The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew. Volume I
|I.1. Consonants
Texte intégral
I.1.1. ʾAlef א ( א ָ ל ֶ ף )
1Glottal plosive [ʔ]
2Consonantal ʾalef occurs in the following contexts:
In the onset of a syllable at the beginning of a word, e.g.
[ʔɔːˈmaːaR̟] ‘he said’ (Gen. 3.16),
[ʔƐloːˈhiːim] ‘God’ (Gen. 1.1).
In the onset of a syllable in the middle of a word after a silent shewa, e.g.
[vaɟɟivˈʔaːa∫] ‘and it became foul’ (Exod. 7.21).
In the onset of a syllable in the middle of a word after a vowel, a ḥaṭef vowel or vocalic shewa, e.g.
[jɔːˈviːʔuː] ‘they bring’ (Exod. 16.5),
[ʔaʔazzƐrˁˈχɔː] ‘I gird you’ (Isa. 45.5) מ ְ א ֺ֑ ד [moˈʔoːoð] ‘very’ (Gen. 1.31).
In the coda of a syllable in the middle of a word, e.g. יו ֶ א ְ ס ֹ֤ ר [vaɟɟƐʔˈsoːorˁ] ‘and he tied’ (Gen. 46.29).
3In the Standard Tiberian tradition consonantal ʾalef in the middle of a word between vowels is marked with dagesh in four places:
- וַיָּבִ֥יאִוּ לִ֥וּ ‘and they brought to him’ (Gen. 43.26)
- וַיָּבִ֙יאִוּ לָ֜בוּ ‘and they brought to us’ (Ezra 8.18)
- הָּבִ֣יאּוּ ׀ לֶ֣הֶט ‘you shall bring bread’ (Lev. 23.17)
- לֹ֣א רֻאּֽוּ ‘they were not seen’ (Job 33.21)
- 1 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.2.
4These four cases are specified in Masoretic treatises and Masoretic notes. They are referred to, for example, in the Masoretic treatise Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ:1
It has been said that dagesh is placed in ʾalef in some specific places in Scripture, namely in the following four cases:
‘and they brought him the present’ (Gen. 43.26),
‘and they brought to us by the hand of our God’ (Ezra 8.18),
׀ ‘from you dwellings you shall bring’ (Lev. 23.17),
‘and his bones, which were not seen, are laid bare’ (Job 33.21).
5Some examples of references to the four places in Masoretic notes include the following:
- 2 Ginsburg (1880, §5), source: Masora magna in British Library, Harley 1528 (fourteenth century, Spa (...)
- 3 Ginsburg (1905, 2), source: Masora magna in the Second Rabbinic Bible (Venice 1516–17, Bomberg) to (...)
There are three occurrences of ʾalef with dagesh in a particular lexical item (viz. derivatives of the root אוב ‘to come’), these being in the verses
‘You shall bring from your dwellings two loaves of bread to be waved’ (Lev. 23.17),
‘they brought to him the present which they had in their hand’ (Gen. 43.26),
‘they brought to us’ (Ezra 8.18), and one (case of ʾalef with dagesh) in another word, (in the verse)
‘and his bones which were not seen stick out’ (Job 33.21).2
One of four ʾalefs with dagesh in Scripture.3
- 4 I am grateful to Ben Kantor for drawing these to my attention.
6These show that the occurrence of dagesh in ʾalef in these specific places was fixed in the Tiberian tradition. In some of the early Standard Tiberian codices, however, dagesh is marked in ʾalef also elsewhere in addition to these canonical four places. This applies even to L, where it occurs in the following two additional places:4
L: Ruth 2.10: ‘and I’
L: Ruth 2.11: ‘and you left your father’
7These two additional occurrences of dagesh in ʾalef in L are not referred to in the Masoretic notes, which indicates that they were not canonical in the Tiberian tradition. In the manuscript C there are numerous additional cases of ʾalef marked with dagesh, none of which are referred to in the Masoretic notes (Yeivin 1980, 285), e.g.
C: Hag. 1.1: ‘Shealtiel’ (L [BHS]:
)
C: Jer. 38.12: ‘rags’ (L [BHS]:
)
C: Isa. 51.19: ‘the things that befall you’ (L [BHS]:
)
8Ginsburg (1905, 2) draws attention to the existence of some Masoretic notes in European manuscripts that refer to a greater number of instances of dagesh in ʾalef than the canonical four. These must reflect the awareness of a greater extent of marking the dagesh in some manuscripts.
In manuscripts with Non-Standard Tiberian vocalization, the marking of dagesh in consonantal ʾalef is very frequent. In the Codex Reuchlinianus this is the general rule with only a minority of exceptions. In the single verse Isa. 37.33, for instance, we find: ‘he said’ (L [BHS]: ),
‘to’ (L [BHS]:
) , ‘Assyria’ (L [BHS]:
) (Morag 1959, 218). There is frequent marking of dagesh in ʾalef also in manuscripts with Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts written in the Middle East. In some of the Genizah fragments described by Blapp (2017), for example, the marking is as regular as in Codex Reuchlinianus. The following are a few selected examples from T-S A12.1 (Blapp 2017, 83):
(T-S A12.1 | L [BHS]:
Prov. 29.15 ‘his mother’)
(T-S A12.1 | L [BHS]:
Prov. 29.18 ‘happy is he’)
(T-S A12.1 | L [BHS]:
Prov. 29.20 ‘he who is hasty’)
(T-S A12.1 | L [BHS]:
Prov. 29.14 ‘truthfully’)
(T-S A12.1 | L [BHS]:
Prov. 29.14 ‘his throne’)
(T-S A12.1 | L [BHS] ׃
Prov. 29.16 ‘they will see’)
(T-S A12.1 | L [BHS]:
Prov. 29.18 ‘where there is not’)
The motivation to mark the dagesh in the four canonical places in the Standard Tiberian tradition was, it seems, to ensure that the consonantal ʾalef was pronounced correctly and was not slurred over (Yeivin 1978, 1980, 285). The forms (Gen. 43.26) ,
(Ezra 8.18) and
(Lev. 23.17) are distinguished from other instances of similar forms of this verb in the biblical corpus by having a conjunctive accent followed by a word with an accent on the initial syllable. This is the context in which deḥiq occurs when the final vowel of the first word is qameṣ or segol, in which there is a fast reading and compression of the syllable between the two accents (§I.I.2.8.1.2.). They also exhibit the sequence of two adjacent high vowels [iː—uː] separated by ʾalef. It is likely, therefore, that the consonantal ʾalef was considered to be particularly in danger of being slurred over in such a context. Another common feature of these three cases is the occurrence of the sonorant consonant lamed at the beginning of the second word. The ʾalef in
(Job 33.21) was evidently considered to be in danger of losing its pronunciation and being read as a glide between the two high [uː] vowels.
9The greater number of occurrences of dagesh in ʾalef in some of the model Tiberian codices, especially C, reflects the extension of this principle to other cases of consonantal ʾalef that were considered to be at risk of being misread. Still further extension of this practice is found in some manuscripts with Non-Standard Tiberian vocalization, in which the marking of dagesh has become virtually regular.
10The question arises as to whether this dagesh in ʾalef marked gemination or not. Some modern scholars have interpreted it as a sign to distinguish the consonantal realization of the ʾalef from cases where it does not have consonantal realization (e.g. Morag 1959, 218–19, 1960, 208 n.6, 1963, 5–6). It would, therefore, be equivalent to a mappiq on the letter he, which distinguishes final consonantal he from final he that is a vowel letter, rather than a marker of gemination. A statement in Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ appears to support this interpretation:
- 5 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.5.
If it were said: Surely the dagesh in some of the four letters of this place (i.e. the letters עחהא ), namely in the ʾalef in the four passages that you have just mentioned, disproves your statement that dagesh is not put on the letters of this place of articulation, the response would be: If one examines carefully the so-called dagesh in the ʾalef in these four passages, one sees that it is not dagesh, since the speaker strives to introduce heaviness into it, but it is not made heavy.5
There is, however, evidence for the gemination of the ʾalef in some early Karaite sources. Yūsuf ibn Nūḥ, a Karaite scholar active in the second half of the tenth century, in his grammatical commentary known as the Diqduq compares the dagesh in the forms (Gen. 43.26) and
(Ezra 8.18) to the dagesh that occurs in other forms due to the preceding stress:
- 6 6(...)
