Hebrew Pronunciation Question

[TYA]

Why would the first instance of this word (Isa 54:1) be pronounced "rah'niy" but the second instance (Zep 3:14) be pronounced "roh'niy"?  See attached.

 

Both have the qamats under the first letter, in open syllables.  And the second / last syllable is accented in both cases.  Why then should the first instance (Isa 54:1) be treated as qamats gadol, while the second instance (Zep 3:14) is treated as qamats qatan (or khatuf)?

Edited August 15, 2019 by TYA

[mbcvida]

Where are you finding your pronunciations? I believe in both instances the vowel is a qamatz qatan - what looks like an open syllable is actually closed by the duplicated nun (with dagesh forte), thus using a short vowel -- I did not find a text that transliterated/pronounced the two examples differently

 

• The qamatz sound of [o], known as Qamatz Qaṭan (Hebrew: קָמַץ קָטָן, IPA: [kaˈmats kaˈtan], "small qamatz") occurs in a "closed syllable", i.e. one which ends in a consonant marked with a shwa nakh (zero vowel) or with a dagesh ḥazaq (which indicates that the consonant was pronounced geminated, i.e. doubled); 
•  
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamatz#Qamatz_Qa%E1%B9%ADan_vs._Qamatz_Gadol

 

at least this is how I understand it to be

[TYA]

Where are you finding your pronunciations?

 

The Hebrew OT Audio files here in Accordance, in addition to how Abraham Shmueloff pronounces it.  Both make the distinction I explained above.  I probably wouldn't have posted if they differed, but they happen to agree here.

 

Maybe you are onto something regarding the daghesh forte in the nun, with regards to the difference between open and closed syllables, but that wouldn't explain the different pronunciations I'm referring to, since both instances have that daghesh.

 

By the way, both of these occurrences are imperative feminine, and in Lam 2:19 the cholem vowel is used instead: קוּמִי רֹנִּי בַלַּיְלָ

Edited August 15, 2019 by TYA

[mbcvida]

Lamentations 2.19 - the long vowel is due to the accented syllable -- I believe the qamatz qatan occurs only in a syllable that is closed and unaccented

unaccented closed syllables typically take a short vowel, accented closed syllables a long vowel.

 

I don't have the audio files, but the pronunciation should be consistent according to the proper vowel forms (o class vowels)

[TYA]

Beautiful, thanks.  Enjoyed this very much.  Others, please feel free to chime in also, especially if you've heard the pronunciation variant above, as I have.

Edited August 15, 2019 by TYA

[Robert Holmstedt]

The audio files are incorrect for Isa 54:1; both examples should be pronounced like they pronounce Zeph 3:14.

[miketisdell]

The audio files are incorrect for Isa 54:1; both examples should be pronounced like they pronounce Zeph 3:14.

 

The issue is with the Merkha in Isa 54:1. This is why the qamats qatan is changed. 

[Robert Holmstedt]

Nope. An accent-stressed /o/ would change to a holem. It would never change it to an /a/ class vowel. The pronunciation is simply wrong by the phonology of Tiberian Hebrew.

[miketisdell]

Nope. An accent-stressed /o/ would change to a holem. It would never change it to an /a/ class vowel. The pronunciation is simply wrong by the phonology of Tiberian Hebrew.

 

The rule for the qamats qatan is that it appears in closed unstressed syllables. 

 

The pronunciation in question is modern not Tiberian.

Edited August 16, 2019 by miketisdell

[Robert Holmstedt]

Yes, that's what introductory textbooks say. But there are deviations and this is one. It's even listed in Joüon and Muraoka 2006: §82g.

 

And the issue *is* related to the Tiberian System since that this is the graphic notation. The distinction between the /a/ qamets and /o/ qamets reflects Tiberian + reconstructed pronunciation based on comparative-historical linguistics. It has nothing to do with modern Hebrew, if that's what you mean.

 

So, to get back to the original question: what I originally said remains accurate --the audio files are wrong for Isa 54:1.

Edited August 17, 2019 by Robert Holmstedt

[miketisdell]

Yes, that's what introductory textbooks say. But there are deviations and this is one. It's even listed in Joüon and Muraoka 2006: §82g.

 

And the issue *is* related to the Tiberian System since that this is the graphic notation. The distinction between the /a/ qamets and /o/ qamets reflects Tiberian + reconstructed pronunciation based on comparative-historical linguistics. It has nothing to do with modern Hebrew, if that's what you mean.

