IPA symbols for practico and van pelt

[Jason Hare]

There is no /ʌ/ sound in Hebrew.

[Isaac Fried]

/ʌ/ is a short vowel sound pronounced with the jaw mid to open, the tongue central or slightly back, and the lips relaxed: As you can see from examples, /ʌ/ is normally spelt with 'u', 'o' or a combination of these.
Try it; jaw, tongue, lips, and all.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

[ralph]

i'm fine with ɑ ... and i'd go with ɑ... as pratico-pelt have it.. and as wikipedia and other sources have it.

But check this out re ɑ

http://ipa-reader.xyz/

If you choose Amy English British and enter /fɑr/ or /fɑ/ it sounds the same.. (The regional british pronunciation of English seems to have an issue in that /fɑ/ and /fɑr/ sound the same, the 'r' is skipped.. ) but that aside

Now try /fɑ/ pick Sally american English

Which /ɑ/ would you say it is..

Sally English American /fɑ/

or Amy English British /fɑ/

?

[Jason Hare]

Jason, it's entirely possible it goes that far back. There was a parallel movement in Greek away from w to v. For example eu from ew to ev

That's true, by the way. I'm trying to adjust to αυ as av, ευ as ev, etc. in my Greek pronunciation. So, I'm working on going toward pronouncing Δαυίδ and Δαβίδ the same, as /ðɑ.ˈβiːð/ (rather than /dɑʊ.ˈwiːd/, as I was taught some twenty years ago). It's hard to break old habits.

[ralph]

The yod is simply marking the plural. It's present so that there is a visual distinction between סוּסוֹ "his horse" and סוּסָיו "his horses." You pronounce it as if the yod were not there. So, it can appear as סוּסָו (written defectively) in the Bible without affecting either the meaning or the pronunciation.

Vav was probably v in Hebrew long before the Middle Ages. We know that the word "back" is spelled both as גַּב and as גַּו in the text of the Bible (link). I don't know if that's explicable apart from the letter ו being pronounced like ב, which allows gav to come across both as גַּב and as גַּו in Hebrew.

There are those who advocate a w sound based on Arabic and other Semitic languages. It seems more reasonable, though, to look at the evidence for long-standing pronunciation within Hebrew if there is evidence. What we have actually shows that vav has been v since at least the Second-Temple Period.

I'm not aware of any academics that posit a v as the ancient pronunciation.

I have heard(I think from an academic), that it was pronounced as V by some in israel maybe in mishnaic times. So maybe so.. (I'm curious what evidence you have seen on that, re 2nd temple period / mishnaic times ?)

I am aware that he kaufmann manuscript of the mishna has yavneh spelt sometimes vav sometimes vet, but that's 9th/10th C. and is just one word.

I recall hearing the argument about the 6th letter being v in biblical times, and the argument using the example of Gav, (where the hebrew bible has Gav sometimes with vet sometimes with vav), the argument is used by Nehemia Gordon(but he puts out a lot of incorrect information and doesn't correct it and none of his research on this issue makes it or would make it into any academic journal, and any academics i've spoken to including some from the organisation he claims agrees with him (academy of the hebrew language), do not agree with him at all). Dictionaries put the two gavs as having different roots. So the reply from academics is that it's two similar words. And you'd need more than just one example, to make a good argument for it. Where, if anywhere, did you pick up the argument re Gav? (as justification for the 6th letter being v in biblical times)?

[ducky]

Hi Ralph,

The assumption is that in some places in Israel, the 6th letter was pronounced as V (together with the soft B).
And that is based on the texts of books in the Mishnaic times (not just the Mishna), and not Only in Hebrew, but also in the text of The Aramaic of the Jews in Israel.

Also, this switch is found in the Samaritan text too.

***
In the Bible, it is hard to find these kinds of switches that can be decisive.
One word that seems to have this switch is פרור/פרבר
2Kings 23:11 בפרורים
1Ch 26:18 לפרבר

And some words may also have this switch, but it can also be seen in another way.

But it seems that in the Biblical era the distinction was clear between the sounds.

*****
In the texts that are after the biblical era, there are more switches in more words, and even in the same sentence, the same word is written differently.

