during the period of Biblical Hebrew (900-c. 400 BCE). It would be desirable to use another symbol, such as →, for abridged shifts - i.e. intermediate stages not marked. E.g. - in 1.15.3 presumably, in IPA notation, the shifts are
*/maqaːˈmaːtu/ (Proto-Northwest Semitic - PNWS) > */maqāˈmōtu/ or */maqōˈmōtu/ (Proto-Hebrew - PH) > */maqōˈmōt/ (Biblical Hebrew = /EBHP/+) > */mqoːˈmoːt/ (Proto-Tiberian Hebrew - PTH) > /mәqoˈmot/ (/TH/+ c. 850 CE vowel length no longer phonemic )
The TH form /mәqoˈmot/ was
probably pronounced by the Tiberian Masoretes as *[măqoːˈmoːθ] (< *[mәqoːˈmoːθ]) (short vowels restricted to closed unstressed
syllables).
Putting in
the full derivation would not only be clearer and would provide the probable Biblical Hebrew form, but would also eliminate the need for
1.15.4n.
(d)
Transcriptions of Proto-Tiberian and Tiberian Hebrew
This book,
following the conventional scholarly transcription of the
TH vowel system usually
transcribes e.g. שָׁמַר"he guarded" as šāmar. I would argue
that this should always be asterisked (*šāmar)
since,
as is clear from the book itself, the only transcription directly
justified by שָׁמַר
is šɔˈmar whereas *šāmar is deduced
(reconstructed) from both שָׁמַר
and a number of other sources of evidence ably
discussed in the book. Looking at this word, its history from PH to the MT form is probably something
like -
*/šaˈmara/ (PH) > */šaˈmar/ (BH=/EBHP/) > */šāˈmar/ (pretonic lengthening c. 300 BCE )[8] > */šaːˈmar/[9] (PTH c. 400 CE ) > */šåːˈmaːr/ (stress lengthening c. 600 CE ) > /šåˈmar/ (TH c. 850 CE vowel length no longer phonemic)
The TH form /šɔˈmar/ was probably pronounced by the Tiberian Masoretes as *[šɔːˈmɐːr].
In the
introductory section the author takes some pains to explain the difference
between phonemes and phones. However, the italicized Hebrew transcriptions
mix the two. I would suggest that a clear statement be made at the
beginning of the book such as the following -
1) Something
similar to Phones and Phonemes.
2) All italicized Hebrew transcriptions
in this book:
i) refer to Proto-Tiberian
Hebrew unless otherwise indicated;
and,
ii) are phonemic[10] except that they include the spirantized allophones of
the bgdkpt consonants where relevant. In other words yām = /yām/ (IPA /yaːm/). Phonetic transcriptions will be
presented in the traditional square brackets [ ].
(f) oe, ę or ɛ?
The use of oe instead of ę or ɛ for IPA ɛ really only adds to obscurity
(g) Notation for Long Vowels
In a historical
grammar of Biblical Hebrew it is most desirable to distinguish the long vowels
by origin (cf. 1.10.2.3.2n) see - Vowel Length.
(h) Notation
for Anceps vowels (see also below)
Anceps
vowels are clearly marked in Blau 1972 (Torat Hahege Vehatzurot eg. p. 97) and in Bauer and
Leander. I have noticed only one case where it is marked i.e. on p. 160
(see immediately below)
In
all other cases, that I noticed the presumed anceps vowels are marked as if
they were long vowels - ā, ῑ,
ū -
while it is probable that these vowels were either short or anceps. N.b.
if typographical limitations were causing problems Hendel-Lambdin-Huehnergard
indicated the anceps using the tilde i.e. ã ĩ ũ and
I use this convention.
Sections that I noticed to contain
or refer to anceps vowels include (this is clearly an incomplete list)
1.15.4n - should be *qamtĩ (PH)
1.18.1
and note
3.3.5.3.3.5
and note
p. 93
several places
3.3.5.4.1.
3.5.7.2.2.
3.5.7.2.3n.
3.5.12.2.2n.
3.5.12.2.8n.
p. 160 several places
4.2.2.3.2.
4.2.2.3.3
4.2.2.6.2.
4.2.2.7.3
4.2.3.3.1
4.3.2.2.6
4.3.3.1.2n
4.3.3.3.4
4.3.3.4.1n
4.3.3.4.4n
4.3.5.2.2.4
4.3.8.7.2.1
(i) Possible
Errors or Omissions
1.3.4
- Recent work (Young, Rezetko, Ehrensvärd
2008 chapt. 12; Vern 2011.)
has shown it to
be very likely that the so called "archaic poetry" of the Bible could
have been authored at any time after 1000 BCE probably using a standard set of archaizing features[11]. This is a significant point in a
historical grammar.
