Hebrew Pronunciation Question

[mbcvida]

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

I believe in the example above, the qamats is with an open syllable, and the following mem with the shewa (vocal) is a separate syllable - if the shewa under the mem were silent (closing the syllable) the following daleth should have the dagesh lene (bgdkpt letter) -- remember the shin contains the dagesh forte (assimilated nun), thus that initial syllable would be הש (or perhaps הנ) followed by ש with qametz (open syllable) followed by followed by מ with vocal shewa (syllable #3) followed by דם (final syllable) - if I remember my basic Hebrew syllabification correctly, the example you give contains 4 syllables.  If this is an incorrect analysis, please let me know. 

[TYA]

Those are good signs of "historically" open syllables. 

 

So if I understand you correctly, the perfect 3rd feminine examples I gave would be considered "historically open," meaning that when you seek to reconstruct the ancient Hebrew pronunciation, they really aren't closed, unaccented syllables (even though they appear that way to me).  Am I correct?

Edited August 21, 2019 by TYA

[Robert Holmstedt]

That is correct. And if this all seems a bit odd, remember that Hebrew phonology had changed between biblical times and the medieval recitation. There is just *one* qamets in Tiberian. What we're doing is using historical-comparative linguistics to reconstruct behind the Tiberian system, and the Semitic evidence as well as the internal consistency of the resulting Hebrew reconstruction very strongly indicate that the Tiberian qamets represents two different biblical period vowels.

I believe in the example above, the qamats is with an open syllable, and the following mem with the shewa (vocal) is a separate syllable - if the shewa under the mem were silent (closing the syllable) the following daleth should have the dagesh lene (bgdkpt letter) -- remember the shin contains the dagesh forte (assimilated nun), thus that initial syllable would be הש (or perhaps הנ) followed by ש with qametz (open syllable) followed by followed by מ with vocal shewa (syllable #3) followed by דם (final syllable) - if I remember my basic Hebrew syllabification correctly, the example you give contains 4 syllables.  If this is an incorrect analysis, please let me know.

 

Yes, 4 syllables. The underlying Niphal form is as I gave earlier: hash-sha-ma-dam.

[Bielikov]

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. 

Robert, for someone like me, this particular answer was great for a number of reasons. First, I appreciate the explanations rather than the "this is wrong" and also, it is quite impressive that you are working on the Isaiah Baylor. I hope that is sold as a separate title. I'm a total beginner, as you know, but will keep asking, and asking, and asking until I get an explanation that is logical and makes sense. Thanks for your patience.

[Robert Holmstedt]

You're very welcome. I'm glad it was helpful. Keep asking.

[Gedalya]

I would suggest referring to the תנ"ך סימנים published by Feldheim  www.feldheim.com

This Bible makes it clear by using a larger kamatz for the kamatz katan.

[Elijah]

The audio version by Shlomo Bertonov (which was recorded for the blind in the 60s/70s) is correct regarding Isa 54:1 btw.

[Robert Holmstedt]

Ha, I didn't think to listen to my file of that set. Yes, he is correct.