(Job 13.9): … The dagesh that occurs in the lamed has arisen due to the fact that the stress lengthens (the syllable beginning with) the tav, resulting in
‘you deceive him’. This conforms to what we have stated before, with regard to the occurrence of dagesh in some places when the stress lengthens what precedes, for example
‘to Moses saying’ (Exod. 6.10),
‘and they said “No”’ (Gen. 19.2),
(Ezra 8.18) and
(Gen. 43.26). The word
is like
in that the stress and the dagesh occur within the same word.6
This passage implies that the dagesh in the ʾalef indicates gemination in the same way as the dagesh in Ibn Nūḥ makes the following statement about the form
(Job 33.21):
In Ibn Nūḥ’s system of grammar, the imperative form is the morphological base of derivations. This statement indicates that has the morphological base
and that this has the same pattern as
and
which are the bases of the forms
‘it is covered’ (Ecc. 6.4),
‘and they stick out’ (Job 33.21) with medial gemination.
In a Karaite transcription of (Job 33.21) into Arabic script, an Arabic shadda sign is written over the ʾalif that transcribes the ʾalef with the dagesh:
(BL Or 2552 fol. 51r, 1 | L [BHS]:
Job. 33.21 ‘they were [not] seen’)
11This manuscript, which is datable to the tenth or eleventh century, elsewhere uses the shadda sign only to mark dagesh forte. This is clear evidence, therefore, that the ʾalef was being read as geminate.
12The interpretation of the dagesh in ʾalef as a marker of gemination rather than a mappiq is reflected also by a statement in a Hebrew Masoretic treatise:
13The implication of the passage is that ʾalef, unlike the other guttural letters, does indeed take dagesh.
14Returning to the passage from Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ cited above, a close reading of this reveals that the author is not saying that the point in the ʾalef is simply a mappiq indicating consonantal realization. Rather the reader ‘strives to introduce heaviness into it, but it is not made heavy’, i.e. the reader intends to read it as a dagesh forte, but the muscular tension normally associated with dagesh forte is not achieved due to its articulation in the larynx. The articulation of the ʾalef could, nevertheless, have been held for a longer duration.
15In some manuscripts with Babylonian vocalization, the dagesh sign is marked on consonantal ʾalef in a wide variety of words (Yeivin 1985, 265–66). It is significant that mappiq on final he is represented by a different sign (Yeivin 1985, 335–36), suggesting that the dagesh in the ʾalef did not have the function simply of mappiq but rather indicated gemination.
16In some of the reading traditions that have continued down to modern times in Jewish communities in the Middle East, the ʾalef with dagesh in the four canonical places is indeed still read as a geminate ʾalef, e.g. Aleppo (Katz 1981, 16), Baghdad (Morag 1977, 14), Yemen (Morag 1963, 5–6). Transcriptions of the Aleppo tradition, following Katz (1981, 16) are as follows:
Gen. 43.26: [ˌvajjaˈβiʔˈʔu]
Ezra 8.18: [vajaˈβiːʔˌʔu]
Lev. 23.17: [taˈβiʔˈʔu]
Job 33.21: [ˈruʔˈʔu]
17These traditions of reading the ʾalefs need not be interpreted as late interpretations of the point in the ʾalef, as Morag (1977, 14) argues, but rather continuities of medieval traditions.
18In sum, the weight of evidence suggests that the dagesh point in ʾalef in the four canonical places in the Standard Tiberian tradition indicated gemination of the ʾalef, and so should be transcribed [vaɟɟɔːˈviːiʔʔuː], [tʰɔːˈviːiʔʔuː], [R̟uʔˈʔuː]. The gemination was an orthoepic strategy that involved pronouncing the ʾalef with additional effort to ensure that it was not slurred over.
- 9 These are listed in the Masora, e.g. Ginsburg (1880, §16a).
19Within the Tiberian Masoretic tradition there are a number of pairs of identical lexical words, many of them in parallel passages, one of which has preserved the consonantal ʾalef whilst the other has lost it both in the ketiv and in the qere,9 e.g.
(Gen. 25.24) —
(Gen. 38.27) ‘twins’
( זתו ְ ר ִ֥ ינ 2 Sam. 22.40) —
(Psa. 18.40) ‘you did gird me’
( 1 Chron. 11.39) — ( 2 Sam. 23.37) ‘of Beeroth’
ת( 2 Kg. 19.25) —
(Isa. 37.26) ‘to cause to crash into ruins’
(Jer. 8.11) —
(Jer. 6.14) ‘and they have healed’
- 11 Data supplied by Aaron Hornkohl.
20In some biblical scrolls from Qumran, an ʾalef that is pronounced consonantal in the Tiberian Masoretic tradition is omitted in the orthography, indicating that it had lost its consonantal pronunciation. This is particularly common in the scroll 1QIsaa, but is found also occasionally elsewhere, e.g.11
( 1QIsaa 3.17 | L [BHS]:
Isa. 3.12 ‘your guides’)
( 1QIsaa 11.14 | L [BHS]:
Isa. 13.4 ‘gathered [mpl]’)
( 1QIsaa 12.23 | L [BHS]:
Isa. 14.21 ‘and [the surface of the world] will be filled’)
( 1QIsaa 19.3 | L [BHS]:
Isa. 24.6 ‘ [and its inhabitants] pay the penalty’)
( 1QIsaa 33.11 | L [BHS]:
Isa. 40.11 ‘lambs’)
( 1QIsaa 29.25 | L [BHS]:
Isa. 36.16 ‘his fig tree’)
( 1QIsaa 13.19 | L [BHS]: ketiv ואיבה qere
Isa. 16.3 ‘give [fs advice]! ’)
( 4Q141 f1i.12 | L [BHS]:
Deut. 32.17 ‘they came’)
( 4Q138 f1.13 | L [BHS]:
Deut. 11.6 ‘Eliab’)
( 4Q78 f10–12.7 | L [BHS]:
Joel 1.19 ‘pastures of’)
( 4Q79 f1–2.9 | L [BHS]:
Hos. 2.2 ‘the earth’)
21In living reading traditions that have survived down to modern times in Jewish communities in the Middle East a consonantal ʾalef is general pronounced, but is sometimes elided, especially between vowels, e.g.
22Aleppo
haˈele (Katz 1981, 15 | L [BHS]:
Gen. 48.1 ‘these’)
23Baghdad
wearbaˈʕɪm (Morag 1977, 13 | L [BHS]:
Gen. 47.28 ‘and forty’)
24Yemen
bɔɔˈħiːw (Morag 1963, 3 | L [BHS]:
Isa. 19.2 ‘against his brother’)
25Morocco
israˈil (Akun 2010, 65 | L [BHS]:
Exod. 14.30 ‘Israel’)
26The variants within the Masoretic tradition and the loss of ʾalef in the Qumran scrolls and modern living traditions reflect the vulnerability of consonantal ʾalef to weakening in reading traditions, which would have motivated orthoepic measures being taken to ensure their correct reading.
27In the model Standard Tiberian manuscripts ʾalef that does not have a consonantal realization is sometimes marked with a rafe sign, e.g.
L: ‘my head’ (Psa. 40.13)
L: ‘we do not fear’ (Hos. 10.3)
28It is regularly marked in L on ʾalef between two vowels that is not read as consonantal, e.g.
L: (Psa. 116.6) ‘the simple’
L: (Psa. 104.12) ‘branches’
29L: ( 1 Chron. 12.9) ‘and like gazelles’
- 12 Ginsburg (1880, §13).
30These words are listed in the Masora as cases where ‘ʾalef is written but not read’.12
31In some manuscripts with Non-Standard Tiberian vocalization the marking of rafe on non-consonantal ʾalef is very frequent, e.g.
