how do we know that reish had, two pronunciations BGDKPRT?

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

Re: how do we know that reish had, two pronunciations BGDKPRT?

Post by Jemoh66 »

Jason Hare wrote: Thu Oct 22, 2020 1:25 pm
talmid56 wrote: Thu Oct 22, 2020 9:06 am So would that be a resh with dagesh chazak (forte)? I have never heard of a resh with dagesh lene.
The doubled sound of the resh was before the dagesh mark was introduced to represent the distinction of sounds, so it's probably not useful to think of it in terms of dagesh or no dagesh. Probably the idea of it being doubled, like the distinction between r and rr in Spanish, where we have a basic opposition in words like caro "expensive, dear" and carro "car," like pero "but" and perro "dog." It's possible that the resh was a tap, and the idea of a doubled resh was a trill (like in Spanish).

This is on the assumption that resh was tapped, which I think is a good assumption.
This is a good theory.

As for the question in the post, the r cannot be included with bgdkpt because they are all stops that become continuants when surrounded by vowels (plosive—>fricative). /r/ is a liquid; it cannot undergo the same phonological change since it is already a continuant.

In other words the /r/ cannot take dagesh lene.
Last edited by Jemoh66 on Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:52 am, edited 2 times in total.
Jonathan E Mohler
Studying for a MA in Intercultural Studies
Baptist Bible Theological Seminary
Jemoh66
Posts: 307
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:03 pm

Re: how do we know that reish had, two pronunciations BGDKPRT?

Post by Jemoh66 »

ralph wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 6:27 pm We often hear about BGDKPT letters, but I have heard that Reish is one of them.. BGDKPRT.

There are cases where reish occurs with a dagesh, so that would affect its pronunciation.. I guess if any of them are a dagesh kal then that might prove that reish is part of those letters making it BGDKPRT? What exactly are the lines of evidence that reish has two pronunciations depending on whether it has no dagesh in it(the norm), or has a dagesh in it.

Reish occurs with dagesh 19 times, according to my search, with powergrep, on the xml files of the WLC.

609 Genesis.xml,ch2 v10, <w>וְ/נָהָרּ֙<x>t</x></w>
198040 Samuel_1.xml,ch1 v6, <w>הַרְּעִמָ֑/הּ</w>
201949 Samuel_1.xml,ch10 v24, <w>הַ/רְּאִיתֶם֙</w>
205397 Samuel_1.xml,ch17 v25, <w>הַ/רְּאִיתֶם֙</w>
241600 Kings_2.xml,ch6 v32, <w>הַ/רְּאִיתֶם֙</w>
273346 Chronicles_2.xml,ch26 v10, <w>רַּב֙</w>
281669 Ezra.xml,ch9 v6, <w>רֹּ֔אשׁ</w>
300253 Job.xml,ch39 v9, <w>רֵּ֣ים<x>3</x></w>
308718 Psalms.xml,ch52 v5, <w>רָּ֣ע</w>
324180 Proverbs.xml,ch3 v8, <w>לְ/שָׁרֶּ֑/ךָ</w>
326260 Proverbs.xml,ch11 v21, <w>רָּ֑ע</w>
326873 Proverbs.xml,ch14 v10, <w>מָרַּ֣ת</w>
327084 Proverbs.xml,ch15 v1, <w>רַּ֭ךְ</w>
335691 Song_of_Songs.xml,ch5 v2, <w>שֶׁ/רֹּאשִׁ/י֙</w>
372180 Jeremiah.xml,ch39 v12, <w>רָּ֑ע</w>
378721 Lamentations.xml,ch1 v1, <w>רַּבָּ֣תִי<x>Q</x><x>t</x></w>
385449 Ezekiel.xml,ch16 v4, <w>כָרַּ֣ת</w>
385450 Ezekiel.xml,ch16 v4, <w>שָׁרֵּ֔/ךְ</w>
417205 Habakkuk.xml,ch3 v13, <w>רֹּאשׁ֙</w>

Ralph Zak
Looking at the data, the examples with the definite -ה would be evidence that the resh was not velar. Further evidence then would be words in which they preceding or following consonant was an ayin, especially if the ayin was in fact velar resh of modern Hebrew.
Jonathan E Mohler
Studying for a MA in Intercultural Studies
Baptist Bible Theological Seminary
Charles Loder
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2020 10:17 am

Re: how do we know that reish had, two pronunciations BGDKPRT?

Post by Charles Loder »

Geoffrey Khan has two open access volumes about the Tiberian tradition. Volume 1 discusses the consonants. In short, he describes them as:
(i) Voiced advanced uvular trill [ʀ̟] or advanced uvular frictionless continuant [ʁ ̟] and
(ii) pharyngealized apico-alveolar trill [rˁ]
Khan describes the resh with a dagesh as geminated
So geminated resh ר may be transcribed [ʀʀ̟]̟, e.g. הרְ עמִָ֑הּ [hɑʀʀ̟i̟ʕiːˈmɔːɔh] ‘to irritate her’ (1 Sam. 1.6).
ducky
Posts: 656
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: how do we know that reish had, two pronunciations BGDKPRT?

