Re: [leining] Modern Hebrew / Israeli pronunciation

[Avram Herzog]

Hi Jay,

I too prefer the term Modern Hebrew (or in Hebrew, Ivrit Modernit.)  As you state, "modern" does not necessarily connote immediate recency.  To me, it's understood in its context--a contrast to Biblical Hebrew.  Viewed that way, Modern Hebrew does not have to be "new" at all.

Avi H

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 9:11 AM, <jaybr...@gmail.com> wrote:

I think both of these terms imply a recency that simply does not exist; as Rivka pointed out, this pronunciation has existed for centuries.  I favor the former term in the sense that "modern" does not always mean "contemporary".  For example, I have heard the term "modern history" used in reference to events since 1648, which marked the end of the Thirty Years' War, and, in the Peace of Westphalia, initiated the modern notion of the nation-state. The latter term could be misconstrued to mean that we are simply using the daily vernacular of Israelis to read biblical texts.

Essentially, we who employ this pronunciation rely on a scholarly reconstruction of the Hebrew vowel system.  In that sense, it is "scholarly" Hebrew, but use of that term would imply, G-d forbid, that those who maintain ancestral minhagim are not being scholarly.  I would also shy away from calling it "reconstructionist" Hebrew, though some on this forum might agree with that term, as it fits nicely with "Zionist language" and "minhag shtus".

So, for those who are at least sympathetic, is there a better term?

j

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leining" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leining+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lei...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/leining.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Yodan]

While we (or some of us) can agree on what we mean when we say “modern Hebrew” – this issue comes up over and over (in this group and elsewhere) and is not universally understood. However, I don’t have an appealing solution to this problem – a universally accepted, accurate, neutral term - but here are some thoughts.

 

In my book I use the term “Israeli Pronunciation” (with capitalized Pronunciation) because it is a reasonable term when referring to Torah-reading Pronunciations – e.g. Masoretic, Sepahrdi, Ashkeanzi, and Yemenite.

 

Note that when I say Israeli Pronunciation, I’m not referring to how some (many?) Israelis speak when using informal Hebrew – SHOMU SHAMAYIM!

 

Likewise, Ashkanazi Pronunciation refers to Torah-reading Pronunciation, not to Ashkenazi Hebrew, which is quite different because many of the words are pronounced in Mil’el accentuation, even when they (normally – unless there is Nasog Ahor) have Milra accentuation in the Tanakh. (If you like Bialik’s poetry – read it in Ashkenazi Hebrew and see how much more delightful it is! SHAlom RAV SHUvekh tziPORAH nehMEdet… )

 

I agree with Jay that “modern” in not “contemporary”, but the tendency is to view them as (almost?) synonymous.

 

May I suggest the term “post-Middle Ages” or “enlightenment era” or “modern Biblical Hebrew”? OK, I’m kidding… I think these are correct terms, but who is going to use them?

 

 

---

From: lei...@googlegroups.com [mailto:lei...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of jaybr...@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 6:12 AM
To: leining
Subject: [leining] Modern Hebrew / Israeli pronunciation

 

I think both of these terms imply a recency that simply does not exist; as Rivka pointed out, this pronunciation has existed for centuries.  I favor the former term in the sense that "modern" does not always mean "contemporary".  For example, I have heard the term "modern history" used in reference to events since 1648, which marked the end of the Thirty Years' War, and, in the Peace of Westphalia, initiated the modern notion of the nation-state. The latter term could be misconstrued to mean that we are simply using the daily vernacular of Israelis to read biblical texts.

Essentially, we who employ this pronunciation rely on a scholarly reconstruction of the Hebrew vowel system.  In that sense, it is "scholarly" Hebrew, but use of that term would imply, G-d forbid, that those who maintain ancestral minhagim are not being scholarly.  I would also shy away from calling it "reconstructionist" Hebrew, though some on this forum might agree with that term, as it fits nicely with "Zionist language" and "minhag shtus".

So, for those who are at least sympathetic, is there a better term?

j

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leining" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leining+u...@googlegroups.com.

[Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon]

Regarding bialik, it isn't only the accent that is relevant. Someone once pointed out a line of his about a cat resting on a mat. The line is much more restful with the soft chasul than the rather harsher chatul. 

Jeremy 

[Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon]

The features that distinguish Israeli pronunciation go beyond the 5/5 vowels, which is just Sephardic Hebrew, to consonants as well. And the feature we have been discussing here is actually a feature that distinguishes it from other 5/5 pronunciations. So I don't think diplopentavocalic will do, wonderfully clumsy as it is. 

Jeremy

On Aug 24, 2017, at 3:59 PM, "jaybr...@gmail.com" <jaybr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Since the emphasis of Israeli Pronunciation seems to be the restoration of the dual (long and short) 5-vowel system, I would call it the diplopentavocalic pronunciation.  Catchy, no?

Also, I hate to be pedantic (or, worse, just plain wrong), but wouldn't Bialik have said nehMEdes?

j

[Yodan]

WOW! Good question re Bialik! If we go this rout, it would be SHAWlom RAWV SHUvekh tziPOraw nekhMEdes…  OY! I like it best when it’s read in Israeli Pronunciation with Mil’el accentuation! But I now see that it’s ilegit! But because it’s not Torah-reading, I suppose it’s kosher!

 

---

From: lei...@googlegroups.com [mailto:lei...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of jaybr...@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 1:00 PM
To: leining
Cc: yo...@yodanpublishing.com
Subject: Re: [leining] Modern Hebrew / Israeli pronunciation

Since the emphasis of Israeli Pronunciation seems to be the restoration of the dual (long and short) 5-vowel system, I would call it the diplopentavocalic pronunciation.  Catchy, no?

Also, I hate to be pedantic (or, worse, just plain wrong), but wouldn't Bialik have said nehMEdes?

j

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 12:45:47 PM UTC-7, Yodan wrote:

[shmuel.fr...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 8:45:47 PM UTC+1, Yodan wrote:

While we (or some of us) can agree on what we mean when we say “modern Hebrew” – this issue comes up over and over (in this group and elsewhere) and is not universally understood. However, I don’t have an appealing solution to this problem – a universally accepted, accurate, neutral term - but here are some thoughts.

 

Here are three terms that seem clear to me

-Israeli Hebrew

-Biblical Hebrew

-Views on biblical hebrew from grammarians of this/that period e.g. 1600-1800.

Those are all completely clear.

But the term "modern hebrew" has become very ambiguous, the way it has been used in the group. 

In one post you wrote " the Kamatz vowels according to modern Hebrew "

And IIRC when you wrote modern hebrew there, you might have meant (and at least often or always have meant),   the views of grammarians of 1600-1800 , on biblical hebrew, but that wasn't clear to me until I questioned you on that. But if you'd said grammarians of biblical hebrew, or later grammarians or 1600-1800 grammarians of biblical hebrew, or named them or whatever, then any of that would be clearer than using the term modern hebrew to refer to biblical hebrew or using the term modern hebrew to refer to grammarians views on biblical hebrew.

If the term "modern hebrew" is ever used to refer to the views of 'modern' grammarians on biblical hebrew, then the term "modern hebrew" becomes too ambiguous to be used and understood.. And anyhow  since it has perhaps been used that way, there are clearer terms than that, as suggested.

[shmuel.fr...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 4:44:56 AM UTC+1, jaybr...@gmail.com wrote:

>Biblical Hebrew

Biblical Hebrew is the language of the Bible, regardless of the pronunciation. 

yes i'm aware of that, I didn't say otherwise.

the reason why I wrote the term "biblical hebrew" was that in contrast to the term "modern hebrew", we all agree what biblical hebrew is referring to, but there has been some ambiguity over  what modern hebrew has referred to.

the fact that you just told me what biblical hebrew referred to, and it's exactly what I meant by it, shows that even if you couldn't see my point, you understood exactly what I meant by the term, so the term itself is totally on point, unambiguous.

