Vowel Reduction Consultants

Classical Hebrew morphology and syntax, aspect, linguistics, discourse analysis, and related topics
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
User avatar
Galena
Posts: 144
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 8:55 am
Location: Ireland

Vowel Reduction Consultants

Post by Galena »

Yes they actually do exist and it's a job with career benefits :D - also known as accent reduction consultants.

Watching with keen interest a discovery documentary about the work of Linguists as they divide N. America into linguistic areas. I counted 4 major divisions and 12 minor ones, and intermingled with the minor ones further tiny areas. Aspects of this hour long documentary I have summarized below:

1. The North tend towards a long 'O' vowel,
2. The Midland's vowels tend to flatten more,
3. Cities along the great lakes have a vowel midway between 'O' and 'A',
4. The Boston area has 5 differing accents but this diversity is explained as being a gateway for immigrants in the early years,
5. Parental Dialects of immigrant children are, generally speaking, not retained by the children but the children aquire them from their playmates, (and this is eactly what has happend to my two guys), :(
6. Before the civil war there was no such thing as a southern accent (this was brand new news to me), it developed as a direct consequence of a desire to be seperated from the north, to be different, to be known as distinct and to psychologically be seen as not part of the North,
7. There is an island off the east coast called Ocracoke island where the inhabitants speak a form of English very close to what must have been spoken 300 years ago. (I had to work hard to understand it, really hard, and they spoke quite fast),
8. A general trend and desire regarding the television media throughout America is to try and standardize pronounciations, they attempt to bring in some consistency known as General American English. Consultants and language experts are employed by many high end and important industries, especially in finance and sales and global transactions, to standardize the way things are spoken to create a better impression in business and general international transactions and communication, even in spelling. (this immediately reminded me of the desire to standardize the biblically written consonants due to the spread of the Jewish people beyond the borders of Israel now that they had no homeland so to speak and were scattered).

As a non-American it is amusing to see all those different words you have for the same thing, such as coke, pop and tonic - these 3 words were interchangeable as memebers of the public were confronted on the streets, not to mention you guys must be the only people on earth where a liquid is known as a gas :D I am referring of course to the fact that we English do indeed pronounce it correctly - Petrol!

Pronounciation of Cot and Caught (as in he got caught) - Bus and Boss was another one. There were so many examples, and imagine having to put vowels to all these consonants; if you were a masorete and only had the two consonants such as a 'C' and 'T', which way to point it? What about 'B' and 'S' and then double the last letter or not? And what if a masorete was confronted with the populace on the island of Ocracote, and perhaps just one or two words they used were still understood in amongst the general population and the masorete pointed it this way due to it being a more accurate representation of the original?

In considering all this, it certainly strengthens my belief that the chaps who started to standardize the pronounciation of the Biblically written consonants would have confronted the same issues, though to a much much lesser degree, there would have been sloppy pronounciations, dialectical pronounciations and even incorrect forms spoken, so standardisation did begin around the turn of the century AD. (Scholars agree on this as I have been reading textual criticism papers that agree that standardisation certainly must have begun this early and was gradually built upon over the course of the first 600 years).

For example I have always been curious about the pronounciation of 'Jerusalem', about 25 times with a tsere ending (long vowel in a closed syllable?), the rest with either a dual ending or a chamatz ending. Now how did they know when and why to point it in three different ways? Something must certainly have been handed down to them and certainly the dual ending is the most recent. Why did they insert the impossible grammatically unorthodox pointing of a dual ending, knowing that there never was a yod between the mem and the lamed?

So why have I posted this? No idea really, except that now one can physically touch the reality confronted by the Asher family and their ancestors and I do wonder at times whether a disagreement over the way something is pointed because it changes the meaning slightly, has more to do with pronouncing it rather than changing it semantically. Even though a different pointing would render a different meaning, does this necessarily imply that the pointing is always wrong every time? Just a question, I do not know enough to be able to answer this question.

KInd regards
Chris
Chris Watts
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Vowel Reduction Consultants

Post by Isaac Fried »

As for Jerusalem, is was possibly "at first" יְרוּשָׁלֵם = עירוּ-שלם, 'the city of the Cannanite god שלם $ALEM', after which David's son שלמה $LOMOH. Later pious scribes modified it to the neutral YERU$ALAYIM.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
S_Walch
Posts: 343
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Vowel Reduction Consultants

Post by S_Walch »

Galena wrote:Why did they insert the impossible grammatically unorthodox pointing of a dual ending, knowing that there never was a yod between the mem and the lamed?
Never a yod?

Several DSS manuscripts spell Jerusalem ירושלים:
4Q51 (Samuel); 1QIsaa, 4Q59e (Isaiah); 4Q78c (Joel); 4Q80e (Zech); 4Q111 (Lam); 4Q107, 6Q6 (Cant); 11Q5 (Psalms).

I've not searched for the Dual ending points, but do they appear in any of the above books?

Maybe the Masoretes wanted to keep the spelling of Jerusalem the same consonantly, but decided to indicate that they had modified the text somewhat, and still wanted to keep the evidence of the ירושלים spelling.