And as I said before, also in the Israeli Aramaic, and also in the Samaritan text.

Three examples in the Samaritan text:
Gen. 25:8 ויגבע (for ויגוע)
Ex. 2:29 השוי (for השבי)
Gen. 8:12 היבנה (for היונה)
The last case is interesting, because the letter ו in the word היונה(=hayona) actually acts as a vowel letter, and so, how is it that the Samaritan replaced it for a consonant ב.
And I saw that in Syrian, this word does also have a form of a consonant W - and so they pronounced it in that form, and with that, the switch happened between the consonant W and the consonant B/V.

In another book, I saw that this switch wasn't found in other manuscripts such as DSS, so it seems that this switch didn't happen there.

**
And just another note since you wrote that Kaufman is about 9th/10th C.
The study of the Mishnaic tongue and its era sees Kaufman and other manuscripts as loyal to the tradition of speech in the Mishnaic era. And that is based on a lot of factors and evidence that shows that.
You should not treat it as if it represents the "style" of its time it was made.
After all, and that is a basic thing, its "style" doesn't fit its time. And if it was, then we wouldn't find these switches since at that time, there were no switches like that at all. Plus another stuff that shows that the natural way (and not the Hebrew that was already grammaticalized at that time.

[ralph]

.........

you mean Ex 12:29 not 2:29..

I'll add vowels to your masoretic examples, for clarity..

2Kings 23:11 בַּפַּרְוָרִים
1Ch 26:18 לַפַּרְבָּר

Three examples in the Samaritan text:
Gen. 25:8 ויגבע-samaritan, (for וַיִּגְוַע-masoretic)
Ex. 12:29 השוי-samaritan (for הַשְּׁבִי-masoretic)
Gen. 8:12 היבנה-samaritan (for הַיּוֹנָה-masoretic)


Very interesting examples..

And I see that it is the same noun Strongs H6503
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... 6503&t=WLC

I recall with the example some give of gav/gab(not one you gave), when I looked it up in BDB(brown driver briggs), it showed as two different roots. Is it your view that the gav/gab example are two different roots and thus would be a bad example?

I have heard that there are scribal errors where לא(no) and לו(to him/it) get mixed..

Are there scholarly journals that have made a case for a 6th letter as 'v' in biblical times?

If you found those examples yourself then is your research quite original, or has the research already been done and documented in journals?

In the case of the Kaufmann Mishna manuscript.. certainly the material is from earlier than the date it was written.. But I guess it's hard to know if a spelling variation or spelling variations, from near the time it was written crept into it.

I heard that the Saadia Gaon said these letters are the same as in arabic and these letters are different.. and based on that we can determine that his view was of the 6th letter being w(as in arabic).

[ducky]

I recall with the example some give of Gav/Gab (not one you gave), when I looked it up in BDB(brown driver Briggs), it showed as two different roots. Is it your view that the Gav/Gab example are two different roots and thus would be a bad example?

In my last post, I wrote that some bring some cases about switching the ו/ב in the Bible, but I didn't write them because I don't think these examples can prove that there was a systematic switch between the two letters.

גו and גב was one of the examples,
גוי נתתי למכים
על גבי חרשו חרשים

But I don't think we should use these examples as "proof" or something like that.

We can see that there are more switches in the bible with other close letters. Like the B/P.
But we won't claim that the B sounded like the P as a "rule". It is just a matter of accent.

Also, you can see that the same man who is called זמרי is also called זבדי.
So here we see that the ב=מ and the ד=ר.
It was a matter of accent.

Also, the word ארגמן in Akkadian and Hebrew is written with M, But Aramaic writes it with a W (also found in the Bible).
So once again, it is a matter of accent.

And basically, and allow me not to expand on that, a lot of the different roots that look completely different from each other are actually the same root with an old difference of accent. And only in time, when the language was evolved, the different accents were "accepted", naturally, to be whole different roots.

So when it comes to the Biblical era, I think that it is very hard to make a statement.
(And basically, we need to wonder when was the letter B started to be pronounced airy as BH)

So I think that When speaking about the pronunciation of the 6th letter as V, I think it is better to focus on the post-biblical era.