Post by ducky »

Hi Jonathan,

the H is not a definite article, it is an interrogative particle.
And how does it prove that it is not velar? (not that I think it is velar)

*****
Also, these examples above are with Dagesh forte, and not Qal.

****
and by the way, when there is a form like וי֫סר=vayAsar (with the accent on the "y") it seems as if the R was guttural.
Because the stress "goes backwards"
Like the form of וינח=vayAnah', with the guttural ח.
David Hunter
Jemoh66
Posts: 307
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:03 pm

Re: how do we know that reish had, two pronunciations BGDKPRT?

Post by Jemoh66 »

ducky wrote: Fri Oct 23, 2020 8:35 am Hi Jonathan,

the H is not a definite article, it is an interrogative particle.
And how does it prove that it is not velar? (not that I think it is velar)

*****
Also, these examples above are with Dagesh forte, and not Qal.

****
and by the way, when there is a form like וי֫סר=vayAsar (with the accent on the "y") it seems as if the R was guttural.
Because the stress "goes backwards"
Like the form of וינח=vayAnah', with the guttural ח.
I didn’t look up the context for the -ה prefix. My thought was that after consonants following the definite article are geminized, but in the case of gutturals the the vowel is lengthened instead. So if the resh were like the modern resh somewhere between a French r and an ayin, I would assume they reach would not geminize. This would be evidence of an alveolar resh, and the dagesh would either mean geminization off a trilled resh or the move from tap to trill, as suggested by Jason.

Funny enough I can’t remember if there is geminization following the interrogative ha-. I don’t have a grammar with me right now.

It’s possible that final resh was guttural. There’s no reason to dismiss the theory of both reshes occurring in the language. Although I don’t see where the ancient Hebrew speaker would have needed to do so since they were still pronouncing the ayin. And if the resh was a tap, I don’t see why the tap couldn’t follow the /s/, since the sound is now coming back towards the front (A—>s—>ɾ)
Jonathan E Mohler
Studying for a MA in Intercultural Studies
Baptist Bible Theological Seminary
ducky
Posts: 656
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: how do we know that reish had, two pronunciations BGDKPRT?

Post by ducky »

Hi Jonathan,

R after definite article s also not doubled (just like the guttural letters).

**
After the interrogative H, there is not Dagesh, except for some cases.

***
David Hunter
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1771
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: how do we know that reish had, two pronunciations BGDKPRT?

Post by Isaac Fried »

Jonathan writes,
As for the question in the post, the r cannot be included with bgdkpt because they are all stops that become continuants when surrounded by vowels (plosive—>fricative). /r/ is a liquid; it cannot undergo the same phonological change since it is already a continuant.
In other words the /r/ cannot take dagesh lene.
If so, then the dagesh in the r must be a dagesh forte, since there is nothing in between - it is the one or the other. This is greatly interesting in being a clear instance where the application of sound logic decisively solves a Hebrew grammatical quandary.
Left to ask is if trilling the r or double tapping it fulfills the requirement for gemination. Does Geoffrey Khan's book consider this essential phonological question of the Hebrew language?

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1771
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: how do we know that reish had, two pronunciations BGDKPRT?

Post by Isaac Fried »

Ducky writes
After the interrogative H, there is not Dagesh, except for some cases.
The dagesh has nothing to do with the nature of this H: if it is an interrogative H or if it is a definite article.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com
ducky
Posts: 656
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: how do we know that reish had, two pronunciations BGDKPRT?

Post by ducky »

Hi Isaac,

What do you mean?
David Hunter
Jemoh66
Posts: 307
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:03 pm

Re: how do we know that reish had, two pronunciations BGDKPRT?

Post by Jemoh66 »

I'm currently reading this article, The Nature of Resh in Tiberian Hebrew, by E. J. Revell. Here's the abstract:
Some Tiberian masoretic notices state that resh was pronounced in two different ways, determined by the preceding or following consonants. This phenomenon was never marked in Tiberian texts, so presumably the notices were recopied only as testimony to the almost legendary linguistic purity and precision of the Tiberian scholars. In any case the technical details presented became confused in later notices. Nehemiah Allony has recently collected the available material and studied its development, but he does not deal with the question of the historical value of the information. The problem is that later notices present the phenomenon as characteristic of the Tiberian reading tradition, while the earliest example states that it was not. The present article argues that this was due to faulty historical reconstruction. Some works (such as the "Sefer Yezirah") referred to two pronunciations of resh because this was characteristic of the peripheral area in which it originated (cf. the Babylonian pointing). This was understood by the Tiberians to describe the early pronunciation in Eretz Israel. It was found that Tiberians pronounced resh in two ways in daily speech (though not in their reading tradition), and this was taken as a vestige of the (supposed) earlier phenomenon. Consequently the description of this two-fold resh was taken as a record of the (original) Tiberian reading tradition, although there is no evidence of any attempt to introduce this feature into the tradition as it then was. Resh at that time (and earlier) was evidently articulated at the back of the mouth in Eretz Israel although not (as far as we know) elsewhere. The notice appears to reflect the fact that, in the daily speech of Tiberias, when pronounced with consonants articulated at the front of the mouth, resh was also articulated at the front, as was usual in all cases in other areas of the Near East.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1486373
Jonathan E Mohler
Studying for a MA in Intercultural Studies
Baptist Bible Theological Seminary
Post Reply