1.3.8 - Is the
statement "The use of ʾet with the pronominal suffix becomes more common than
object suffixation on the verb." correct? See Polzin 1976 ( Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of
Biblical Hebrew Prose. Scholars Press pp. 28 ff.)
1.7.12
- Given the total confusion among historians today about what elements
(Canaanite, Aramaean, Shosu) made up the eventual Israelite regional
"tribes" and the general agreement that these "tribes"
formed in situ, they might consider replacing -
"Moreover, one must not
lose sight of the fact that the languages of the Israelite tribes were very
close to the dialects of the Canaanites whom they conquered,"
by
something like -
"The
Israelite people probably developed out of an amalgam of groups originating
from both within and outside cis-jordanian Canaan. Even those originating from
elsewhere probably spoke languages derived from Proto-Northwest Semitic and were thus close to the
dialects of the Canaanites"
1.10.2 - note Hendel-Lambdin-Huehnergard p. 8 -
Original śin was a lateral fricative
[ɬ], pronounced like hl (cf. bōśem
≈
Greek balsam;
kaśdim
≈
Akkadian kaldu), becomes [s]
Original samekh was pronounced like [č], as in “check”
(Egyptian transcriptions)
Original šin was perhaps [s], as in Arabic, becomes [š]
1.10.2.19 - Mention The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (Sheffield Academic Press)?
1.11.3 - Should "variable" be "variant"?
1.15.6 - other scholars argue that,
unlike the word-final heh in the example, word-final alef was still
consonantal in pre-exilic EBHP. This
possibility should be mentioned
1.16.1 - Re
the statement " like dāg ‘fish’, according to the
Sephardic pronunciation ". From Morag 1970 (col.
1142) it would appear that in the Sephardic pronunciation דָּג and דַּג־ would
be identical except, perhaps, for a slight, non-phonemic, stress lengthening in
the former? If this is correct in this דָּג and דַּג־ (and *דֲּג, if it
were to exist) would all be pronounced [dɐg] in Sephardic Hebrew.
1.16.2 - there are problems with this para.
- First *yiwqad
implies that spirantization of the bgdkpt
consonants took place in PH or even earlier (see my comment below)
- Otherwise
the para. is ok if the shift "*yῑqad 'it will burn' <*yiwqad
" is seen as occurring after the loss of mood endings. If, however, the
shift is pushed back to the PH phase it should be reformulated -
*yῑˈqad (BH=/EBHP/+) 'it will
burn/is burning' <*yiwˈqadu (PH)
*yῑˈbaš (BH=/EBHP/+) 'it will
become dry' <*yiyˈbašu (PH)
OR
*ˈyῑqad (BH=/EBHP/+) 'let it burn'
<*ˈˈyiwqad (PH)
*ˈyῑbaš (BH=/EBHP/+) 'let it dry
up! etc' <*ˈyiwbaš (PH)
1.16.7 - "...according
to regular sound correspondence, should..." should be "...according
to regular sound correspondence of the second consonant, should...".
- Is פַּלְמוֹנִי similar to
the Arabic process of naht?
1.18.3 - re.
Nestorian shift ḥ > x. The same shift occurred in Ashknenazi (and
hence Israeli) Hebrew.
1.19.10 - This is confusing. I would suggest in
substance one of the two following -
Total dissimilation is
reflected by the disappearance of the (second) glottal stop in *ˈʾaʾḥuzu ‘I shall take’. This
yields an intermediate form *ˈʾāḥuzu, exhibiting
compensatory lengthening of the a; from this, by the shift áː > óː and the above-mentioned dissimilation (§1.19.9) and
the shift to uniform penultimate stress to the Proto-Biblical
Hebrew form *ʾōˈḥuzu. The word's evolution would be -
*/ˈʾaʾḥuzu/ > */ˈʾāḥuzu/ > */ˈʾōˈḥuzu/ (PH) > */ʾōˈḥiz/ (BH=/EBHP/+) > */ʾōˈḥiz/ (PTH) > */ʾoˈḥẹz/ (/TH/)
OR
Total dissimilation is
reflected by the disappearance of the (second) glottal stop in *ˈʾaʾḥuz ‘let me take!’. This
yields an intermediate form *ˈʾāḥuz, exhibiting
compensatory lengthening of the a; from this, by the shift áː > óː and the above-mentioned dissimilation (§1.19.9) and
the shift to uniform penultimate stress to the Proto-Biblical
Hebrew form *ˈʾōḥuz. The word's evolution would be -
*/ˈʾaʾḥuz/ > */ˈʾāḥuz/ > */ˈʾōḥuz/ (PH) > */ˈʾōḥiz/ (BH=/EBHP/+) > */ʾōˈḥiz/ (PTH) > */ʾoˈḥẹz/ (/TH/)
1.20.6 - in the phrase "...phonemics (or phonology, dealing with
the smallest units of language, i.e., sounds or phonemes)," there is a danger of confusion
of phones with phonemes. I suggest substituting "...phonemics (or phonology, dealing with
the smallest units of language, i.e., sounds (phones) and phonemes).