Not saying they did, just that there is such a possibility, or they were just reflecting an editorial tradition that had preceded them.
Even though a different pointing would render a different meaning, does this necessarily imply that the pointing is always wrong every time?
I don't think anyone's said the Masoretic vowel points were wrong every time. Feel free to correct me on that though :)
Last edited by S_Walch on Thu Oct 08, 2015 12:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ste Walch
User avatar
Galena
Posts: 144
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 8:55 am
Location: Ireland

Re: Vowel Reduction Consultants

Post by Galena »

Isaac: I have read that 'urushalimum' is found in Egyptian texts from 2000 and 1330 BC. But this does not explain the 3 variations of pronounciation found in BH and the fact that the word itself was not given one standard pronounciation certainly reflects on something being handed down.

SWalch: Well the DSS probably inserted the yod for this very reason, it was pronounced this way during their time which I can well believe and they only reflected that pronounciation. But in the BH the desire to maintain the consonantal text did not allow for a letter to be added. I can not find it anywhere.
Even though a different pointing would render a different meaning, does this necessarily imply that the pointing is always wrong every time?

I don't think anyone's said the Masoretic vowel points were wrong every time. Feel free to correct me on that though
Please allow me to re-phrase my question in the way it was intended: Maybe, I was thinking, if a different vowel pointing rendered a slightly different meaning, this would not necessarily mean that someone got the vowel pointing wrong, rather that there was a pronounciation difference. I was merely reflecting on the documentary that I saw and the remarkable similarities with the modern day situation should an American wish to standardize English grammar and pronounciation in 21st century USA; And then the difficulties that the Jewish gentlemen who were standardizing the consonantal system with a pronounciation must have encountered, in order to make permanent something that they foresaw could be subject to so many variances by the Jews who were scattered all over the world. For example how would 'caught' be pointed when some pronounce the same word as 'cot'?

Anyway please allow me to make clear that I am not entering into the masorete discussion at all, this was far from my reason for posting this topic.
Chris Watts
S_Walch
Posts: 343
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Vowel Reduction Consultants

Post by S_Walch »

Galena wrote:SWalch: Well the DSS probably inserted the yod for this very reason, it was pronounced this way during their time which I can well believe and they only reflected that pronunciation.
That's more an assumption than anything else. We'd have to see at how Jerusalem is spelt in the other writings found among the DSS to determine whether they were inserting pronunciation differences into the consonantal text.

But even then it would have to be on a manuscript by manuscript, scribe by scribe basis. Certain scribes were more careful than others, so it would have to be checked to see whether it was careful or careless (or even a mixture of both) scribes who had Jerusalem spelt ירושלים.

Nevertheless, I was mainly pointing out that there's written evidence that Jerusalem was indeed spelt ירושלים.
But in the BH the desire to maintain the consonantal text did not allow for a letter to be added.
Are we presuming therefore that the Qumran community didn't have a desire to maintain the consonantal text, and so felt free to change the spelling of words? Correct me if this wasn't what you meant here.
Please allow me to re-phrase my question in the way it was intended: Maybe, I was thinking, if a different vowel pointing rendered a slightly different meaning, this would not necessarily mean that someone got the vowel pointing wrong, rather that there was a pronounciation difference. I was merely reflecting on the documentary that I saw and the remarkable similarities with the modern day situation should an American wish to standardize English grammar and pronounciation in 21st century USA; And then the difficulties that the Jewish gentlemen who were standardizing the consonantal system with a pronounciation must have encountered, in order to make permanent something that they foresaw could be subject to so many variances by the Jews who were scattered all over the world. For example how would 'caught' be pointed when some pronounce the same word as 'cot'?
This would only apply if we all wrote words how we spoke them. But we don't. We spell words the way they're spelt.

Just because someone pronounces 'caught' as 'cot', doesn't mean that they spell it 'cot'. The spelling of words is more or less standard these days (though probably not the best example here as we have "American" spellings and "British" spellings of English words; but that is more in the consonant, rather than vowel, sphere (words ending in '-or' and '-our' not withstanding :) ) ).

They're seeking to establish standard pronunciation in the American media - word spellings are already standard.

Hebrew I expect follows the same principle - spelling is standard; pronunciation will change, but pronunciation wouldn't necessarily affect the written words.
Ste Walch
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Vowel Reduction Consultants

Post by Isaac Fried »

I don't think that the ending -YIM signifies anything.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
User avatar
Galena
Posts: 144
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 8:55 am
Location: Ireland

Re: Vowel Reduction Consultants

Post by Galena »

chris said : But in the BH the desire to maintain the consonantal text did not allow for a letter to be added.