32Codex Reuchlinianus:
(Morag 1959, 218 | L [BHS]:
Isa. 23.1 ‘oracle’)
(Morag 1959, 221 | L [BHS]:
Isa. 37.33 ‘ (does not) come’)
33Genizah manuscripts
(T-S A11.1 | L [BHS]:
Job 39.9 ‘will it be willing’) (Blapp 2017, 59)
(T-S A12.1 | L [BHS]:
Prov. 29.24 ‘he who hates’) (Blapp 2017, 99)
(T-S A12.1 | L [BHS]:
Prov. 29.24 ‘and not’) (Blapp 2017, 99)
34In Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts, ʾalefs that are non-consonantal in the Standard Tiberian tradition are occasionally marked with dagesh. In some cases where the ʾalef occurs word-internally, it is possible that these reflect consonantal readings of the ʾalef, e.g.
(BL Add MS 21161, fol. 160v | L [BHS]:
Psa. 104.12 ‘branches’)
(Codex Reuchlianus | L [BHS]:
Jer. 40.14 ‘Ishmael’)
35It is sporadically, however, marked on a word-final ʾalef, which must have been read as non-consonantal, e.g.
(T-S NS 248.2, Arrant 2020 | L [BHS]:
Gen. 13.9 ‘please’)
(T-S NS 248.2, Arrant 2020 | L [BHS]:
Gen. 13.10 ‘and he lifted’)
(T-S NS 248.2, Arrant 2020 | L [BHS]:
Gen. 15.1 ‘ [do not] be afraid’)
In a few model Tiberian codices a rafe is marked on an ʾalef in the word where it would be expected to be consonantal, e.g.
C: L [BHS]:
‘in Israel’ (1 Sam. 3.11)
- 13 A possible parallel to this elision of the ʾalef can be identified in the proper name (...)
36Yeivin (1978, 226) suggests that this phenomenon in the model manuscripts may indicate that in this proper name the ʾalef was not pronounced as consonantal, i.e. [jisrˁɔːˈeːel].13
37The marking of rafe on consonantal ʾalef is attested sporadically also in manuscripts with Non-Standard Tiberian vocalization, e.g.
(T-S A12.1, Blapp 2017, 99 | L [BHS]:
Prov. 30.2 ‘I’)
(T-S A13.20, Blapp 2017, 174 | L [BHS]:
Psa. 69.4 ‘with my crying’)
38In Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts that otherwise use dagesh extensively in consonantal ʾalef, the ʾalef in the word לארשי is often marked with rafe (Pilocane 2004, 28).
In Biblical manuscripts with Palestinian vocalization, both the dagesh sign and the rafe sign
are found marked on consonantal ʾalef, e.g.
39Dagesh:
(Bod. Heb. e 30 ff. 48-49 | L [BHS]:
Isa. 6.11 ‘they lie waste’) (Kahle 1901, 278; Revell 1970a, 77)
40Rafe:
(Bod. Heb. e 30 ff. 48-49 | L [BHS]:
Isa. 45.20 ‘and come’) (Kahle 1901, 287; Revell 1970a, 77–78)
41It is unlikely that in these cases the marking of the rafe reflects the loss of consonantal value of the ʾalef. The sign is likely to be intended to signal that the ʾalef is consonantal but ungeminated.
42In L one encounters vocalizations such as the following:
Num. 26.7:
(BHS:
) ‘the Reubenite’ (B:
S:
)
Josh. 12.6:
(BHS:
) ‘to the Reubenite’ (A:
)
2 Kings 10.33:
(BHS:
) ‘and the Reubenite’ :A(
)
Job 31.7:
(BHS:
) ‘blemish’ (A:
)
Dan. 1.4:
(BHS:
) ‘blemish’ (qere note:
)
- 14 The second [u] is an epenthetic, which is inserted after the long vowel in CVVC syllables (§I.2.4. (...)
43The way these words appear in BHS, which does not mark rafe, would lead one to believe that the ʾalef in L is a consonantal ʾalef between two vowels. In the manuscripts the ʾalef is marked with rafe and in manuscripts other than L there is only one vocalization sign, either qibbuṣ before the ʾalef or a shureq dot on the vav, indicating that the ʾalef did not have a consonantal realization. The vocalization in L adds a qibbuṣ sign on the letter preceding the ʾalef. This is, therefore, a double marking of the u vowel that follows the consonant. The words should be read [hɔːR̟uːveːˈniː], [muːum],14 as shown by other model manuscripts, and also by the qere note in Dan. 1.4. The double marking and qere note were strategies to ensure that the u vowel was pronounced immediately after the consonant.
I.1.2. Bet ב ( תיב )
Bet with dagesh : voiced bilabial stop [b]
Bet without dagesh : voiced labio-dental fricative [v]
44A bet without dagesh is frequently, but not regularly, marked by the rafe sign in the model Standard Tiberian codices.
- 15 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.1.2.
- 16 Allony and Yeivin eds. (1985, 96), Baer and Strack (1879, 7, §6)
- 17 Arabic version of Maḥberet ha-Tījān (ed. Neubauer 1891, 10), Hebrew version of Maḥberet ha-Tījān ( (...)
- 18 E.g. Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.1.1., §II.L.1.1.2.; th (...)
- 19 Eg. ed. Hayman (2004, 51).
45According to Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, the Tiberians called this letter by the name . יב15 This form of the name is also found in other Masoretic treatises, sometimes vocalized , יֵב16 and the later recensions of Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ.17 It is referred to in Masoretic treatises also as . אב18 Both of these spellings represent the Arabic name of the letter, viz. bāʾ, which is pronounced bē due to ʾimāla in Arabic dialects (Nöldeke 1910, 131). This form of the name is found in some versions of Sefer Yeṣira.19
- 20 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.9. Eldar (1980, fols. 10b-11a, lines 84-88 (...)
46It is stated in Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ that the bet with dagesh is pronounced by closing the lips firmly.20 In the Karaite transcriptions it is represented by Arabic bāʾ (Khan 1990a, 4, 2013).
- 21 Cf. Eldar’s (1980) commentary to this passage, n.75.
47According to Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, bet with rafe is pronounced by closing the lips lightly. Taken by itself, this could be a description of a bilabial articulation of bet rafe. This is not confirmed, however, by other sources. The light closure of the lips would have accompanied a labio-dental articulation, and no doubt it is this secondary feature that the author refers to.21 Elsewhere in the Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ it is stated that bet rafe and consonantal vav have the same pronunciation:
- 22 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.7.7. Eldar (1984b, Hebrew section, 10).
‘Every [consonantal] vav at the end of a word is pronounced, according to the Palestinians, with [the pronunciation of] bet rafe.’22
48This feature is alluded to also in a Masoretic treatise on the shewa:
49In some Karaite transcriptions into Arabic script, a fricative bet is occasionally transcribed by Arabic wāw and, vice versa, a Hebrew consonantal vav is sometimes transcribed by Arabic bāʾ. This is a reflection of the fact that the two sounds were the same, e.g. in the manuscript BL Or 2548:
(BL Or 2548 fol. 3r, 10ָ֖ | L [BHS]:
Isa. 5.4 ‘grapes’)
(BL Or 2548 fol. 42r, 3ָ֖| L [BHS]:
Isa. 40.31 ‘those who are hoping for’)
50We know from David ben Abraham al-Fāsī that in Palestine consonantal vav in these circumstances was pronounced as a labio-dental (see the description of vav §I.1.6. for details). It follows, therefore, that bet rafe was a voiced labio-dental.
51In a few sporadic cases bet rafe is represented by Arabic fāʾ in the Karaite transcriptions, e.g.
فوزياو (Genizah MS 12, Khan 1990a, 151 | L [BHS]:
Num. 19.6 ‘and hyssop’)
52The transcription with fāʾ reflects the perception that this Arabic sound was close acoustically to the voiced labio-dental [v]. It is common in transcriptions of Hebrew in medieval Muslim sources, e.g.
افارع (al-Bīrūnī, Chronology of Nations, ed. Sachau 1878, 277 | ‘desert’)
هنافل (al-Bīrūnī, Chronology of Nations, ed. Sachau 1878, 187–192 |
‘moon’)
اروفاد (Ibn Khaldūn, Schreiner 1886, 253 |
‘Deborah’)
- 24 Data supplied by Aaron Hornkohl.