I have heard that there are scribal errors where לא(no) and לו(to him/it) get mixed.

You can see the switches in the Ktiv/Kre notes.
But it is not a must to call these switches scribal errors.

Some explain this kind of switch and say that the לו and לא come in the same meaning, even though the spelling is not the same.
After all, we can see that the Aleph comes sometimes to close the "o" vowel. So we see:
ובו/ויבוא
פה/פו/פא
מחטו/מחטא
רבו/רבוא
אפו/אפוא
Even the name of the city לו דבר/לא דבר

So some say that the fact that sometimes there is a switch between לו and לא is just a matter of spelling with the same meaning and not a scribal error.

Are there scholarly journals that have made a case for the 6th letter as 'V' in biblical times?

Not that I know of.
And I don't think there is.
The behavior of the 6th letter is a support for the W sound.
The W can act as a consonant and can act as a vowel.
And if it was a V - as a pure consonant - it wouldn't behave as it does (for example, diphthong, or acting as a vowel letter).

If you found those examples yourself then is your research quite original, or has the research already been done and documented in journals?

Research about the switch between ב/ו was already done.
It is not a big subject and there is not very much to talk about it. Only to look at the unexpected examples and assume.
Usually, when I want to read about it, I go to books about the Mishnaic tongue and its era, and books about Masora.
And it shows the switches in manuscripts, and from that, each one can get his assumption.

In the case of the Kaufmann Mishna manuscript.. certainly, the material is from earlier than the date it was written. But I guess it's hard to know if a spelling variation or spelling variations, from near the time it was written crept into it.

Actually, one of the things that supports the loyalty of the Mishnaic manuscripts (as Kaufmann) is the fact that there are words that come in different forms than the ones in the bible. And then these Mishnaic forms are found elsewhere (other 2nd temple authentic texts, or in archeology, and also in Greek translation that support it (in this cases it is more about the vowels).
And so, if the manuscript would write in an artificial way, then it would fit the Biblical fashion. But instead, it shows that it was loyal to the natural way that was alive back then.

I heard that Saadia Gaon said these letters are the same as in Arabic and these letters are different. and based on that we can determine that his view was of the 6th letter being w (as in Arabic).

Saadia Gaon, in his grammar book, writes about the Shewa (in Hebrew: שוא) that "~some of the people in Iraq heard the pronunciation from the people in Israel, and mistakenly thought the W as V, and pronounced it as "Sheva~".

Basically what he's saying is that the people of Israel pronounced the vowel name as "Sheva", and the people in Iraq heard it from them, and thought that the sound is V. And so since they (the people in Iraq) pronounced the 6th letter as W, they understood that the vowel name that they heard (Sheva) is written with letter ב (since their 6th letter was only W), and so they pronounced it as שבא (and this spelling is found also in old texts).
I guess that it was also made sense to them since it was accepted as a "resting vowel" (and the root can fit).
But Saadia Gaon was against that, and his view was that the 6th letter should be pronounced as W, and he wrote only the form of שוא in all of his texts.

That shows that in his time, the 6th letter was pronounced as V in Israel (and there are more books that say that also).
But notice that his time is way after the Mishnaic time.

[Jason Hare]

It's pronounced as av. For instance, סוּסָיו is read as IPA /su.'sɑv/.

I wouldn't get too hung up on pronouncing it like the authors of that textbook. Their pronunciation is very American. (I'm being political.)

Reading through this thread, I think I was not understood when I said that "their pronunciation is very American." What I meant is that Americans tend to have an accent in Hebrew, and they sound quite a bit different from native speakers of the language.

An example of how Hebrew-speaking Americans sound to Israelis was parodied in the television show היהודים באים in a clip that you can view here. I wasn't being mean or actually political when I said "is very American." I was just saying that it doesn't sound authentic to the Hebrew language. It sounds foreign. Van Pelt's pronunciation of Hebrew sounds very foreign indeed. There was never a time in the history of the language (as far I'm aware) in which pataḥ sounded like the a in "apple." I'm not sure why seminaries teach that in America. I've demonstrated it in this voice note, and you can hear it in that professor's lessons here, in which he treats every pataḥ as an /æ/ ("a" in American "apple" or "fat").