2.4.13 - it would be most
useful to give examples in American English and British RP for each of the
vowels (Dr Blau does this in Blau 1976/1993 p. 9)
as well as sound
file illustrations.
2.4.14
- For clarity I suggest that they change the first sentence
"The distinction between
a short high back vowel (short u, written qibbuṣ) and a long high back vowel (long u, written shuruq) is alien to Biblical Hebrew."
TO
"The distinction between
a short high back vowel (short u, written qibbuṣ) and a long high back vowel (long u, written shuruq) is alien to Tiberian
Hebrew."
2.4.15n
- is this view widely accepted by his peers? If not other views should be
noted.
p. 69 - I would suggest that this table be a comparison
of at least Biblical Hebrew and Tiberian Hebrew (cf.
my own effort at Consonantal
Phonemes in Biblical, Tiberian Masoretic and Israeli Hebrew and
Wikipedia Phonology of Biblical Hebrew and Hebrew
Phonology: Regional and historical variation.)
3.1.3 - The statement "Neither the linguist nor the
naïve reader is interested in phonetic differences that do not differentiate
meanings" would
not be true of e.g. scholars interested in Biblical Poetry and wordplay where the sound of the language
could be important.
3.1.4 - The statement
The fact that allophones
are predictable, because they appear in defined environments, enables the
reader to identify them readily. Biblical Hebrew is a case in point. In
unvocalized biblical texts there is no graphic difference between bgdkpt
letters
pronounced as stops or as spirants. Nonetheless a reader familiar with the
language can easily distinguish them, despite the great phonetic difference.
Because each realization generally appears in a well-defined phonetic
environment (spirants occur after vowels, otherwise stops occur), the ordinary
reader readily differentiates them.... Moreover, even polyphonic letters (like ש marking both [š] and [s] ... are easily differentiated
rather
overstates the case. We must assume that the developers of the Hebrew and
Syriac vocalization systems were well aware that the users of their vocalized
texts would have a range of linguistic abilities in their ancestral language
with many not understanding the text at all. I agree with Sáenz-Badillos 1993 ( p. 111)
The resulting (Tiberian
pointing) system is quite comprehensive, faithfully reproducing the
phonological structure of the language while also providing sufficient phonetic
information to read it correctly
3.2.1.1 - Re. statement
"Before the introduction of vowel letters, Hebrew script was entirely
consonantal, notating consonants only." two points:
- instead of
"notating" wouldn't it be better to use "denoting" or
"representing"?
- the idea that "Hebrew
script was (originally) entirely consonantal" reflects the views of Cross
and Freedman. They based it on the view that a Phoenician style orthography was
employed in the early Iron Age being replaced by an Aramaean orthography, regularly
writing final vowels from, say, the ninth century BCE. We have virtually no
epigraphic evidence to substantiate Phoenician style orthography ever being
used in the two Israelite kingdoms. It may have been the case that
Israelite writing started as purely consonantal or it may be that there was
virtually no Israelite writing prior to the importation of Aramaean orthography
regularly indicating final vowels.
3.2.1.2 - Re. "All
the letters of the Hebrew alphabet mark separate phonemes." It might be more accurate to write "In
Biblical Hebrew, each letter of the Hebrew
alphabet marks one or more separate phonemes."
3.2.2.2 - in the passage -
"the ancient Jews. Otherwise, why did the Jews", the use of the term
"Jews" is anachronistic. "Israelites" or
even "Hebrews" would be better
- add to the ref. "Blau 1982a" two others Steiner 2006 and Wevers 1970.
- suggest replacing "It stands to reason that ..." with "It can be demonstrated that..."
If
this is correct, one can assume that it would not have affected pre-exilic EBHP though it may or may not have been a
feature of post-exilic LBHP.
3.3.3.1.5n
- Add refs. to Ancient Hebrew by Richard C. Steiner in Hetzron 1997 and Khan 1994
3.3.3.3.8n
- two points -
- "...standard Israeli pronunciation
woʾŏniyyōt " should be
replaced by "standard Israeli pronunciation voʾoniyyot". On lack of vowel length
distinction in Israeli Hebrew see Berman 1997.