53There are a few isolated occurrences of pe in place of fricative bet in biblical manuscripts from Qumran, which could be taken as evidence that the labio-dental pronunciation existed already in the Second Temple period, e.g.24
( תונפב 4Q6 f1a.3 | L [BHS]:
Gen. 34.1 ‘ [to visit the] daughters [of the land]’)
( ושפע 4Q78 f10–12.7 | L [BHS]:
Joel 1.17 ‘ [seeds of grain] have shrivelled’)
54Similar interchanges of fricative bet with pe are attested in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, alongside interchanges with vav, e.g. הייטבנ ‘the Nabatean’, הייתפנ ‘the Nabatean’, יאתווינ ‘the Nabateans’ (Dalman 1894, 74).
- 25 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.2.
55Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ describes the stop [b] as one of the primary letters (ʾuṣūl) and the [v] as an additional secondary letter (farʿ).25
I.1.3. Gimel ג ( מיּׅג ֶ ל )
Gimel with dagesh : voiced velar stop [g]
Gimel without dagesh : voiced uvular fricative [ʁ]
56A gimel without dagesh is frequently, but not regularly, marked by the rafe sign in the model Standard Tiberian codices.
- 26 The spelling גמאל is used by ʾAbū al-Faraj Hārūn also in his grammatical text al-Kitāb al-Kāfī (ed (...)
- 27 Ed. Derenbourg (1871, 36).
In Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ the name of this letter is spelt לאמג , which appears to reflect a different pronunciation from that of the normal Hebrew form of the name with stress on the final syllable.26 In the Hebrew Maḥberet ha-Tījān, a later recension of Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, the name has the form .27
- 28 28(...)
- 29 Khan (1990, 4, 2013).
57Gimel with dagesh was a stop, which, according to Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, was articulated with the middle of the tongue.28 The Karaite transcriptions represent it by Arabic jīm or, occasionally, by kāf,29 e.g.
ه ִ ج ִ ما ֥ ي ֵ ل (BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 63r, 3 | L [BHS]:
Gen. 21.8 ‘to be weaned’)
روبك (BL Or 2554 fol. 11r, 7 | L [BHS]:
Ruth 2.1 ‘mighty’)
- 30 Roman (1983, 101–6, 218)
58These Arabic letters were pronounced respectively as a voiced palatal plosive [ɟ] and an unvoiced velar plosive [kʰ]. This is the pronunciation described by the early Arabic grammarians Sībawayhi and al-Khalīl (eighth century C.E.). Ibn Sīna in the eleventh century describes jīm as pronounced slightly further forward.30 The Karaite transcriptions usually render gimel with dagesh by Arabic jīm due to the latter being a voiced consonantal plosive close to the place of articulation of [g]. It was preferred to kāf, which differed from jīm in being not only voiceless but also aspirated. It was a general principle of the transcriptions that voiced sounds were transcribed by one that was voiced but of a slightly different place of articulation rather than by an unvoiced letter of the same place of articulation.
- 31 (...)
- 32 Roman (1983, 218).
59Gimel without dagesh, on the other hand, was a fricative articulated further back, on ‘the posterior third of the tongue, which is adjacent to the pharynx, opposite the (soft) palate.’31 In the Karaite transcriptions, fricative gimel is transcribed by Arabic ghayn, which was pronounced as a uvular fricative in the Middle Ages according to the descriptions of the Arabic grammarians.32
- 33 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.6.; Eldar (1980, fols. 8b, 10a, 254, n.58) (...)
60Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ describes the stop [g] as primary (ʾaṣl) and the fricative [ʁ] as secondary (farʿ).33
I.1.4. Dalet ד ( ָ לד ֶ ת )
Dalet with dagesh : voiced post-dental stop [d]
Dalet without dagesh : voiced post-dental fricative [ð]
61A dalet without dagesh is frequently, but not regularly, marked by the rafe sign in the model Standard Tiberian codices.
- 34 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.1.2.
- 35 E.g. ed. Gruenwald (1971, 156), ed. Hayman (2004, 54).
- 36 Ed. Neubauer (1891, 12).
- 37 Ed. Derenbourg (1871, 36).
According to Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, the Tiberians called this letter dāl, which is the name of the corresponding Arabic letter.34 This term is found also in some versions of Sefer Yeṣira (,) לד35 and in the later recensions of Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, e.g. Arabic Maḥberet ha-Tījān () ,36 Hebrew Maḥberet ha-Tījān37
62Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ states that the letter was articulated with ‘the extremity of the tongue in combination with the flesh of the teeth’, i.e. the gums.38 Likewise, Saadya describes the place of articulation of dalet as being adjacent to the inside of the upper teeth.39 When the letter had dagesh, the tongue was pressed firmly against the gums. When it was without dagesh, the tongue was pressed lightly against the gums. Both forms of the letter were articulated in the same place. The term ‘end of the tongue’ could include both the tip and the blade. Most versions of Sefer Yeṣira state that dalet was articulated with ‘the beginning of the tongue’,40 but this is equally vague. The Spanish grammarian Ibn Janāḥ (eleventh century) specifies that it was articulated with the blade of the tongue and not the tip.41 This corresponds to the description in one version of Sefer Yeṣira, where it is stated that the letters תנלטד were articulated with the ‘middle’ of the tongue.42 It is easier, however, to interpret Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ as referring to the contact between the tongue tip and the gums. An articulation with the blade of the tongue with the gums would have involved contact with the teeth.
- 43 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.2., Eldar (1980, fol. 8b, 254, n.58).
63Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ describes the stop [d] as primary (ʾaṣl) and the fricative [ð] as secondary (farʿ).43
The medieval scholar Isaac Israeli (ninth–tenth centuries C.E.), who had an expert knowledge of the Tiberian reading tradition, is said to have pronounced fricative dalet with a secondary ‘emphatic’ articulation (i.e. pharyngealized with retraction of the tongue root and increased muscular pressure) in two words, viz. ‘his palace’ (Dan. 11.45) and
‘and they have bent’ (Jer. 9.2). This was apparently due to the fact that the pe and the resh in these words were pronounced emphatic (see §I.I.1.17., §I.1.20.) and the emphasis spread to the dalet. The evidence for this is found in a commentary to Sefer Yeṣira by Dunash ibn Tamim, who was a physician in court of the Fāṭimids in Kairouan, North Africa, in the tenth century C.E. He was the pupil of Isaac Israeli, who also worked as a physician in Kairouan:
- 44 BHS erroneously reads L as
- 45 (...)
The Arabs have sounds that the Hebrews do not have, namely the ḍād of
(qaḍīb) and the ḏ̣āʾ of
(ʿaḏ̣īm). The meaning of qaḍīb is ‘rod’ or ‘sceptre’. It is written with ṣade with a dot above it. It is a distinct sound, which resembles dalet rafe. The meaning of ʿaḏ̣īm is ‘huge’. It is written with ṭet with a dot above it. It is a distinct sound, which resembles dalet rafe.… Our master Yiṣḥaq, the son of our master Shlomo, of blessed memory, (i.e. Isaac Israeli) used to say that in the language of the Hebrews among the Tiberians there were (the sounds of) ḏ̣āʾ and ḍād and he used to read
(Dan. 11.45, L:
‘He will pitch the tents of his palace’44), in which he used to pronounce ḏ̣āʾ although dalet was written. He used to read
(Jer. 9.2, L [BHS]:
‘they bent their tongue’), in which he pronounced ḍād, although dalet was written. The reason for all this was that he was an expert in the reading of the Tiberians.45
- 46 See the discussion by Wagner (2010, 28–32).
64Early in the history of Arabic, the distinction between the pronunciation of ḍād ( ض ) and ḏ̣āʾ ( ظ ) broke down. In modern vernacular dialects, the two have merged either to an emphatic stop ḍ (mainly in urban dialects) or to an emphatic interdental ḏ̣ (mainly in Bedouin dialects) (Versteegh 2011). In medieval Judaeo-Arabic, a ṣade with an upper dot (ָ֖̇ צ ) was used to represented Classical Arabic ḍād ( ض ) and a ṭet was used to represent Classical Arabic ḏ̣āʾ ( ظ ). As a result of their merger in the spoken language already in the Middle Ages, however, there was frequent confusion in the orthography of Judaeo-Arabic texts, in which a historical ḍād and a historical ḏ̣āʾ were both represented by either ָ֖̇ צ or ָ֖̇ ט interchangeably.46 The representation of a Hebrew dalet in the passage by both ָ֖̇ צ and ָ֖̇ ט and the statement attributed to Isaac Israeli that ‘in the language of the Hebrews among the Tiberians there were (the sounds of) ḏ̣āʾ and ḍād’ should be interpreted in this light. A single emphatic sound was no doubt intended, presumably the emphatic interdental ḏ̣ [ðˁ], given the fact that the author in the passage states that these two emphatic Arabic letters resemble dalet rafe.
