Biblical Hebrew

A forum for guides, lessons and sharing of useful information.
User avatar
Davush
greek
greek
Posts: 489
Joined: Sat 10 Jan 2015, 14:10

Re: Biblical Hebrew

Post by Davush » Sat 19 Nov 2016, 21:14

Shemtov wrote: Example:
Absolute state dob̠or "word; "thing"
Construct state: dəb̠ar

The Contruct state of masculine plural Nouns:
This also applies to feminine nouns that form the plural in iym
The iym ending is switched to ēy, and then the same rules as the singular noun are apllied.
thus the plural dəb̠oriym "words; things" is dəb̠ə̥rēy.
Isn't the construct of dvarim divrey? Sorry I don't know your transliteration system. Is there a reason why it might be dəb̠ə̥rēy?
User avatar
Isfendil
greek
greek
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri 19 Feb 2016, 03:47

Re: Biblical Hebrew

Post by Isfendil » Wed 23 Nov 2016, 21:01

Davush wrote:
Shemtov wrote: Example:
Absolute state dob̠or "word; "thing"
Construct state: dəb̠ar

The Contruct state of masculine plural Nouns:
This also applies to feminine nouns that form the plural in iym
The iym ending is switched to ēy, and then the same rules as the singular noun are apllied.
thus the plural dəb̠oriym "words; things" is dəb̠ə̥rēy.
Isn't the construct of dvarim divrey? Sorry I don't know your transliteration system. Is there a reason why it might be dəb̠ə̥rēy?
It's diβrēy in the course I'm taking as well.
User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 2692
Joined: Mon 29 Apr 2013, 03:06

Re: Biblical Hebrew

Post by Shemtov » Wed 23 Nov 2016, 23:40

You're right, I should have transcribed it dib̠ə̥rēy; in my reading pronunciation Shva Na approaches /ɪ/, and unstressed /i/ also approaches /ɪ/ (we often default to Milra), so doing it from memory, I got confused. The Schwa is after the b̠ to signal the Shva Nach, which I note as, a. My transcription system is a fusion between a pure transcription and a transliteration (as I feel a lot of the phonological processes are easier to show with a representation of the Hebrew Alphabet) and b. Shva Nach can become vocalized in some cases. <b̠> ius my way of representing β.
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien
User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 2692
Joined: Mon 29 Apr 2013, 03:06

Re: Biblical Hebrew

Post by Shemtov » Sun 12 Aug 2018, 06:07

Shemtov wrote:
Tue 20 Sep 2016, 15:39
Davush wrote:
Shemtov wrote:
Askenazic Pronunciation:
<g d > do not have their fricative pronunciations.
The fricative pronunciation of <t> is /s/.
Emphatic consonants are depharyngialized.
<h̟> is pronounced /x/.
<ʕ>is pronounced as /ʔ/ syllable initially; and ∅ syllable finally.
<w> is pronounced /v/.
What about the weird things with vowels that Ashkenazi pronunciation does? I usually hear in this very orthodox shuls with /o/ -> /oj/ or /əj/ being the most notable, as well as general vowel reduction.

shalom aleichem -> /ʃəlojm əlejχəm/ etc.
There are two Ashkenazi pronunciations: The one I described, which is generally called "Ashkenazis" and the one you described, which is called "Ungris" ie. "Hungarian" as it is mostly used by Hngarian and Romanian Jews, though there are some from other areas of Europe who use it. There's also the fact that such phrases as "Shalom Aleichem" are "Yiddishized"; they are pronounced more like Yiddish words then Hebrew words, despite their origin.
Actually, Correction: There were three Ashkenazi pronunciations: Two of which are called "Ashekenazis", plus "Ungris", which was also spoken in Galicia, however, since most Modern Jews using it are Hungarian or Romanian, the Galicianeers having mostly switched to one of the Ashkenazis dialects, we call it after Hungary these days. The Ashkenazis I described is that of Lithuania, Northeast Poland, and Northern Belarus- note that Yiddish does not have a name for Belarussian Jews, Calling them either "Litvaks", if they spoke this one or "Yukraineers" if they spoke what Davush described. What Davush Described was spoken in Southern Belarus, North and Southeast Ukraine, and the rest of Poland. Thus we can differentiate between "Litvak" and "Polisher-Yukraineer" Sub-pronunciations of "Ashkenazis", though as "Polisher-Yukrainer" Pronunciation has some commonalities with "Ungris", we might describe them as equal sub-pronounciations, though "Ungris" is hard to understand for the unexposed. The American Orthodox Community, was founded by Litvak and Ungris speakers, so most Polishers and Yukraineers have, over the years, lost their pronunciation (I am a Yukraineer, with some Yukarain-Galicianeer blood, and I use the Litvak pronunciation) The British Orthodox community was Founded by mostly Polishers and Yukraineers, so their dialect dominates there, most Litvaks doing the opposite of American Polishers and Yukraineers.
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien
User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 2692
Joined: Mon 29 Apr 2013, 03:06

Re: Biblical Hebrew

Post by Shemtov » Fri 12 Oct 2018, 01:23

qwed117 wrote:
Mon 26 Sep 2016, 03:49
DesEsseintes wrote:So basically, the thread is now doomed because people couldn't just let Shemtov get on with it?