- unless there is a demonstrable phonemic or
even audible phonetic distinction in vowel length in Sephardi Hebrew "... according to Sephardic
tradition it is pronounced waʾoniyyōt."
should be replaced by Hebrew "...according to Sephardic tradition it is pronounced waʾoniyyot."
3.3.3.4.3
- "...borrowed from Hebrew" should be replaced by "...borrowed from
Hebrew via Aramaic".
3.3.3.4.4
- The term "merger", though technically correct, is confusing to the
non-linguist. In ordinary English "merger" implies some sort of
combination which is not what it means here. What Dr. Blau is describing is a 2
stage process -
a)
(up to at least 300 BCE) there are 4 separate phonemes - /ḥ/, /ḫ/
(IPA [x]), /c/, /ġ/
b) /ḫ/>/ḥ/; /ġ/>/c/ while original /ḥ/ and /c/ remain unchanged.
Thus the original 4 phonemes have become 2.
3.3.5.1.5
- The text should mention the
possibility that the
Biblical Hebrew (/EBHP/) suffix was óːh (found in
some Arabic dialects) with the derivation something like
-*hũ (PS) > - *úh(u(ː)) (PH) > - *óːh (EBHP) > *óː (PTH)
See
also the discussion in Gogel p.
159 footnote 186.
3.3.5.4.2. - PH *ganabathéma has spirantized b but hard t and
PH*ʾahebatki has a hard b and t - all in
the same paragraph!
3.3.5.2.1 - re. "(This is usually pronounced
with -ā as “compensation” for the dropping of the ה.)".
There seem to be two problems here. First ה is clearly a mistake, it should be h. Second my
understanding is the feminine nominal unstressed suffix in most
varieties of spoken Arabic is phonemically and phonetically short i.e. /a/ [a]
whereas the feminine nominal stressed suffix in Biblical Hebrew is
supposed to be long */ā/ *[ā].
3.3.5.3.3.3n
- As it is unclear, and historically
misleading, I suggest they modify
The original form of *lәhaḥăṭῑ was *lahaḥăṭῑʾ ; the last syllable is
irrelevant here.
TO something like
*lәhaḥăṭῑ derives from the earlier*lahaḥăṭῑʾ with the post-exilic
dropping of word-final
glottal stops and the reduction of the initial unstressed vowel. In turn this
derives from the original Biblical Hebrew form *lahaḫṭῑʾ.
3.3.5.3.4
shouldn't
*šәmārēm < *šәmāraym < *šәmārahim
be
*šәmarēm (LBHP) < *šamaraym (EBHP) < *šamarahim
It
would be very useful if the text would state whether the lengthening of the
vowel following the first consonant in
לָהּ
'to
her' < lahã
was stress lengthening or compensatory
lengthening
3.4
- somewhere there should be a mention that in pre-exilic EH there is
almost no use of internal vowel letters. Thus it seems certain that these were
added, after the exile, to any surviving pre-exilic Hebrew texts.
3.4.1.1
- suggest deleting "incidentally"
3.4.2.2 - Our only evidence of "northern contraction"
is of ay > ē . As Dr. Blau has
pointed out in connection with the MT "... (historically incorrect)
impression that the two diphthongs were simultaneously monophthongized (in the
first page of "The Monophthongization of Diphthongs as Reflected in the
Use of Vowel Letters in the Pentateuch". It is thus, not necessarily correct,
and going beyond the meager evidence to assume that in "northern
Hebrew" the shift aw > ō had also occurred.
3.4.2.4
- re. *niglayʾtῑ > נִגלֵיתִי - */niglayʾtῑ/ in EBHP may well have been pronounced *[nigleyʾtῑ] (see Hendel-Lambdin-Huehnergard
pp. 9,19)
3.4.2.4
- a comparison with contemporary Western Aramaic would be enlightening here.
3.4.7.1
- ref missing fifth line.
3.4.7.2
- should "*yaššāmirū
<*yanšāmirū " be "*yaššamirū
<*yanšamirū "
3.4.8.3
- The pre-exilic EBHP form, corresponding to TH wә was *wa. This should be noted.
3.5 -
Title "The Vowels of Hebrew" should be "The Vowels of Tiberian
Hebrew" or "The Vowels of the Tiberian Tradition of Reading Biblical
Hebrew"
3.5.2.1n
- ref. should be added "James Barr The Variable Spellings of the Hebrew Bible, OUP, 1989"
3.5.2.2
- 'qām = קָם'
and 'dāg = דָּג'
should be
'qām > קָם'
and 'dāg > דָּג'
3.5.2.5n
- Suggest modifying -
In vocalized Israeli
spelling, originally long ῑ is always spelled with a
following ִי since in fact the spelling of vocalized Hebrew texts
is based on biblical orthography, with regularizations.