ʾAbū al-Faraj Hārūn in his al-Kitāb al-Kāfī refers to the pharyngealization of dalet in the words (Dan. 11.45) and
‘topaz’ (Exod. 28.17):
- 47 Ed. Khan, Gallego and Olszowy-Schlanger (2003, §I.24.2):
‘Indeed, in Arabic there are letters that are pronounced with sounds that are not found in Hebrew, such as jīm, ḍād and others. Some teachers, however, when reading
‘the tents of his palace’ (Dan. 11.45) and
‘sardius, topaz’ (Exod. 28.17) pronounce the dalet in them like Arabic ḍād or ẓāʾ and these words sound like
and
. This, however, does not increase the number of letters, since the dalet has the same form, although the reading of it differs.47
65In some modern reading traditions, dalet is pharyngealized when in contact with an emphatic consonant. In the Moroccan reading tradition, for example, this is documented by Akun (2010) as occurring after emphatic [rˁ], e.g.
jarˁˈdˁu (Akun 2010, 72 | L [BHS]:
Exod. 15.5 ‘they went down’)
I.1.5. He ה (ה אֵ )
66Glottal fricative [h]
67The name of the letter is normally spelt אֵה or יֵה , vocalized with ṣere, in the Masoretic treatises.
- 48 E.g. CUL T-S D1.2.
- 49 E.g. MS S27, fols. 1r-1v, Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, short version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.S.2. (...)
- 50 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.4.; Eldar (1980, fol. 9b, line 31).
A dot in a final he indicates that the letter was to be pronounced as a consonant and was not merely a vowel letter (mater lectionis) for a final vowel, e.g. [lɔːɔh] ‘to her’, but
[malkʰɔː] ‘queen’. This dot is known as mappiq ( קיּׅפַמ ), meaning literally ‘bringing out, pronouncing’. In medieval sources, such as the Masoretic treatises, the term sometimes is vocalized as mappeq
48 which is an Aramaic hafʿel participle from the root n-p-q ‘to come out’. This is the earlier form of the term, mappiq being a later Hebraization. Some manuscripts of Masoretic treatises vocalize the term mappaq (
) .49 In Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ the consonantal pronunciation of he was referred to as ‘appearance’ (ḏ̣uhūr).50
- 51 Ofer (2013).
- 52 Yeivin (1980, 285).
The mappiq is in principle marked in consonantal he only at the end of a word since inָ֖vocalized texts it is only in this context that there would be ambiguity of reading, e.g. [jalˈdɔːɔh] ‘her child’ as opposed to
[jalˈdɔː] ‘girl’. At the beginning or in the middle of a word, a consonantal pronunciation in the onset of a syllable is indicated by a vowel sign on the letter or a following vowel letter, e.g. ה ָ א ֹ רו ‘the light’ (Gen. 1.3),
‘it will go’ (Psa. 85.14),
‘his giving birth to’ (Gen. 5.4) or by a shewa sign in a syllable coda, e.g.
[pʰaðahˈʔeːel] ‘Pedahel’ (Num. 34.28). A word-medial he that does not have a vocalization sign or is not followed by a vowel letter must be read as a vowel letter, e.g.
[pʰaðɔːˈsˁuːurˁ] ‘Pedahzur’ (Num. 1.10; despite the normal English spelling of the latter, the he is not pronounced according to the Tiberian reading tradition).51 In some manuscripts, however, consonantal he is marked with mappiq within a word. This is found in particular in words of unusual form in which consonantal he is pointed with shewa, e.g. L and S
[bɔh∫amˈmɔː] ‘when it lies desolate’ (Lev. 26.43), S
[pʰaðahˈʔeːel] ‘Pedahel’ (Num. 34.28).52 In such contexts, the consonantal he was evidently felt to be at particular risk of being read incorrectly.
- 53 Yeivin (1968, 49–50).
68In the manuscript A the dot of the mappiq in word-final he is often placed low in the letter, as in Prov. 5.19 shown below, and is occasionally written under the letter:53
69Mappiq is frequently written under final consonantal he in manuscripts with Non-Standard Tiberian (Non-Standard Tiberian) vocalization, e.g.
70Genizah manuscripts
(T-S A11.1, Blapp 2017, 51 | L [BHS]:
Job 39.16 ‘her labour’)
(T-S A11.1, Blapp 2017, 51 | L [BHS]:
Job 39.17 ‘to her’)
(T-S A11.1, Blapp 2017, 51 | L [BHS]:
Job 40.2 ‘god’)
71In Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts from the Genizah, the mappiq is occasionally written in the lower half of the letter (Blapp 2017, 112, 128).
72European manuscripts
(Codex Reuchlinianus | L [BHS]:
Isa. 19.14 ‘within her’)
(Codex Reuchlinianus | L [BHS]:
Isa. 19.17 ‘her [obj.]’)
(Codex Reuchlinianus | L [BHS]:
Isa. 19.19 ‘its boundary’)
(BL Add 21161 | L [BHS]:
Amos 2.9 ‘like the height’)
73Mappiq in the form of a dot under a final consonantal he is also found in some manuscripts with Palestinian vocalization, e.g.
(T-S 12.197, Kahle 1927, II, 80; Revell 1970a, 95 | L [BHS]:
Jer. 2.7 ‘its fruits and its good things’)
74In Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts, a mappiq is occasionally written on a word-internal or even a word-initial consonantal he with a vocalization sign. In such cases, it is written within the letter, e.g.
75Genizah manuscripts
(T-S A13.35, Blapp 2017, 191 | L [BHS]:
Psa. 74.15 ‘streams’)
(T-S A5.12, Arrant 2020 | L [BHS]:
Deut. 22.4 ‘and you ignore’)
(CUL Or 1080. A4.18, Arrant 2020 | L [BHS]:
Num. 28.19 ‘they shall be’)
(T-S NS 284.85, Arrant 2020 | L [BHS]:
Exod. 3.21 ‘this’)
76European manuscripts
(Codex Reuchlinianus, Morag 1959, 219 | L [BHS]:
1 Kings 2.2 ‘and you will be’)
77Mappiq in Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts is sporadically marked even where the he has the function of a mater lectionis.
(T-S NS 68.22, Arrant 2020 | L [BHS]:
Deut. 28.12 ‘work of’)
(T-S AS 8.123, Arrant 2020 | L [BHS]:
Lev. 24.21 ‘and he who strikes’)
78It is significant that in A and in Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts that mark mappiq under the he, when a dot is marked within consonantal ʾalef, it is, by contrast, always written within the letter. Moreover, whereas the Masora refers to the dot in ʾalef in the four canonical places (§I.I.1.1.) as dagesh, the term dagesh is never used to refer to the mappiq. The Masoretic notes and treatises generally refer to cases of mappiq in statements containing the participle mappeq ‘to pronounce’ such as
‘Unique words in which one pronounces he’ (Ginsburg 1880, §36)
79This demonstrates that the mappiq does not represent gemination. Moreover, he is not geminated in any other context.
80On some occasions in Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts, a final consonantal he is marked with a shewa sign, e.g.
81Genizah manuscripts
(T-S A11.1, Blapp 2017, 47 | L [BHS]:
Job 39.17 ‘God’)
(T-S A11.1, Blapp 2017, 48 | L [BHS]:
Job 39.27 ‘it mounts’)
82European manuscripts
(Codex Reuchlinianus | L [BHS]:
Isa. 13.10 ‘ [does not] give light’)
83When word-final he acts as a vowel letter, it is sometimes, though not regularly, marked with rafe in the model Tiberian manuscripts, e.g.
L: ‘she was not able’ (Exod. 2.3)
L: ‘he saw’ (Isa. 1.1)
L: ‘apostasy’ (Isa. 1.5)
84Rafe is written more regularly in some Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts, e.g.