 

So, to get back to the original question: what I originally said remains accurate --the audio files are wrong for Isa 54:1.

 

 

There are some texts that differentiate the qamats gadol and qamats qatan with slightly differentiated versions of the qamats. In these texts a qamats followed by a Merkha is treated as a qamats gadol. 

 

Knowing this is how it is handled in two completely independent audio sources and in printed texts that make this differentiation. I find it difficult to assume that both of these audio sources is wrong.

[miketisdell]

Interestingly, I checked both of these audio files for Ps. 35:10 because this is marked as a qamats gadol in texts that differentiate between the qamats qatan and qamats gadol. The Accordance audio pronounces this as a qamats qatan but the other audio differentiates at this point and pronounces it as a qamats gadol. I believe this is the only place in the OT where כל is marked with qamats gadol and not qatan.

Edited August 17, 2019 by miketisdell

[Robert Holmstedt]

It cannot be a qamets gadol. This is not an abstract puzzle, but a language, which means that homophony has limits. The word for "all, everything" ALWAYS has a u-class vowel. If K-v-L has an /a/ class vowel, it is a 3ms perfect verb from the root K-W-L "to contain."

 

The accents are one of two complex notational systems, the other being the vowel system. Both post-date the biblical text by centuries. They contain errors. I would list the use of the qamets here in an uncliticized form of "all" as an error. But even if one doesn't consider it an error, it would be a problematic approach to how language and grammar work to propose that this is both "all" AND pronounced with an /a/-class sound.

[Robert Holmstedt]

There are some texts that differentiate the qamats gadol and qamats qatan with slightly differentiated versions of the qamats. In these texts a qamats followed by a Merkha is treated as a qamats gadol.

Knowing this is how it is handled in two completely independent audio sources and in printed texts that make this differentiation. I find it difficult to assume that both of these audio sources is wrong.

I find this an unacceptable position. Would you prefer the language of the Bible to have an essentially inconsistent phonology or medieval and modern scholars to make the occasional error? You have to choose one or the other. Edited August 17, 2019 by Robert Holmstedt

[mbcvida]

Interestingly, I checked both of these audio files for Ps. 35:10 because this is marked as a qamats gadol in texts that differentiate between the qamats qatan and qamats gadol. The Accordance audio pronounces this as a qamats qatan but the other audio differentiates at this point and pronounces it as a qamats gadol. I believe this is the only place in the OT where כל is marked with qamats gadol and not qatan.

Prov 19.7 looks similar

[TYA]

The audio files are incorrect for Isa 54:1; both examples should be pronounced like they pronounce Zeph 3:14. 

 

Well then, this would be the most satisfying answer to me in terms of having a language that consistently follows rules.  But Robert, the looming question would then be why both audio sources pronounced Isa 54:1 with the qamatz gadol?

Edited August 18, 2019 by TYA

[Robert Holmstedt]

I'd like to clarify a few things for those who don't understand the complexities of reconstructing BH phonology. The Tiberian system we read in our printed versions (or those who read the facsimile of Leningrad or Aleppo) is medieval and reflects a different vowel phonology than we reconstruct for biblical era Hebrew. The Tiberian vowel phonology is based (mostly or exclusively, depending on who you read) on vowel quality. There are seven vowel sounds corresponding to the seven signs. There is thus no distinction between the qamets gadol and qamets qatan. Every qamets was pronounced with a back short /o/ sound, like saying /ah/ but in the back of your throat and a bit rounded. The IPA sign is this [ɔ].

 

The complication is that this system does not match what we reconstruct for Biblical era Hebrew based on 1) comparative historical linguistics and 2) Greek transliteration. In that reconstruction, which is similar but not identical to modern Hebrew phonology, the qamets sign represents two different vowels whose qualities reflect different underlying word pattern origins as well as different syllable structures. This leads to the distinction described in the 2nd post in this thread. 

 

Now, the current thread began due to the observation that two different modern recordings of the Hebrew Bible distinguish between the qamets in רָנִּי in Isa 54:1 (pronounced in the recordings with an /a/-vowel) versus רָנִּי in Zeph 3:14 (pronounced in the recordings with a /u/-vowel derivation, the /o/ sound), though both words are written exactly the same. And then two examples of כָל were added -- Prov 35:10 and Prov 19:7. Both examples have the qamets in a syllable structure and stress pattern that normally indicates an underlying /a/ vowel, even though the word in question is always read with some type of /u/-vowel. 