 

For example, if someone leins with Ashkenazi Hebrew pronunciation, they are still reading a Biblical Hebrew passage.  So, I would not agree that this term applies to the pronunciation derived by grammarians of recent centuries.

There are unambiguous terms for these things.  

-Ashkenazi pronunciation

-Sephardi pronunciation

-Israeli pronunciation

Regarding the term "Ashkenazi Pronunciation", The only way that could get get messed up is if  somebody says ashkenazi pronunciation they mean the yiddish type way of speaking hebrew like Ya'kuv.  Perhaps that'd be called Yiddish pronunciation of Hebrew or Yiddishized Hebrew.   But anyhow nobody has yet misinterpreted the term "ashkenazi pronunciation" to mean that.  I don't agree with the term "Ashkenazi Hebrew" that  Yodan/Rivka mentioned, I don't agree with the  term  "Ashkenazi Hebrew" being used to refer to anything 'cos it seems so bizarre and ambiguous.    

There can be an intended/understood ambiguity with the term Ashkenazi pronunciation, in that it's a generalisation and it doesn't specify which particular one, as cholams can differ, but that can be intentional.. because normally when we speak of ashkenazi pronunciation we aren't communicating about the different variations of it, and mean 'any'.   Similarly with Sephardi pronunciation.   And if somebody wanted to start distinguishing between Mizrahi and Sephardi then I guess it'd make more sense to state what country they mean.   I haven't yet seen misunderstandings  arise from the term "Sephardi pronunciation".

Israeli pronunciation, nobody has yet misunderstood it to mean leining in israeli slang but if they did then we could distinguish between formal israeli pronunciation and informal. Or write that you think everybody here, particularly as the context is a leining group,  when they speak of israeli pronunciation means not the slang Israeli pronunciation.

I'm addressing points where there have been misunderstandings due to ambiguous terminology..

e.g. the term "modern" is unnecessary and has turned out to be ambiguous..  For example, I think Rivka used the term Modern, not to refer to the israeli pronunciation.

Israeli pronunciation when developed. would've perhaps had some element of academic rigour behind it, but it was then and ultimately, based on compromise as well as perhaps scholarly reconstruction. For example academics and with quite a 'back to how it was' philosophy, like rabbi dawidh bar hayyim, think the 6th letter is waw and that the letter Chet was anciently and should thus still now, be  pronounced like the arabic gutteral Chet.   

You yourself may have misunderstood Rivka's use of the term modern, as you write (square brackets added by me) "I think both of these terms[Modern Hebrew / Israeli pronunciation] imply a recency that simply does not exist; as Rivka pointed out, this pronunciation has existed for centuries." and the in the next paragraph, you write "Essentially, we who employ this pronunciation ".  Well, Rivka didn't mean  israeli pronunciation developed by eliezer ben yehuda when she used the term modern, but if I understand you correctly(which is questionable), then that's the one you  seem to have thought she meant when she said modern. 

Also when you say that the term "israeli pronunciation" implies a recency(even with all the ambiguity of what you might mean by implies a recency) - hardly, it says a lot less about time than the term "modern". But also, at least we know what we mean by  the term, even if there was some misunderstanding re time, but I don't think there is a misunderstanding re time with "israeli pronunciation".  If somebody thinks israeli pronunciation didn't exist before 1948 then they'd simply be extremely misinformed but nobody has stated such a thing.   And if somebody thinks that israeli pronunciation was invented completely without looking at existing pronunciation then they'd be wrong as that'd be impossible. There is indeed "a recency to it", *relative to*, ashkenazi and sephardi pronunciation. But the phrase "a recency" on its own, is as ambiguous as modern.

[shmuel.fr...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 11:55:48 AM UTC+1, shmuel.fr...@gmail.com wrote:

For example academics and  ************Purist types*************** with quite a 'back to how it was' philosophy, like rabbi dawidh bar hayyim, think the 6th letter is waw and that the letter Chet was anciently and should thus still now, be  pronounced like the arabic gutteral Chet.   

 two words somehow got deleted from that sentence.. i've added them in with asterisks.