85Genizah manuscripts:
(T-S A11.1, Blapp 2017, 56 | L [BHS]:
Job 39.23ָ֖‘quiver’)
(T-S A11.1, Blapp 2017, 59 | L [BHS]:
Job 39.25 ‘battle’)
(T-S A11.1, Blapp 2017, 59 | L [BHS]:
Job 40.20 ‘the field’)
86European manuscripts
(Codex Reuchlinianus | L [BHS]:
1 Sam. 23.8 ‘to war’)
(Codex Reuchlinianus | L [BHS]:
1 Sam. 23.8 ‘Keilah’)
(BL Add 21161 | L [BHS]:
Amos 2.10 ‘year’)
87Some Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts mark a rafe sign on he in contexts where it is consonantal in the Standard Tiberian tradition, e.g.
(T-S A13.20, Blapp 2017, 174 | L [BHS]:
Psa. 68.36 ‘he’)
(T-S A13.20, Blapp 2017, 174 | L [BHS]:
Psa. 69.2 ‘save me! ’)
(T-S A13.20, Blapp 2017, 175 | L [BHS]:
Psa. 68.27 ‘in the congregation’)
(T-S A13.20, Blapp 2017, 175 | L [BHS]:
Psa. 68.28 ‘Judah’)
88Here the rafe should, it seems, be interpreted as signalling that the letter is consonantal but not geminated.
89The Masora identifies a number of cases where a word-final he that would be expected to be consonantal is not pronounced:
‘One of eighteen cases in which he is not pronounced at the end of the word’ (Ginsburg 1880, §37)
90This list includes cases where the he has the meaning of a 3fs suffix. In some cases, a rafe is marked over the he in L, e.g.
L: ‘and she daubed it (fs)’ (Exod. 2.3)
L: ‘its being founded’ (Exod. 9.18)
L: ‘its (fs) iniquity’ (Num. 15.31)
L: ‘its (fs) side’ (1 Sam. 20.20)
91Another Masoretic note lists pairs of words ending in he, in one member of which it is pronounced consonantal and in the other it is not:
‘One of eleven pairs, in one of which he is pronounced and the other he is not pronounced at the end of the word’ (Ginsburg 1880, §38)
92Some words in this list exhibit what are clearly variant realizations of the 3fs suffix. In some cases where the he is a vowel letter a rafe is marked over the he in L, e.g.
L: ‘and its (fs) hair’ (Lev. 13.20)
L: ‘and its (fs) hair’ (Lev. 13.4)
L: ‘and her hire’ (Isa. 23.18)
L: ‘to her hire’ (Isa. 23.17)
93Examples of such 3fs suffixes without consonantal realization could be interpreted as the phonetic weakening of a final consonantal he that has become fixed in the reading tradition. Alternatively, it may be morphological variation, reflecting different dialectal forms at an earlier period, which has become fixed.
- 54 Data supplied by Aaron Hornkohl.
94There is ample evidence from the Dead Sea scrolls of the vulnerability of consonantal he to weakening in the Second Temple period. The cases of weakening that are discernible in the orthography are between vowels, e.g.54
( 4Q6 f1.10 | L [BHS]:
Gen 48.6 ‘after them’)
( 8Q4 f1.35 | L [BHS]:
Deut. 11.16 ‘gods’)
( 4Q51 9e–i.9 | L [BHS]:
1 Sam 10.8 ‘to offer [sacrifices]’)
( 1QIsaa 10.11 | L [BHS]:
Isa. 10.24 ‘his staff’)
( 1QIsaa 22.26 | L [BHS]:
Isa. 28.20 ‘ [is too short] to stretch out’)
( 1QIsaa 24.18 | L [BHS]:
Isa. 30.10 ‘illusions’)
( 1QIsaa 47.26 | L [BHS]:
Isa. 58.4 ‘to make heard’)
( 1QIsaa 51.9 | L [BHS]:
Isa. 63.13 ‘through the depths’)
95Weakening of consonantal he occurs also in modern reading traditions. This includes the weakening of final he written with mappiq in the vocalized text, e.g.
96Aleppo
ˌleβadˈdaˑ (Katz 1981, 13 | L [BHS]:
Exod. 22.26 ‘by itself [fs.]’)
missobˈʕa (Katz 1981, 13 | L [BHS]:
Ruth 2.18 ‘from her satisfaction’)
97Morocco
saraˈta (Akun 2010, 67 | L [BHS]:
1 Sam. 1.6, ‘her rival wife’)
ʕaluˈta (Akun 2010, 67 | L [BHS]:
1 Sam. 1.7 ‘her going up)
98Kerala
ha∫aˈbaː (Forsström 2013, 461 | L [BHS]:
Gen. 50.20 ‘he meant it [fs.])
- 55 Data supplied by Shai Heijmans.
99In the Babylonian reading tradition, a mappiq occurs in a 3fs verbal object suffix attached to a 3fs suffix conjugation form and after an energic nun (Yeivin 1985, 336). In both these contexts the suffix is regularly non-consonantal in the Tiberian tradition. The Babylonian mappiq is a small superscribed he:55
[w∫ikkʰalˈlaːttʰɔːh] (
Ezek. 14.15 ‘and you will make it (f) childless’)
[wχeːʕasˈsaːttʰɔːh] (
1 Sam 1.6 ‘and she provoked her’)
[jivlɔːˈʕaːnnɔːh] (
Isa. 28.4 ‘he will swallow it (f)’)
100This is most easily interpreted as reflecting the fact that the Babylonian and Tiberian traditions here have different morphological forms of the 3fs suffix. The occasional occurrence of a non-consonantal variant of the 3fs suffix in the Tiberian tradition in other contexts, therefore, could also be the result of morphological variation.
I.1.6. Vav ו ( ו ָ ו )
101Labio-dental [v] and labio-velar semi-vowel [w]
- 56 E.g. short version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.S.2.2.
102In Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ the name of this letter is spelt ואו , which represents, it seems, the corresponding Arabic name (wāw).56
- 57 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.9.
103According to Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, the place of articulation was the lips.57 This could be referring to a bilabial [w] or labio-dental [v] pronunciation. It is, however, explicitly stated by David ben Abraham al-Fāsī (tenth century C.E.), the Palestinian Karaite lexicographer, that in Palestine consonantal vav both with and without dagesh was pronounced as a labio-dental. He makes this observation in the entry in his dictionary, Kitāb Jāmiʿ al-ʾAlfāẓ (‘The book of the collection of words’) on the name פ ֻ ו ָ ה :
- 58 Kitāb Jāmiʿ al-ʾAlfāẓ, ed. Skoss (1936, vol. 2, 451-452):
(Gen. 46.13): name of a man. The accent is on the vav and it is read rafe. The pronunciation of the vav in it is like the way the Palestinians (pronounce the letter in words) such as
‘be! ’ (Gen. 27.29),
‘ill’ [fs.] (Lev. 20.18, etc.),
‘it watered’ (Isa. 55.10). Some of the teachers have made a mistake by reading it (like the vav in)
‘spirit’ and
‘soothing’. This is because whenever the accent is on the letter before a vav, its pronunciation is light, between the lips, as in ָֹ֖֤ ר ּ חו ‘spirit’ and
‘soothing’,
‘Joshua’,
‘to sway’ (Jud. 9.9, etc.),
‘to hear’,
‘to know’,
‘Noah’,
‘brain’. Its pronunciation (i.e. the vav of
), like every (consonantal) vav in our (reading tradition), both light (i.e with rafe) and with dagesh, is between the upper teeth and the lower lip. Examples with dagesh are:
‘their speech went out’ (Psa. 19.5),
‘he commanded them’ (Gen. 50.12, etc.),
‘as he commanded’ (Gen. 7.9, etc.),
‘that he commands’ (Gen. 18.19, etc.). Examples with light (vav) are:
‘disaster upon disaster’ (Ezek. 7.26),
‘ (you) be for them a king’ (Neh. 6.6),
‘and Saul was refreshed’ ָ֖ (1 Sam. 16.23),
‘those who wait for me will not be put to shame’ (Isa. 49.23). Now,
(Gen. 46.13) is like this.58
Al-Fāsī makes the point here that consonantal vav in all contexts is pronounced as a labio-dental [v]. The only exception is constituted by words that contain a vav followed by a guttural with a furtive pataḥ such as and
where it is pronounced ‘light, between the lips’. This must be referring to a bilabial glide between the vowel and the following pataḥ [ˈR̟uːwaħ], [niːˈħoːwaħ].