TO
READ
Standard Israeli
spelling of vocalized Hebrew texts is based on biblical orthography, with
regularizations. Thus, although no vowel length distinctions are maintained in
modern Israeli Hebrew or in the Israeli reading of the Bible, in vocalized
Israeli spelling historically long ῑ is always spelled with a following ִי
3.5.2.8
- I find this para. confusing. Perhaps they might consider something like
Tiberian
pointing indicates only vowel quality except for the ultra-short vowels. It
appears that the Tiberian masoretes pronounced all vowels long except for those
marked as ultra-short and vowels in closed unstressed syllables. The latter
were pronounced short. Thus there were many historically short vowels, not
indicated by vowel letters, pronounced long by the Tiberians alongside historically
long vowels (ῑ, ē,
ō ū) usually indicated by vowel
letters. Thus the presence or absence of vowel letters altered neither the
phonemic or phonetic shape of Tiberian Hebrew pronunciation.
3.5.3.1
and 3.5.3.3 - see comment on 1.16.1
3.5.4.7 and 3.5.7.1.4- this material is
very important and should be part of the introduction
3.5.6
- "Vowels: The Hebrew Phonemes" should be "Vowels: The Tiberian
Hebrew Phonemes".
3.5.7,
3.5.12.2 - Under Dr. Blau's approach, the final vowels of the masculine
singular adjectives, primitive form *qatul and qatil are
lengthened. E.g.
*/gaˈdulu/ > */gaˈdōl/; */kaˈbidu/ > */kaˈbēd/.
What
was the form of the corresponding feminine and plural forms of these words in pre-exilic EBHP?
Two possibilities that occur to me -
Noun
in Absolute Case |
|
Biblical Hebrew |
Comments |
|||
גדל (pre-exilic spelling; MT generally גָּדוֹל 'big') |
*/gaˈdulu/ |
*/gaˈdoːl/ |
*/gaːˈdoːl/ |
/gɔˈdol/ *[gɔːˈdoːl] |
Assumes
that in Biblical Hebrew grammatical analogy obtained between the different
members
of this morphological class.
See 1.15.3. |
|
*/gaduˈlatu/ |
*/gadoːˈlaː/ |
*/gәdoːˈlaː/ |
/gәdoˈlɔ/ *[gәdoːˈlɔː] |
|||
*/gaduˈliːma/ (oblique case) |
*/gadoːˈliːm / |
*/gәdoːˈliːm/ |
/gәdoˈlim/ *[gәdoːˈliːm] |
|||
*/gaduˈloːtu/ |
*/gadoːˈloːt/ |
*/gәdoːˈloːt/ |
/gәdoˈlot/ *[gәdoːˈloːt] |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*/gaˈdulu/ |
*/gaˈdoːl/ |
*/gɔːˈdoːl/ |
/gɔˈdol/ *[gɔːˈdoːl] |
Assumes
that, in feminine and plural forms, */u/ > /ō/ due to pretonic
lengthening, i.e. c. 300 BCE. |
||
*/gaduˈlatu/ |
*/gaduˈlaː/ *[gaduˈlaː] or |
*/gәdoːˈlaː/ |
/gәdoˈlɔ/ *[gәdoːˈlɔː] |
|||
*/gaduˈliːma/ (oblique case) |
*/gaduˈliːm / *[gaduˈliːm] or |
*/gәdoːˈliːm/ |
/gәdoˈlim/ *[gәdoːˈliːm] |
|||
*/gaduˈloːtu/ |
*/gaduˈloːt / *[gaduˈloːt] or |
*/gәdoːˈloːt/ |
/gәdoˈlot/ *[gәdoːˈloːt] |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
כבד 'heavy' |
*/kaˈbidu/ |
/kaˈbẹːd/ |
*/kaːˈbẹːd/ |
/kɔˈbẹd/ *[kɔːˈbẹːd] |
Assumes
that in Biblical Hebrew grammatical analogy obtained between the
different members of this morphological class.