I would be interested in a simple introduction to Biblical Hebrew without hearing endless debates about whether this, that or other group of people are correct in analysing or using this, that or other interpretation of the vowel system. :roll:
Well, seeing as to how he made it a religious issue, I would definitely not put him blameless. It's like a evangelical minister with a degree in Bible Science trying to teach a biology course. The students will realize that there's a political/religious motive underneath.
I just want to point out that this argument is ridiculous.First of all, the comparison would work if I discussed the Diachronics, instead of saying "This is my reconstruction of how the text was read when written." A more accurate comparison would be my Arabic 101 professor, who was a strong Arab nationalist, who insisted that "sabotage" is a Frenchication of an word that came from Arabs under French control using shoes to sabotage the French, while really it was French people against other French people, and the :fra: <sabot> is a loanword from a :tur: word for shoe, that was borrowed into :ara:, too from either :tur: or an original :irn: source.
Second of all, I didn't say it, but I struck a balance in the reconstruction, taking from Linguists' efforts too. ś=ɫ was a concession- most traditional grammars say ś=s or throw their hands up and say ś=?. I took the latter route, and then balanced it out by using ś=ɫ to explain why kaśdim is translated as "Chaldean". If there was no concessions, I would have also included another rhotic as a marginal phoneme, most likely as /ɾ/, given the treatment of Reish in Sefer Yetzirah . I also would have presented the language as Tonal (!).
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien
User avatar
Isfendil
greek
greek
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri 19 Feb 2016, 03:47

Re: Biblical Hebrew

Post by Isfendil » Fri 12 Oct 2018, 14:45

Why not just use a romanization or the script and just let people choose how they pronounce it? That's how my class worked. Hell, the rabbi didn't even attempt a historical pronunciation himself (he was north american), he was fond of some of ours though.
Ultimately conlangers and linguists are gonna be interested in the oldest of the old and are gonna be real suspicious when you try to pass something off without like . . . Multiple disclaimers. All the same, again maybe use the script or a romanization and just avoid this altogether. Not like the morphology or syntax of Biblical Hebrew changes between the diaspora.
User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 2692
Joined: Mon 29 Apr 2013, 03:06

Re: Biblical Hebrew

Post by Shemtov » Fri 12 Oct 2018, 21:24

Isfendil wrote:
Fri 12 Oct 2018, 14:45
Why not just use a romanization or the script and just let people choose how they pronounce it? That's how my class worked. Hell, the rabbi didn't even attempt a historical pronunciation himself (he was north american), he was fond of some of ours though.
Ultimately conlangers and linguists are gonna be interested in the oldest of the old and are gonna be real suspicious when you try to pass something off without like . . . Multiple disclaimers. All the same, again maybe use the script or a romanization and just avoid this altogether. Not like the morphology or syntax of Biblical Hebrew changes between the diaspora.
I didn't try to "pass off" anything. I said that it is a reconstruction based on Tiberian Pronunciation. In other words, it is Tiberian filtered through Linguists' reconstruction. I admitted that it was not said reconstruction, but the implication was that it was a balance between the two systems. Part of that is that Tiberian allows a presentation of the Masoritic text, with spelling, dagesh, and niqqud. The reason why I chose Tiberian was because of religious reasons. That does not imply an attempt to convert, nor a problem in morphosyntax. People saw "religion" and just assumed these things. But I had fully admitted that I was not presenting any accepted reconstruction- it is a linguistic-colored pronunciation, but with a certain tradition to ease teaching, and I chose the tradition that matched my own views. That does not imply an attempt to convert. People saw "religion" and just assumed these things. That is a kneejerk reaction, I understand, but I am presenting a defense. The balance between teaching ease and accuracy was admitted, the reason for my choice does not reflect my purpose, and should not be seen as dishonest.
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien
User avatar
Isfendil
greek
greek
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri 19 Feb 2016, 03:47

Re: Biblical Hebrew

Post by Isfendil » Fri 12 Oct 2018, 21:33

I don't understands, did you not introduce Yiddishisms?
User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 2692
Joined: Mon 29 Apr 2013, 03:06

Re: Biblical Hebrew

Post by Shemtov » Fri 12 Oct 2018, 21:37

Isfendil wrote:
Fri 12 Oct 2018, 21:33
I don't understands, did you not introduce Yiddishisms?
I discussed the modern pronunciations, and a discussion about "Ashkenazis" led to a digression about Yiddish, and how its dialects map with the Hebrew pronunciations of Ashkenazim, and how the Yiddish World saw itself, only to discuss the idea that Yiddish dialects map with the Hebrew pronunciations of Ashkenazim. Now looking at it again, the discussion about Ashkenazis went over the heads of people concerned about my method of combining Tiberian and the standard reconstruction, and certain idiosyncrasies that that entailed, and that discussion's existence made the understanding of the implications of my statement about the method look worse.
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien
Post Reply