Re: Deeq-Dooq Question About Schewa

On Nov 26, 7:44 pm, yacova...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Nov 26, 8:22 am, h3rman <crazymulg...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Nov 25, 3:03 am, "Giorgies E. Geshahnna" <geshah...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

There are, from a linguistic point of view, basically two forms of
shwa:

-A shwa that historically represents a vowel
-A shwa that historically represents the absence of any vowel
In a word such as uchesavtam which you use as an example, it is clear
that shwa in the syllable /che/ represents an 'original vowel', i.e.,
when the Hebrew text was originally written, there was a vowel there.

Why is that clear? It would mean the prior syllable was open and the
syllable with the shewa was also open. Ridiculous.

It is clear because in similar structures in similar languages
(Arabic, Ethiopian, Aramaic, etc.) this particle ke (ki, ka, whatever)
has.had an open short syllable.
To be sure, I am not saying to in the Tiberian system, there is a
vowel. It is quite possible that to the developers of the Tiberian
system, any shwa was unpronounced and represented the absence of a
vowel. (In the Middle Ages, this may have changed due to Arabic
influence, just as Spanish.Sephardi Hebrew poetry was heavily
influenced by Arabic.)

You use the word ridiculous for the idea that two successive open
short vowel syllables exist. They do not exist in the Tiberian system,
however they did when the biblical texts were written, which was what
I was talking about. As most people agree, the Tiberian system is far
younger than the biblical texts themselves.

This all, of course, based on comparative Semitic linguistics.

Could you explain precisley how and why, with the non-Hebrew
analogues?


This is a rather complex story so if you desire so I can refer you to
the reference works on historical Hebrew grammar and comparative
Semitic linguistics, which is occasionally fascinating. But I'll try
to give something of an impression.
For example, take the piel participle. It has a me- prefix with shwa.
This corresponds with a stem-II Arabic participle and similar
structures in other Semitic languages, in all of which the m prefix
has a short vowel and is an open syllable, or was, historically. Based
on vocalised Hebrew and Phoenician of the (pre)biblical era (for
example, Greek, Akkadian and Minoan-semitic stuff), the same applies
to Hebrew. Thus, when Jesaja was composed, a word like, say, umvorakh
(Tiberian syllables: um-vo-rakh) had the probable syllables wa-mu-bur-
rak or something like that.

None of this is really relevant any more if you wish to follow the
Tiberian tradition.

However, if you discuss the fringes of the system, it may occasionally
be enlightening to take a look at historical grammar. Me- of the piel
participle is always shwa na, because of historical reasons, not
because it was voted upon. (Whether it was still pronounced at all in
late Antiquity is highly doubtful.)
In some exceptions, two rules conflict and then what is really a shwa
na is 'officially silenced', but only because more abstract and thus
more important rules on allowed and unallowed structures of the
syllable in (Tiberian) Hebrew prevail.

It
depends on your taste then, which tradition you follow, and often this
affects the number of syllables a word has.

Not really. Grammatically this syllable is closed. I know of no
classical grammarian who has it as open.

Basically, you are right, but as with most of Jewish tradition, things
are open for debate. Which classical grammarians do you refer to?

The pronunciation of the Hebrew has changed over the years, and there
has never been one single universal exception-less tradition on diqduq
and pronunciation.

But there are implicit grammatical rules in the Bible. And there is a
Tiberian grammatical system.

Where are the "implicit grammatical rules" in the Bible?

So it is not a total free for all, as your comment suggests.


I'm sorry if I sounded like a diqduq anarchist to you :) that was not
the intention.
I don't think I'm saying anything new when I say that there are
differences between Sephardi and Ashkenazi interpretation of the way
one is told one should recite. And this is even all, mostly, based on
the same Tiberian tradition. This field is much more diverse and
colourful than is often assumed. It doesn't bother anyone that some
say Shabbos and Nosson, others Shabbat and Nat(h)an, does it?

By the way, and it's always nice to have a little controversy, the
Ashkenazi, not the Sephardi, pronunciation is the most direct heir to
the way Jews pronounced Hebrew in the 'Talmudic era'. Ashkenazi
pronunciation reflects best the Tiberian diqduq, whereas Sephardi
pronunciation has been influenced by a.o. an Arabic reinterpretation
of Hebrew pronunciation. Thus, Israeli Hebrew too, is more
artificially than organically linked to 'Tiberian Hebrew', as it as
well is influenced by Arabic and partly academic structures.

regards,
herman
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Deeq-Dooq Question About Schewa
    ... Among the rules for schewa, ... -A shwa that historically represents a vowel ... -A shwa that historically represents the absence of any vowel ... when the Hebrew text was originally written, ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: Deeq-Dooq Question About Schewa
    ... Among the rules for schewa, ... -A shwa that historically represents a vowel ... -A shwa that historically represents the absence of any vowel ... when the Hebrew text was originally written, ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: accents
    ... English in England. ... > Would you say there is a shwa sound in RP's "early"? ... >> definition in unstressed syllables. ... > the un-neutralised vowel. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Silabet/a variety of throat-clearings
    ... [disappearing r] ... similar vowel that interposes itself in Hebrew between a long vowel ... which used to be a guttural consonant. ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: Silabet/a variety of throat-clearings
    ... [disappearing r] ... similar vowel that interposes itself in Hebrew between a long vowel ... which used to be a guttural consonant. ...
    (alt.usage.english)