 

On Ps 35:10 and Prov 19:7, note that Gesenius-Kautzsch-Cowley catch this in §9u. They explain it as the /u/-class vowel, the syllable-stress context notwithstanding. 

 

On Isa 54:1, I am co-writing another Baylor commentary on this and so have a great deal of commentaries at hand. No one notes this form as special except to point out that 1QIsa^a has רוני. Obviously, this supports a /u/-class vowel underlying the Tiberian qamets.

 

To answer the question in the post immediately preceding this one: I can only point out errors; I cannot tell you why they made them. A wild guess is that the sequence of three /a/-class vowels, two of which are qamets, in the immediately following word, עֲקָרָה, caught the readers eyes as they scanned ahead (it's necessary to scan a couple words ahead in order to read smoothly, of course) and they misread the first qamets. 

 

That's all I have to say on this matter. It's been a fun thread and I'll be sure to note the issue in our Isaiah commentary. 

[TYA]

Thank you for the in-depth explanation.  It has been a fun learning experience.

[R. Mansfield]

Too bad we can't correct mispronunciation in audio files the same way we correct errors in written texts :-)

[Robert Holmstedt]

Oh, I like the occasional error. Reminds me that even the human half of incarnational things is just that, human.

 

Anyway, I've been making arguments against editing texts since even ancient or medieval errors can give us access to important linguistic information. Someday someone might use the mispronunciation of Isa 54:1 in the two recordings for some sort of linguistic argument.

[TYA]

Anyway, I've been making arguments against editing texts since even ancient or medieval errors can give us access to important linguistic information.

 

Or, fix the errors, but retain a "masorah" for historical purposes.

Edited August 21, 2019 by TYA

[TYA]

One more question: is it always the case that a qamats will be katan (pronounced as oh) in a closed, unaccented syllable?  Why is this word, הִשָּׁמְדָם, not pronounced with qamats katan (hi'shome'dam) in Deu 7:23?

 

Thanks

Edited August 21, 2019 by TYA

[Robert Holmstedt]

The critical qualification is a *historically* closed, unstressed syllable. So in the Niphal infinitive form you cite, the qamets is the qamets gadol (/a/-class), the syllable with the qamets is not closed in the pattern/underlying/historical form: *hashshamadam.

 

Fun, isn't it?

[TYA]

Fun, isn't it?

 

Yes!!!  But I'm going to have to get a better grasp of what you mean by "historical."  That didn't happen to require you 10+ years of higher learning, pouring through texts, dictionaries, lexicons, etc. to figure out,... did it? 

 

Also, after I asked the question directly above, I remembered that Perfect 3rd pers. feminine singular almost always has a qamatz in (apparently) closed, unnaccented syllable, but it is always pronounded "ah".  Off the top of my head, examples: "yal'dah" (she bore) "am'dah" (she stood).

 

So if the rule was just "closed, unnaccented syllable" for qamats qatan, then this simply isn't true.  There has to be a better, fuller description of what differentiates between qamats qatan and qamats gadol.

Edited August 21, 2019 by TYA

[Robert Holmstedt]

Same thing with the 3fs perfect -- almost everyone reconstructs something like *yalada as the underlying form (people argue about where the original word stress was). The shift of stress to the end of the word and subsequent reduction of the 2nd /a/ vowel to shewa creates the new closed syllable, but does not change the 1st vowel from /a/ to /o/, nor does it require the first vowel to be a short /a/ (i.e., patach). Those are good signs of "historically" open syllables.  

 

When you take into account word patterns/underlying forms and the likely development of syllables, vowel changes, and word stress, it actually is very, very consistent. There are few forms I have come across that are really difficult to explain (can't think of one off the top of my head).

 

Well, it took me the better part of my first year of grad school for it all to click, but when it did, it was like a horribly fuzzy picture coming into to incredible focus. Then I taught it to grad students for a few years, which really helped it to sink in. And all the while, I was applying it to Hebrew, Phoenician, Aramaic, and Ugaritic epigraphic texts alongside the Bible, so let's just say it became something I could do in my sleep. But yes, it does take a bit of focused time to sort it out. Sadly, I no longer have curricular space to teach it to my own grad students. 

Edited August 21, 2019 by Robert Holmstedt