furtive pataH

[Jay Braun]

I've read the discussions on "Patuch Gnuva" with some interest, even amazement, because I never imagined that there was any disagreement, let alone more than one "mesorah", for a purely phonetic feature of Hebrew.  It's difficult to pronounce a pharyngeal or glottal fricative after any vowel except "a" (pataH), so all other vowels glide toward the final consonant with the aid of a furtive, i.e., stealthy, additional sound.  (Linguistic scholars call it a furtive vowel.)

 

For this reason, inserting a glottal stop (an aleph) or a distinct glide ("w" or "y") just seems plain wrong, because one creates an entire syllable where there should be none.

 

A furtive vowel is the phonetic representation of <<<drumroll, please>>> absoluely nothing!  That's why it's furtive.  It reflects the tendency of a speaker to create a diphthong out of the previous vowel as part of the tongue moving lower and backward to produce the last consonant.  Transitioning directly into "a" with no intervening partial closure is not "sloppy", but rather an accurate reflection of a sound that corresponds to no phoneme whatsoever.  Yes, the pataH should be clear because it is part of the mesorah, but it should follow the primary vowel with no interruption.

 

Now I will sit back and enjoy your reactions!

 

-- Jay 

[Joseph Lowinger]

Please see MinHath Shai's comments to Genesis 1:6.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless phone

---

From: Jay Braun <lyng...@gmail.com>

Sender: lei...@googlegroups.com

Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 18:35:09 -0800 (PST)

To: <lei...@googlegroups.com>

ReplyTo: lei...@googlegroups.com

Subject: [leining] furtive pataH

--
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.
To post to this group, send email to lei...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leining?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Poppers, Michael]

Jay wrote:
> I never imagined that there was any disagreement, letalone more than one "mesorah", for a purely phonetic feature of Hebrew. <
Seems like the only point of agreement may be that there cannot be an accent upon the PG.

> For this reason, inserting a glottal stop (an aleph) or a distinct glide("w" or "y") just seems plain wrong <
As Joseph noted in response, see what MS writes, quoting earlier authorities.

All the best from
-- Michael Poppers via BB pager

[Jay Braun]

Very interesting.

 

It appears to me that the MinHath Shai is bringing two attempts to describe, by approximation, the correct way to pronounce such words, with the primary goal being to keep people from pronouncing the consonant before the pataH.  Note his admonition to make the "y" sound "rafeh m'od" -- this is a pretty good description of what I was describing.  When you say "raqia&", some "y" between the i and a is inevitable, but you should not try to produce it.

 

j

[Avram Herzog]

Hi,

Indeed, what I refer to as my practice is exactly what Jay describes here, namely that it sounds as if a w or y is being added, but that's due to the elision, not an intentional addition of the w or y. 

KT,

Avi H

[hobstfeld]

Note that the Minchat Shai states that the Yud sound that is added where in the case of a patach genuva the penultimate word is pointed with a chirik or tzere should be "rafeh m'oid" (as has been noted) "ad she'tirah kimat nach" -- so that it would seem almost silent.  This supports the  view that the mouth should move from an eee sound (in the case of a chirik, for example) to the patach sound without any intervening consonant.  So I was taught, and attempt to execute in ha'azinu - [lo e-lo-h].  In English and modern Hebrew, one expects that each vowel is accompanied by at least one consonant; but I was taught, this is not so in Biblical Hebrew or its predecessor languages. 

Harold

[Joseph Lowinger]

I think  non-hebrew examples of this would be the words Boa and Mia.

--

[Avram Herzog]

Hi,

 

Good examples--and the English pronunciation of Naomi too!

 

KT,

Avi H

 

 

On 02/27/13, Joseph Lowinger<jlowinger@gmail.com> wrote:

 

I think  non-hebrew examples of this would be the words Boa and Mia.

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:47 PM, hobstfeld <hobstfeld@gmail.com> wrote:

Note that the Minchat Shai states that the Yud sound that is added where in the case of a patach genuva the penultimate word is pointed with a chirik or tzere should be "rafeh m'oid" (as has been noted) "ad she'tirah kimat nach" -- so that it would seem almost silent.  This supports the  view that the mouth should move from an eee sound (in the case of a chirik, for example) to the patach sound without any intervening consonant.  So I was taught, and attempt to execute in ha'azinu - [lo e-lo-h].  In English and modern Hebrew, one expects that each vowel is accompanied by at least one consonant; but I was taught, this is not so in Biblical Hebrew or its predecessor languages. 

Harold

On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:35:09 PM UTC-5, Jay Braun wrote:

I've read the discussions on "Patuch Gnuva" with some interest, even amazement, because I never imagined that there was any disagreement, let alone more than one "mesorah", for a purely phonetic feature of Hebrew.  It's difficult to pronounce a pharyngeal or glottal fricative after any vowel except "a" (pataH), so all other vowels glide toward the final consonant with the aid of a furtive, i.e., stealthy, additional sound.  (Linguistic scholars call it a furtive vowel.)

 

For this reason, inserting a glottal stop (an aleph) or a distinct glide ("w" or "y") just seems plain wrong, because one creates an entire syllable where there should be none.

 

A furtive vowel is the phonetic representation of <<<drumroll, please>>> absoluely nothing!  That's why it's furtive.  It reflects the tendency of a speaker to create a diphthong out of the previous vowel as part of the tongue moving lower and backward to produce the last consonant.  Transitioning directly into "a" with no intervening partial closure is not "sloppy", but rather an accurate reflection of a sound that corresponds to no phoneme whatsoever.  Yes, the pataH should be clear because it is part of the mesorah, but it should follow the primary vowel with no interruption.

 

Now I will sit back and enjoy your reactions!

 

-- Jay 

--
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 leining@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leining?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
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 leining@googlegroups.com.

[hobstfeld]

Not sure that the examples given are comparable to Patach Genuva.  Naomi could be pronounced Na-o-mi, boa as bo-a, Mia as me-ah, each without having a vowel without an accompanying consonant.  For the same to be true of  word ruach (wind or spirit), a consonant would need to be added to produce roo-ach or roo-wach.

Harold