See 1.15.3. |
|
*/kabiˈdatu/ |
*/kabẹːˈdaː/ |
*/kәbẹːˈdaː/ |
*/kәbẹˈdɔ/ *[kәbẹːˈdɔː] |
|||
*/kabiˈdiːma/ |
*/kabẹːˈdīm/ |
*/kәbẹːˈdiːm/ |
/kәbẹˈdim/ *[kәbẹːˈdiːm] |
|||
*/kabiˈdoːtu/ |
*/kabẹːˈdoːt/ |
*/kәbẹːˈdoːt/ |
/kәbẹˈdot/ *[kәbẹːˈdoːt] |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
כבד 'heavy' |
*/kaˈbidu/ |
/kaˈbẹːd/ |
*/kaːˈbẹːd/ |
/kɔˈbẹd/ *[kɔːˈbẹːd] |
Assumes
that, in feminine and plural forms, */i/ > /ē/ due to pretonic
lengthening, i.e. c. 300 BCE. |
|
*/kabiˈdatu/ |
*/kabiˈdaː/ *[kabiˈdaː] or |
*/kәbẹːˈdaː/ |
*/kәbẹˈdɔ/ *[kәbẹːˈdɔː] |
|||
*/kabiˈdiːma/ |
*/kabiˈdīm/ *[kabiˈdiːm] or |
*/kәbẹːˈdiːm/ |
/kәbẹˈdim/ *[kәbẹːˈdiːm] |
|||
*/kabiˈdoːtu/ |
*/kabiˈdōt/ *[kabiˈdoːt] or |
*/kәbẹːˈdoːt/ |
/kәbẹˈdot/ *[kәbẹːˈdoːt] |
3.5.7.6.9n - re "Accordingly, it stands to
reason that spirantization was, indeed, an early feature." It would be more correct to say
"Thus,
this consideration does not exclude the possibility that BGDKPT
spirantization was an early feature."
3.5.8.6
- extra space left between * and bittu
3.5.10.7
- see comment on 1.16.1
3.5.12.1.2
- Stress is indeed phonemic but like
consonant gemination and the vocal šwa it carries a very light phonemic load.
3.5.12.2
- History of stress. This important section should
be summarized in the introduction.
3.5.12.2.14n
- There is another school of thought that should be noted i.e. that the hiphil
developed (quoted
from Hendel-Lambdin-Huehnergard
p. 39)
perfect *haqtila
> *hiqtil
→
hiqtîl
(not hiqtēl)
imperfect *yuhaqtilu
> *yaqtil
→
yaqtîl
(not yaqtēl)
jussive *yuhaqtil
> *yaqtil
> yaqtēl
imperative *haqtil > haqtēl
3.5.12.2.15
- I think that these are jussives i.e. not 'he will tell' but 'let him tell'.
As I understand it Dr. Blau is implying something like the following (all
phonemic)-
a.
Stage 1 (=EBHP?)
|
Indicative |
Jussive |
Preterite |
Qal |
yiqˈtul |
ˈyiqtul |
wayˈyiqtul |
Piel |
yaqatˈtil |
yaˈqattil |
wayyaˈqattil |
Niphal |
yiqqaˈtil |
yiqˈqatil |
wayyiqˈqatil |
Hiphil |
yaqˈtīl |
ˈyaqtil |
wayˈyaqtil |
Hithpiel |
yitqatˈtal |
yitˈqattil |
wayyitˈqattil |
a.
Stage 2 (= Hellenistic period
post-fourth century BCE?)
|
Indicative |
Jussive |
Preterite |
Qal |
yiqˈtol |
yiqˈtol |
wayyiqˈtol |
Piel |
yәqatˈtel |
yәqatˈtel |
wayyqatˈtel |
Niphal |
yiqqaˈtel |
yiqqaˈtel |
wayyiqqaˈtel |
Hiphil |
yaqˈtīl |
yaqˈtel |
wayyaqˈtel |
Hithpiel |
yitqatˈtel |
yitqatˈtel |
wayyitqatˈtel |
- Dr Blau gives
the forms *yábdęl and *yәbdábbęr. In the pre-exilic period would these
not more closely resemble -
*/yábdil/ perhaps
pronounced *[yábdel] and */yadábbir/ perhaps
pronounced *[yadábber]?
3.5.12.2.16
- Some of the many other theories of the development and form of the waw
conversive should be weighed (see Smith 1991 which could be added to the bibliography)
3.5.13.1
- For clarity I suggest that -
"Thus
the first vowels of ..."
be
modified to -
"Thus,
in Proto-Tiberian Hebrew, the first vowels of ..."
4.1.1.3
- "discontinuous" should be explained
4.1.2.1n
- "does not exist" should be "cannot exist" since the
former could be taken to mean that it does not happen to be found in the corpus
whereas the latter indicates that it would be ungrammatical, which is correct.
4.2.1.1
-
"deictic" and "affective" should be explained
- re. "Moreover, they are the only
part of speech in which compound words occur. Semitic languages, in general,
and Hebrew, in particular, are characterized by a lack of compound words." What about Arabic naḥt ?