[ralph]

Reading through this thread, I think I was not understood when I said that "their pronunciation is very American." What I meant is that Americans tend to have an accent in Hebrew, and they sound quite a bit different from native speakers of the language.

An example of how Hebrew-speaking Americans sound to Israelis was parodied in the television show היהודים באים in a clip that you can view here. I wasn't being mean or actually political when I said "is very American." I was just saying that it doesn't sound authentic to the Hebrew language. It sounds foreign. Van Pelt's pronunciation of Hebrew sounds very foreign indeed. There was never a time in the history of the language (as far I'm aware) in which pataḥ sounded like the a in "apple." I'm not sure why seminaries teach that in America. I've demonstrated it in this voice note, and you can hear it in that professor's lessons here, in which he treats every pataḥ as an /æ/ ("a" in American "apple" or "fat").

Your dig at them is inaccurate on many levels, and totally not relevant to the question. Even if it were the case that the authors in person were to pronounce 'a' like the 'a' in cat(and he or they may well do)

A) The question referred to "the pronunciation scheme used in Pratico / Van Pelt’s grammar"

B) The official Audio CD that is referred to near the end of the book, Is read by Jonathan Pennington (Not either of the authors), and IIRC when I heard him he didn't do any 'a' like the 'a' in cat.

C) The URL you refer to of the person you refer to as"that professor", is not either of the authors.

D) You didn't address whether the grammar itself says to pronounce patach like the 'a' in cat. (Funnily enough it does, but then you scratch your head as to why anybody might say it like that, when actually lots of the classical biblical hebrew grammars have this issue, so it's beyond just how an individual author personally pronounces it)

Now , as I said, it wouldn't surprise me if one of the authors does make that error with 'a', when they speak, but the question didn't refer to any audio of them. The question Very Clearly, referred to the " Pratico / Van Pelt’s grammar" You have not shown anything incorrect in that grammar. (I actually have, but the issue is across many classic grammars not just theirs).

And the audio that their grammar does reference, is not read by them, but by Jonathan Pennington. And if you want to say that that audio makes that mistake then fine though you should say so. But I don't think it does. I have listened to the audio by Jonathan Pennington and the words I heard him pronounce, he pronounced the Patach like the 'a' in 'aunt' so, fine.

All that being said.. There may well be an error in their grammar(there is), though you didn't reference it.

On Page 10, of their grammar (BBH), it refers to "short vowels". patach, and says it is like the 'a' in bat.

But funnily enough it's not just their grammar.

Lambdin (Which I think you may have referred to sometimes)

On Page XVII (I suppose for patach), writes that "a", is like father or that.

I don't know why Lambdin says "that", if that sound is not in biblical hebrew? (Lambdin doesn't mention the vowel names, but maybe he has a patach in mind there)? Maybe you know?

By the way, Modern Israeli native pronunciation is a bit odd anyway because they do kamatz(gadol) and patach the same. I'm all for pointing out flaws in peoples pronunciations but one should also note inadequacies or weaknesses in one's own pronunciation whether it be not meeting to the defined standard for it, or whether the standard for it is itself problematic.

Seow's revised grammar has it right re modern hebrew, patach and kamatz(gadol) like "car" (one could also say 'aunt')

Seow's original grammar has it wrong , it says Patach is like "am", (but it has kamatz-gadol right, "father")

Davidson's grammar has it the wrong way, ON page 15 it has Kamatz right ("calf") but it has patach wrong ("fat")

Biblical hebrew step by step by Menachem Mansour has it right re them.. re modern hebrew.

Page Kelly has it right re modern hebrew pronunciation.

So,

The Original Seow's grammar, AND Davidson's grammar, AND possibly Lambdin(or to an extent Lambdin), have the same issue with patach.

And, not only the 3rd edition of Davidson has the issue The 27th edition , Davidson's Introductory Hebrew Grammar by James D Martin, also has the issue. See page 15, it says Patah, as "hat".

So if you are scratching your head trying to find where the issue comes from then have a look at the classic grammars of biblical hebrew!