B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

ducky wrote:When someone pronounces a throaty letter with silent Sheva.

Terminology: "throaty letter" is a translation of אוֹת גְּרוֹנִית which is technically called a guttural letter, which refers to alef, heh, chet, ayin and (by similar behavior, sometimes) resh.

Thanks, Jason.

So it is okay to use "throaty letters" (instead of Guttural) or does it sound weird?

ducky writes

bEn-->bEni-->b*nI

Sorry to say, but the arrows and the asterisk seem to me no more than scribbles. Do the arrows represent an imagined historical process? There is indeed a bEni, but as the name Benny.

Don't confuse the grammar with the pronunciation.

I am not confused, only perplexed, even sad at all this. Who invented this "grammar" whereby a "derived" schwa is declared "mobile" and is designated by an asterisk? Is this wonderful science being taught in school?
I will not comment further on "vowels that got shorter", "old pronunciation before the mobile Sheva got into Hebrew", "stress of the word "jumped forward"", "short vowels are unstable", "the Qamats in Shalon (and every Qamats) was not pronounced like the Patah'. It was something like the English "o" in the word "hot" or "Bob"", since I have difficulties imagining how vowels "got" shorter, and how the mobile Sheva "got" into Hebrew (this last one is actually easy: "grammarians" ushered it in.)

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Never mind. This thing is not for you.

ducky wrote:Thanks, Jason.

So it is okay to use "throaty letters" (instead of Guttural) or does it sound weird?

It sounds really weird. You could say "letters representing sounds produced in the throat," but they are referred to as "guttural letters" everywhere.

Isaac Fried wrote:ducky writes

bEn-->bEni-->b*nI

Sorry to say, but the arrows and the asterisk seem to me no more than scribbles. Do the arrows represent an imagined historical process? There is indeed a bEni, but as the name Benny.

Don't confuse the grammar with the pronunciation.

You really don't understand what he's saying? It is clearly development.

ben (original form) > *beni (theoretical: original form + personal ending) > bni (drop of -e- vowel)

בֵּן > *בֵּנִי > בְּנִי

The drop of the vowel within the word is what we call "reduction."

It's hard to know when you're just being dismissive (because you do that a lot without any justification) and when you truly don't understand the person you're interacting with.

ducky wrote:Never mind. This thing is not for you.

And yet, he would seek to revolutionize the world of Hebrew language teaching with his own theory that has zero support in the academic world. He thinks that dagesh has no function, that all infixes are actually personal pronouns, that there is no meaning in binyanim, etc. etc.

Thanks, Jason for the explanation.
So I would start to use "guttural".

As for Isaac, let's let everyone understand the language as he sees it.
When the basis is so far away, there is no point to argue.

ducky wrote:Thanks, Jason for the explanation.
So I would start to use "guttural".

As for Isaac, let's let everyone understand the language as he sees it.
When the basis is so far away, there is no point to argue.

Either way, it's nice to read your posts. I hope you've got a lot more that you're reading to write and discuss. You've made a quick entry into B-Hebrew, and I'm looking forward to more interactions.

ברוך הבא!‏

Jason says

It is clearly development.

The "development" is clearly no more than a figment of your imagination.

He thinks that dagesh has no function

This is not true. Read what I have repeatedly written here about the dagesh and you will better understand the issue of the "function".

He thinks that all infixes are actually personal pronouns.

You are near the truth but not entirely. What are "all infixes"?

He thinks that there is no meaning in binyanim, etc. etc.

It is not clear to me what is this "meaning in binyanim".
The development is actually this: read -> understand -> speak.

Isaac Fried, Boston University