4.2.2.2.1
- For clarity I suggest that -
"The use of two forms for
the same function is quite remarkable; it is found in other Semitic languages..."
be
modified to -
"Although the use of two
forms for the same function may seem unusual, it is found in other Semitic
languages..."
4.2.2.2.2
- For clarity I suggest that -
"When one language
exhibits variety in a certain pattern, in contrast with uniformity in the other
language, it appears to imply that..."
be
modified to -
"When one language
exhibits variety in a certain pattern, in contrast with uniformity in other
cognate languages, this usually implies that..."
4.2.2.3.1 - "...has to be interpreted as
preserving the early form..." for accuracy should be replaced by "...could be interpreted as
preserving the early form...". This is not a trivial point. The recent
discussion on dating biblical texts should be reflected somewhere in the book
and key refs. should be added to the bibliography (see the items I have
listed under Zevit, Young 1993, Young 2004, Young, Rezetko, Ehrensvärd
2008 and Vern 2011).
4.2.2.3.2 - may be interested in
looking at the presentation in the table Examples
of the "Anceps" Approach
4.2.2.3.3
- re. *ʾanâ - why use circumflex
instead of macron?
4.2.2.4.4 - We cannot exclude the possibility that the
EBHP might have been */ˈhuʾa(ː)/ and */ˈhiʾa(ː)/ (see Gogel 1998 p.153 footnote 179.)
4.2.2.5.1
- replace "with the progress of culture" with its judgmental, nineteenth
century cultural evolution sound by "over time" or the like.
4.2.3.4.1
- see comment on 3.3.5.1.5
4.2.3.4.2n
- define "allegro" in this linguistic context.
4.2.4.2.3
- define "epicine"
4.2.6.2.1
- in this and the following section, in my view a couple of points that need to
be clarified are -
- in
EBHP ש was probably pronounced */ša/ plus gemination of the following consonant. This phonetically might
have sounded *[šɛ] or *[šɐ]
- in
EBHP אשר was probably pronounced */ʾašr/ (see Hendel-Lambdin-Huehnergard
p. 23) or */ʾašar/[13].
- for
clarity and accuracy -
"The relative שֶׁ, followed by a geminated consonant—the main relative and
subordinating conjunction in Rabbinic Hebrew—is limited in Biblical Hebrew. שֶׁ or שַׁ is attested in Deborah’s Song,
in the story of Gideon, and in the Israelite sections of the Book of Kings.
Therefore it seems likely that שֶׁ reflects the vernacular of
Northern Palestine, which was, as a rule, avoided; שֶׁwas replaced by אֲשֶׁר, because it was not considered standard by the Judean scribes
and redactors...."
should
be modified to -
"The relative שֶׁ, followed by a geminated consonant—the main relative and
subordinating conjunction in Rabbinic Hebrew—is limited in the Masoretic Text. שֶׁor שַׁ is attested in Deborah’s Song,
in the story of Gideon, and in the Israelite sections of the Book of Kings and
in Psalms. Therefore it seems likely that שׁ or שַׁ reflects the vernacular of
Northern Palestine, which was, as a rule, avoided; שֶׁ was replaced by אֲשֶׁר, because it was not considered standard for prose by the
Judean scribes and redactors...."
4.2.7.2
- two points
- no
primitive form is proposed for מי
- it would be most useful to lay out the reconstructed PH and BH forms of מי
and מה
cf. Hendel-Lambdin-Huehnergard
p. 23 where the following are proposed -
mî (“who”) < miya (Amarna), cf. Ugaritic my
māh (“what”) corresponds to Arabic mâ, Ugaritic mh
4.3.2.2
- see comment on 3.5.12.2.16
4.3.2.2.7
- I believe that -
‘I will separate’ should be ‘I intend to separate’ or 'let me separate'
‘we will separate’ should be 'let us separate'
4.3.2.2.10
- mention could be made of the negation of the infinitive construct with בלתי
4.3.2.2.12
- suggest that 'archaic poetry' be replaced by 'archaic or archaizing poetry'.
See comment on 1.3.4.
4.3.2.4.2
- 'special objections' should be replaced by 'specific objections'.
4.3.3.4.1
- table column heading "*Personal pronoun" should probably be
"*Akkadian personal pronoun" or "*Proto-Semitic personal
pronoun"
4.3.3.4.7 - suggest replacing "...as common sense would demand..." with "...as might be suggested by
common sense..."
4.3.4.3.2
- it might be desirable to replace -
"... in Arabic the infinitive
follows the finite verb; in Biblical Hebrew it precedes it. There are also
significant morphological differences between the infinitives in the two
languages."
with
-
4.3.4.3.2n
- should explain what "inner object" means.
