Decalogue pronunciation is influenced by cantillation

[bdenckla]

I'm no expert on Ashkenaz pronunciation but I'd say that the TSere should end with a Y sound.

Yeah, ArtScroll Ashkenaz transliterates tsere as "ay" as in (some) English "pay" but I'm not clear whether they are proposing a diphthong or a pure (single) vowel sound. Also I'm chronically confused about what the (subtle) difference is between:

1. a vowel plus the IPA vowel "i" (i.e. a _i diphthong)
2. a vowel plus the IPA consonant "j"

E.g. in IPA, adonai vs adonaj.

[ducky]

As far as I know, the Y is heard.
For example: the word ספר would be "seyfer".
And the first word in the bible בראשית would sound as "bereyshis"

As for adonai...

It is with Qamats (when it's referring to God)
So it ends with "O".
And the Y at the end is heard anyway (as in Sephardic).
So maybe e I didn't understand what you're saying.

[bdenckla]

As far as I know, the Y is heard.
For example: the word ספר would be "seyfer".
And the first word in the bible בראשית would sound as "bereyshis"

For now, it may be sufficient that tsere always gets "e" (or "E") with an acute accent, i.e. é or É. If that is understood to be a diphthong in Ashkenaz and a pure vowel in Sefarad, that's not great, but at least all the information that is needed is there.

Actually I already have a note to myself to look into whether tsere-yod is sometimes a diphthong in Sefarad. So this question of tsere diphthongs needs further investigation on both sides. I've recorded this Ashkenaz issue for further investigation, too. Thanks for raising this issue.

[bdenckla]

As for adonai...

It is with Qamats (when it's referring to God)
So it ends with "O".
And the Y at the end is heard anyway (as in Sephardic).

Sorry, I jumped from the specific issue of Ashkenaz tsere to the general issue of how best to represent diphthongs involving yod in any dialect. I happened to give an example from Sefardic pronunciation (adonai/adonaj) but the same question (_i vs _j) applies to Ashkenazic pronunciation (adonɔi/adonɔj).

(Above I use ɔ (open-mid back rounded vowel) for Ashkenaz qamats, but I'm not at all sure of that. Luckily, that's not the point/question at hand: the question at hand is _i vs _j, whatever the "mystery vowel" (underscore placeholder) may be. One of the advantages of not using IPA in my (Jacobson's) transliteration is people are free to interpret it as they wish. Of course, this ambiguity also, arguably, lessens the value of the transliteration, but I think on net, it is a win. I think a particularly good example of this is "r"/"R": it basically means "substitute in your preferred 'r' here.")

[ducky]

The letter Y in the "Tsere+Y" in Sephardi/Modern/Yemenite is not heard.
(And of course, any letter in the middle of the word with no vowel-sign linked to it is silent).

The Y in "qamats/Patah+Y" is heard at the end of the word
It is not heard in the middle of the word if it doesn't have a vowel-sign linked to it.

[bdenckla]

The letter Y in the "Tsere+Y" in Sephardi/Modern/Yemenite is not heard.
(And of course, any letter in the middle of the word with no vowel-sign linked to it is silent).

Woops, I messed up, the issue I was concerned with:

• Concerns some cases of segol-yod, not tsere-yod.
• Concerns cases where what would normally be a diphthong becomes a pure (single) vowel sound, not the other way around.

(Jacobson page 277.)

[ducky]

But I don't see any issue here to concern about.
The "tsere" and the "Segol" are the same for that matter.
And according to the page you posted here, it also says that the Y is silent.
So I don't understand what is the doubted issue here.

[bdenckla]

But I don't see any issue here to concern about.
The "tsere" and the "Segol" are the same for that matter.
And according to the page you posted here, it also says that the Y is silent.
So I don't understand what is the doubted issue here.

My concern is: Jacobson is implying that these cases of silent yod in segol-yod are exceptional. This leads me to the question, what are the non-exceptional cases, i.e. the cases in which the yod in segol-yod is NOT silent?

I find the following candidates for non-silent yod in segol-yod:

• One case, כׇּל־גֶּיא֙ in Isaiah 40:4, though the א complicates matters.
• 135 cases of segol-yod followed by:
  • some kind of nun with a qamats
  • after that, maybe a ה or an א (the א case is rare)

("Some kind of nun" meaning final, non-final without dagesh, or non-final with dagesh (the non-final with dagesh case is rare).) (I have more details in this GitHub issue.)

E.g.

• תְסֻבֶּ֙ינָה֙ (107 cases like this)
• וַתַּשְׁקֶ֧יןָ (23 cases like this)
• עֲלֶ֥ינָא (3 cases like this, all in Ezra (Aramaic?))
• תַּעֲנֶ֑ינָּה (2 cases like this)

[ducky]

The Tiberian Masora linked a vowel sign for every letter that is pronounced (except for the last letter that doesn't have to be signed).
If the letter Y that is in the middle of the word was pronounced, then it would have had a Sheva.

*****
This is the formal reading.


And, of course, in the common talk, each one can speak in his own nuances.
For example, if someone would like to pronounce the Y when he says בֵּיצִים, then fine.
But the formal reading, is to not pronounce the letters that are not marked with a vowel.

[bdenckla]

If the letter Y that is in the middle of the word was pronounced, then it would have had a Sheva.

That's how my transliteration currently works. I'm just wondering if that's what Jacobson intended in those cases I currently transliterate as _E-na (where _ (underscore) is a placeholder for any consonant). I.e. would he expect _Ey-na in some or all of those cases? (Or _EN-na vs _EYN-na for those two cases that, surprisingly, have a dagesh in the nun.) At some point I will ask him.