S_Walch said : Are we presuming therefore that the Qumran community didn't have a desire to maintain the consonantal text, and so felt free to change the spelling of words? Correct me if this wasn't what you meant here.
Well let's put it politely as I can, the Qumran community was plain and simply a sect, the essenes, who had rebelled against the standard practises of the Temple at Jeruslaem with various rituals and calendar dates and laws and interpretations. Naturally their writings, for me personally, carry no authority at all, in the same way that I would have to put any new bible translation that was published by a religion outside of mainstream christianity, that is to say the long standing established translations against the translations manufactured by sects outside, they have their translations of the bible as well (I am sure you are aware of them), these translations differ often only in small parts, in the same manner that the DSS scrolls differ often in small ways. This is not an argument, simply an observation.

As for the ending of the word for Jerusalem, my only comment is that there is no word that supports the dual ending. Shalem is the most biblically sound root and has its support. The dual ending, whenever that came in I have no idea, is certainly substantiated as a pronounciation that was used, being that it has biblical support both in meaning and in its use generally speaking. (actually I do believe that there are a few occurrences of a yod in this word in the scriptures, I have found 5 of them and no more) though out of the 640 times that is just a few so I will look more into why they are written this way in only these few places)
Kind regards
chris
Chris Watts
kwrandolph
Posts: 1537
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Vowel Reduction Consultants

Post by kwrandolph »

Galena wrote:… (this immediately reminded me of the desire to standardize the biblically written consonants due to the spread of the Jewish people beyond the borders of Israel now that they had no homeland so to speak and were scattered).

In considering all this, it certainly strengthens my belief that the chaps who started to standardize the pronounciation of the Biblically written consonants would have confronted the same issues, though to a much much lesser degree, there would have been sloppy pronounciations, dialectical pronounciations and even incorrect forms spoken, so standardisation did begin around the turn of the century AD. (Scholars agree on this as I have been reading textual criticism papers that agree that standardisation certainly must have begun this early and was gradually built upon over the course of the first 600 years).
I haven’t kept up with all the details, but the sources I read indicate that there was no standardized way of Hebrew pronunciation before the Masoretes established their dialect as the official pronunciation in about seventh century AD.
Galena wrote:For example I have always been curious about the pronounciation of 'Jerusalem', about 25 times with a tsere ending (long vowel in a closed syllable?), the rest with either a dual ending or a chamatz ending. Now how did they know when and why to point it in three different ways? Something must certainly have been handed down to them and certainly the dual ending is the most recent. Why did they insert the impossible grammatically unorthodox pointing of a dual ending, knowing that there never was a yod between the mem and the lamed?
There is a first century AD source with which I’m quite familiar, that pronounced Jerusalem as “Yerousalem” when dealing with the Jewish diaspora and with the sophisticated urban dwellers of Jerusalem, and pronounced as “Yerosoluma” when dealing with the Galileans who were behind the times as far as the latest fad in pronunciation and with the unsophisticated. Not once does that source indicate that Jerusalem ended with a dual as per modern pronunciation.

I suspect that “Yerosoluma” is closer the Biblical pronunciation than the other pronunciations.
Galena wrote:KInd regards
Chris
I have heard, but have no way personally to verify it, that the DSS era use of the yod as a mater leccionis was to indicate the long “ay” sound, like the Greek eta “η”, not necessarily the sounds that we give it today.

Karl W. Randolph.
Jemoh66
Posts: 307
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:03 pm

Re: Vowel Reduction Consultants

Post by Jemoh66 »

Isaac Fried wrote:I don't think that the ending -YIM signifies anything.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
Isn't that the he/she pronoun היא?
Jonathan E Mohler
Studying for a MA in Intercultural Studies
Baptist Bible Theological Seminary
S_Walch
Posts: 343
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Vowel Reduction Consultants

Post by S_Walch »

kwrandolph wrote:I have heard, but have no way personally to verify it, that the DSS era use of the yod as a mater leccionis was to indicate the long “ay” sound, like the Greek eta “η”, not necessarily the sounds that we give it today.
If this is so, then the Greek spelling of Jerusalem as Ἰερουσαλήμ is evidence of the ירושלים spelling.

As would be the spelling of Isaiah as ησαις, which I always found rather odd when most Hebrew names starting with a yod were transliterated using ι (iota).
Well let's put it politely as I can, the Qumran community was plain and simply a sect, the essenes
I'm afraid you're behind the times on scholarship regarding the Qumran community, Chris. That they were "essenes" is challenged quite a bit these days.
Naturally their writings, for me personally, carry no authority at all
But personal views shouldn't come into this when it comes to Scriptural texts found there. Especially as it has yet to be shown that all the Scriptural manuscripts found in the Qumran Caves were actually written by the Dead Sea Sect. One such proposal by Karl Heinrich Rengstorf is that they're from the Jewish Temple itself, taken away and hidden before it was besieged.

The Scriptural manuscripts shouldn't be dismissed out of hand so easily.
As for the ending of the word for Jerusalem, my only comment is that there is no word that supports the dual ending. Shalem is the most biblically sound root and has its support.
Unless, of course, Shalem is pointed wrong and should actually be Shalim, and so ים isn't a dual ending, and is just how the word is spelt in its plene rather than defective form using the yod, as Karl said, as a mater lectionis.
Ste Walch
Post Reply