4.3.4.3.4n
- should explain what "neutral usage" means.
4.3.5.1.9
- in the table why does " hitpācel " have a long ā
in this Proto-Biblical Hebrew
recontruction?
and why the spirantization
of t in hitpācel and hitpaccel at this linguistic stage?
4.3.5.2.3.1
- re. *yaḥšub > יַחְֹשׁב . At some point
in the text Dr. Blau should make clear whether he sees the prehistory of such
guttural forms as -
a) */yaḥˈšubu/ (PH) > */yaḥˈšub/ (BH=/EBHP/+) > */yaḥˈšōb/ (PTH) > */yaḥˈšob/ ((/TH/+)c. 850 CE vowel length no longer phonemic ); OR
b) */yaḥˈšubu/ (PH) > */yaḥˈšub/ > */yiḥˈšub/ (BH=/EBHP/+) > */yaḥˈšōb/ (PTH) > */yaḥˈšob/ (/TH/+).
4.3.5.2.3.1 - should explain what "neuter stative" means and give a couple of examples..
4.3.5.4.4
- other scholars (eg. Huehnergard ) maintain that u remained the prefix
vowel of the piel prefix-tense until it was reduced to šwa
4.3.8.5.1
- see comment on 1.15.4n
4.3.8.7.4.2
- re. ...read: wayyāqom." See comment on 1.16.1.
4.3.8.8.5 - suggest altering "The doubling does not take
place in word-final position.." to "In Tiberian Hebrew, the doubling does not take
place in word-final position.." (cf. Were Word-Final
Geminated Consonants Maintained in EBHP?)
4.4.2.4. - The statement
"יוֹשֶבֶת ‘sitting’
< *yāšibt; שׁוֹמַעַת hearing’ < *šāmict "
leaves out the probably pre-exilic EBHP. I would see their history being -
*/ˈyāšib(a)tu(n)/ (PS) > */yōˈšibtu/ (PH) > */yōˈšibt/ (*/EBHP/+) > */yōˈšɛbɛt/ (PTH) > /yōˈšɛbɛt/ (/TH/+) pronounced *[yoːˈšɛːvɛθ]
*/ˈšāmic(a)tu(n)/ (PS) */šōˈmictu/ (PH) > */šōˈmict/ (*/EBHP/+) > */šōˈmacat/ (PTH) > */šōˈmacat/ (/TH/+)
4.4.4.3N. - Wouldn't most scholars place the rise of the object marker את well after the disappearance of the case endings?
4.4.4.5. - "In Biblical Hebrew..." should be "In
Proto-Biblical Hebrew as.."
4.4.5.9n. "southern dialects" should be replaced by "the
Southwest Semitic languages" as in 4.4.5.9.
4.4.6.1. - The p (in *cawp ) is spirantized but the t (in *bayt )
is not though they presumably date from the same (pre-exilic EBHP?) period and
should be treated similarly.
4.4.6.11. Suggest that amending
"In the following, we will cite some of the most important nominal
patterns, arranged..." to "In the following, we will cite some of the
most important nominal patterns, in Tiberian Hebrew arranged..."
4.4.6.11.26n
- For clarity I suggest that -
"The
original forms are ..."
be
modified to -
"The
Proto-Tiberian forms were..."
[2] 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
.
[3] 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.
[4] Hebrew version p. 3.
[5] Cf. my own efforts in these areas - Proto-Semitic to Tiberian Hebrew - Vowel Phonemes with
Possible Allophones, Consonantal
Phonemes in Biblical, Tiberian Masoretic and Israeli Hebrew
[7] Cf my Did Word-Final Short Vowels Exist in
EBHP and Were All Word-Final Vowels Marked by Vowel Letters?
[8] Blau 1976/1993 p. 31 REMARK A.
[9] Gibson 1965 p. 37 "One other Tiberian vowel phoneme is known not to have existed before about the fifth century A.D., namely /å/ (IPA /ɔ/), which is in origin a merger of a previous /aː/ and certain allophones of /u/"
[10] In Pre-Tiberian Hebrew
and Tiberian Hebrew the mobile šwa (ә) is considered a phoneme (Blau 1976/1993 p. 11
footnote (1)) and "(the d)ageš forte (=
consonant gemination) is ... phonemic, though its phonemic load is light..."
(Blau
1976/1993 4.2.1.2).
[11] See Sáenz-Badillos §3.3; Kutscher 1982 p. 79 ff.
[12] cf. 1.18.4n
[13] cf. Linguistic Structure
of Hebrew by Zellig S. Harris, Journal of the American Oriental Society,
Vol. 61, No. 3. (Sep., 1941), pp. P146-147.