104It is stated in the Masoretic treatises that consonantal vav had the same pronunciation as bet rafe, e.g.
- 59 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.7.7.
Every vav at the end of a word is pronounced according to the Palestinians as a bet rafe. (Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ)59
- 60
Know that every vav that is prefixed to the beginning of a word and has shewa is read with (the pronunciation of) bet. … I mean it is pronounced as if it were the letter bet, as in
‘and he shall say.’ (Treatise on the Shewa)60
Al-Fāsī indicates that the vav in the name (Gen. 46.13) was pronounced like other cases of consonantal vav, i.e. as labio-dental [v]. He says, however, that some teachers mistakenly read it as a bilabial [w]. This implies that there were different traditions of pronouncing the vav in this context. Mishaʾel ben ʿUzziʾel (tenth-eleventh century) makes the following observation about the pronunciation of vav in this word in his Kitāb al-Khilaf:
- 61
As for the word
(Gen. 46.13), there is a consensus that it has a vav that (is pronounced) in the way it is read in Iraq, not like bet rafe, as in words such as
‘poor’ and so forth (in the pronunciation) of the Palestinians.61
105The consensus referred to here is between the foremost Tiberian Masoretic authorities Ben Asher and Ben Naftali. They pronounced the vav in this word in the Babylonian fashion, i.e. as a bilabial [w], not like the labio-dental pronunciation of a bet rafe. This was presumably conditioned by the preceding [uː] vowel: [fuːwɔː].
106In Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts, there are sporadic cases of fricative bet being written where Standard Tiberian orthography has a consonantal vav, which reflects their identical phonetic realization, e.g.
(T-S A5.7, Arrant 2020 | L [BHS]:
Deut. 33.26 ‘and in his majesty’)
(T-S A21.125, Arrant 2020 | L [BHS]:
Gen. 2.11 ‘Havilah’)
ש ָ ב (T-S AS 44.35, Outhwaite 2020 | L [BHS]:
Lam. 2.15 ‘emptiness’)
107In Karaite transcriptions into Arabic script, a vav is generally transcribed by Arabic wāw. It is sometimes, however, transcribed by the Arabic letter bāʾ. Arabic bāʾ is used elsewhere to transcribe both plosive bet [b] and fricative bet [v]. The occasional use of bāʾ to transcribe vav indicates that scribes were confusing the labio-dental realization [v] of vav with that of bet rafe. It is attested as a transcription of medial and final vav, e.g.
(Genizah MS 1, Khan 1990a, 45 | L [BHS]:
Num. 20.3 ‘we had expired’)
(Genizah MS 1, Khan 1990a, 45 | L [BHS]:
Num. 15.22 ‘the commandments’)
يبوقو (BL Or 2548 fol. 42r, 3 | L [BHS]:
Isa. 40.31 ‘those who are hoping for’)
(Genizah MS 1, Khan 1990a, 45 | L [BHS]:
Num. 19.19 ‘his clothes’)
108Examples are attested in manuscripts of the transcription of consonantal vav with bāʾ when preceded by long [uː], e.g.
[va∫iq̟q̟uːˈvaːaj] (BL Or 2551 fol. 67r, 9 | L [BHS]:
Psa. 102.10 ‘and my drinks’)
109This corresponds to al-Fāsī’s description of the vav in this context in the word פ ֻ ו ָ ה as a labio-dental [fuːˈvɔː], but not the bilabial pronunciation [fuːˈwɔː] that is ascribed by Mishaʾel ben ʿUzziʾel to Ben Asher and Ben Naftali.
110There is even one documented case of bāʾ transcribing a glide before a furtive pataḥ:
عبون [ˈnoːvaʕ] (Genizah MS 13, Khan 1990a, 155 | L [BHS]:
Psa. 109.10 ‘and wander’)
111This does not correspond to al-Fāsī’s description of a bilabial [w] in this context.
112The medieval sources, therefore, reflect a variety of different distributions of the labio-dental [v] pronunciation of consonant vav. These are summarized below:
Default | After pretonic [uː] | Glide after [uː]/ [oː] | |
Mishaʾel | [v] | [w] | ? |
al-Fāsī | [v] | [v] | [w] |
Transcriptions | [v] | [v] | [v] |
113It should be pointed out that the transcription in which the form عبون [ˈnoːvaʕ] is attested is a liturgical florilegium of biblical verses and exhibits several other deviations from Standard Tiberian reading.
We learn from the passage in the Treatise on the Shewa cited above that an initial conjunctive vav with a shewa was pronounced as a labio-dental like bet rafe, e.g. [vɔʔɔːˈmaːaR̟] ‘and he will say’. How was conjunctive vav pronounced when it has the form ּ ו , i.e. before the labial consonants ב and פ or before a silent shewa? This is described in a further passage from the Treatise on the Shewa:
- 62 (...)
When the vav is next to these three letters, namely
it should not be pronounced in this way (i.e. like bet) and it is not pointed with shewa, but rather with one point in the body of the vav, as in
‘and he will build’ (Josh. 6.26, etc.),
‘and you will clear it’ (Josh. 17.18),
‘and he will create’ (Isa. 4.5),
‘and the discernment of’ (Isa. 29.14) , ‘and clean’ (Job 11.4),
‘and lest’ (Deut. 4.9, etc.),
‘and he will turn’ (Deut. 31.20, etc.),
‘and Put’ (Gen. 10.6),
‘and the mouth of’ (Exod. 39.23, etc.),
‘and beans’ (2 Sam. 17.28),
‘and breathe’ (Ezek. 37.9) ,
‘and king’ (Gen. 14.2, etc.),
(cf.
‘her royal office’ Esther 1.19),
‘and the ruler’ (Gen. 45.8, etc.),
‘and his staff’ (Hos. 4.12),
‘and from upon’ (1 Sam. 6.5, etc.),
‘and he acted treacherously’ (cf.
Josh. 22.20). Nothing of this category is found that is pointed or read
or
because these three letters are different from the other letters in this respect. When they read them (i.e. these words), it is not pronounced bet; I mean, the vav in them is not pronounced bet, as the aforementioned cases that have shewa. Rather, you read their vavs as if you are pronouncing א ּ ו ּ, as if you are saying
You should read all of them in this way. You need not read with a pure ʾalef, for an ʾalef does not appear in them, but I have only compared it (to ʾalef) by way of approximation.… And if the second letter of the words has shewa, then it is always pointed and read with a point in the body of the vav and it is not read as bet, I mean with shewa, rather it is read as a pure vav, as in
‘and regarding Levi’ (Deut. 33.8),
‘and hear’ (Exod. 23.21, etc.),
‘and the matter of’ (Num. 23.3),
‘and call’ (Ruth 4.11, etc.),
‘and have dominion over’ (Gen. 1.28, etc.), and other cases.62
According to this passage, the onset of the syllable represented by conjunction ּ ו was not ʾalef. It would be inappropriate, therefore, to transcribe it as [ʔuː]. This, moreover, would be a heavy CVV syllable, with a consonantal onset and long vowel in the rhyme. This would be an unexpected syllabic structure for a particle that has shewa in other contexts, when compared to the syllable structure of particles such as and
These latter particles have a short vowel in an open syllable, represented by shewa (i.e. [ba], [la], see §I.2.5.1.) or a short vowel in a closed syllable when followed by a silent shewa, e.g.
[li∫muːˈʔeːel] ‘to Samuel’. It would be more appropriate to interpret the syllable structure of conjunctive vav ּ ו as [wu], with a voiced labio-velar approximant [w] as onset. Such a voiced onset would resemble the vowel nucleus [u] in acoustic and articulatory properties, and therefore would be difficult to distinguish from a long [uː].
114The Karaite transcriptions, indeed, represent the conjunction ּ ו with an initial Arabic wāw and not an Arabic ʾalif. In some transcriptions, word-initial ּ ו is represented by Arabic wāw vocalized with a Hebrew qibbuṣ, e.g.
(BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 65r, 3 | L [BHS]:
Gen. 21.23 ‘to my posterity’)
(BL Or 2539 MS B, fol. 124v, 9 | L [BHS]:
Num. 17.25 ‘so that you may make an end’)
115Elsewhere in the manuscripts long [uː] is transcribed with a shureq point in wāw, e.g.
(BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 77r, 7 | L [BHS]:
Gen. 24.60 ‘our sister’)
(BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 113v, 5 | L [BHS]:
Deut. 23.11 ‘from outside’)
(BL Or 2539 MS B, fol. 122v, 11 | L [BHS]:
Num. 16.26 ‘you touch’)
116This applies even to cases where the orthography in the Hebrew ketiv is defective and the Tiberian codices have a qibbuṣ, e.g.
(BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 63r, 2 | L [BHS]:
Gen. 21.7 ‘in his old age’)
(BL Or 2539 MS B, fol. 119r, 1 | L [BHS]:
Num. 9.11 ‘they shall eat it’)
117This suggests that the vocalization with qibbuṣ reflects a consonantal + short vowel [wu]. In one manuscript an Arabic ḍamma vowel is written on the wāw rather than a qibbuṣ, e.g.
(BL Or 2554 fol. 80r, 12 | L [BHS]:
Cant. 7.7 ‘and what’)
(BL Or 2554 fol. 54r, 4 | L [BHS]:
Cant. 2.15 ‘and our vineyards’)
(BL Or 2554 fol. 94v, 7 | L [BHS]:
Cant 8.14 ‘and be like! ’)
118In one manuscript, an initial conjunctive ּ ו is transcribed by Arabic wāw vocalized with a Hebrew shewa. This most likely represents a consonantal onset followed by a short vowel, e.g.
(BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 73v, 9 | L [BHS]:
Gen. 24.32 ‘and fodder’)
(BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 74r, 1 | L [BHS]:
Gen. 24.32 ‘and water’)
119In one manuscript an Arabic fatḥa sign is marked over the wāw that transcribes conjunctive ּ ו , e.g.
(BL Or 2552 fol. 99v, 5 | L [BHS]:
Ecc. 2.19 ‘and who’)
- 63 Data supplied by Ben Kantor.
This reflects a variant reading tradition in which the conjunctive vav is read [va] even before a labial. This may be what the vocalization with shewa in the manuscript BL Or 2539 MS A was intended to represent. In Standard Tiberian pronunciation [wu] reflects the shift of the short vowel to a rounded quality by assimilation to the labial environment. One may compare traditions of reading such as [vamiː] (L [BHS]: ) to cases in Origen’s Hexapla such as the following, where the Greek transcription has ουα or ουε where the Standard Tiberian tradition has :ּ ו63
ουαδου (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]:
Psa. 46.11 ‘and know! (mp)’)
ουαλσωνι (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]:
Psa. 35.28 ‘and my tongue’)
ουαρημ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]:
Psa. 28.9 ‘and shepherd (ms) them! ’)
ουεβροβ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]:
Psa. 49.7 ‘and in the multitude of (cstr.)’)
- 64 Data supplied by Shai Heijmans.
120Similar forms are occasionally found in the Babylonian tradition, e.g.64
(Yeivin 1985, 1152 | L [BHS]:
Mal. 2.6 ‘and in uprightness’)
121The normal vocalization of vav in the Babylonian tradition in such contexts, however, is with ḥireq, e.g.
(Yevin 1985, 338 | L [BHS]:
Prov. 15.16 ‘and trouble’)
(Yevin 1985, 342 | L [BHS]:
Isa. 50.1 ‘and for your transgressions’)
(Yevin 1985, 352 | L [BHS]:
Ecc. 2.21 ‘and with skill’)
122There is an exceptional case of ḥireq in L after conjunctive vav in this context, where ּ ו is expected:
L [BHS]: (Gen. 32.18 ‘and he will ask you’ | S:
)
123When word-initial conjunctive ּ ו is followed by a consonant with silent shewa, it sometimes takes minor gaʿya in the Tiberian tradition. Minor gaʿya lengthened the duration of a short vowel in a closed syllable slightly (represented in IPA as a half-long vowel, cf. §I.2.8.2.2.). When this is the case, some transcriptions represent the lengthened syllable with two Arabic wāws. This must be interpreted as representing a consonantal onset followed by a lengthened vowel [uˑ] vowel, i.e. [wuˑ], e.g.
(BL Or 2540, fol. 8v, 4 | L [BHS]:
Exod. 3.8 ‘and to bring him up’)
(BL Or 2546, fol. 85v, 8 | L [BHS]:
Num. 32.11 ‘and to Jacob’)
(BL Or 2544 fol. 158r, 4 | L [BHS]:
Exod. 8.4 ‘and to Aaron’)
124The same transcription is found when a word-initial conjunctive ּ ו is lengthened by a phonetic gaʿya (§I.I.2.5.8.4.), which causes a following shewa to be read as vocalic, e.g.
(BL Or 2555 fol. 96r, 5 | L [BHS]:
Ecc. 9.7 ‘and drink! ’)
- 65 Yeivin (1980, 285–286).
125In some model Tiberian codices a vav before a following [uː] is written with a dot. This could be interpreted as an attempt to represent a labio-velar onset [w] rather than [v], e.g.65
L, A: (Deut. 29.25 ‘and they worshipped’)
L, B: (Exod. 35.26 ‘they span’)
C: (Jer. 50.5 ‘let us join’)
- 66 Yeivin (1980, 286).
126In some manuscripts, consonantal vav, before [uː] and also in other contexts, is marked with a rafe, e.g.66
C: (Isa. 46.5 ‘and you make equal’)
L: (Psa. 90.17 ‘and let it be’)
127In manuscripts with Non-Standard Tiberian vocalization, these two strategies for marking consonantal vav have been extended to other contexts. The placement of a dot in consonantal vav is found in such manuscripts in word-initial, word-medial and word-final position, e.g.
128Genizah manuscripts
(T-S A13.20, Blapp 2017, 162 | L [BHS]:
Psa. 69.35 ‘and earth’)
(T-S A13.20, Blapp 2017, 162 | L [BHS]:
Psa. 69.29 ‘and with’)
(T-S A13.20, Blapp 2017, 162 | L [BHS]:
Psa. 71.5 ‘my hope’).
(T-S A11.1, Blapp 2017, 51 | L [BHS]:
Job 39.23 ‘upon him’)
129European manuscripts
(ASCNON B.I.1v, Pilocane 2004, 27 | L [BHS]:
Num. 27.11 ‘to him’)
In such contexts, the vav would have been pronounced as a labio-dental according to the Standard Tiberian tradition. Moreover, in some cases, a vowel sign is written under it, which shows it must be consonantal, e.g. Comparison with the strategies for marking consonantal vav in the Babylonian and Palestinian traditions, however, suggest that the dot in the vav should be interpreted as a shureq vowel sign. Its purpose in the Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts was to ensure that the letter was read as a separate segment from the adjacent vowel, although it was only an approximating representation of its pronunciation, i.e. presumably a labio-dental.
- 67 Data supplied by Shai Heijmans.
130In Babylonian vocalization, consonantal vav is sometimes vocalized with a sign that can only be interpreted as a shureq vowel, e.g.67
(OB, Yeivin 1985, 267 | L [BHS]:
Deut. 27.16 ‘his father’)
(LB, Yeivin 1985, 267 | L [BHS]:
Job 21.33 ‘and before him’)
(OB, Yeivin 1985, 267 | L [BHS]:
Prov. 26.3 ‘for the back’)
131According to the Mishaʾel ben ʿUzziʾel in the passage cited above, the Iraqis, i.e. the Jews of Babylonia, pronounced consonantal vav as a bilabial, so a shureq was more appropriate as a representation of its pronunciation than in the Tiberian tradition. In manuscripts with Palestinian vocalization, the vowel sign of ḥolem occasionally represents consonantal vav, e.g.
(Bod. Heb. d 44, ff. 1-4, Dietrich 1968, 25* | L [BHS]:
2 Kings 2.15 ‘and they bowed before him’)
(T-S 20.53, Murtonen 1958, דל , Allony and Díez Macho 1958, 259 | L [BHS]:
Psa. 30.3 ‘I cried’)
132The ḥolem sign here, as with the Tiberian shureq, must be regarded as an approximating representation of the labio-dental pronunciation of Palestinian consonantal vav.
- 68 A trace of dot is visible and the parchment has been scraped.
- 69 In later sources the dot in the word is referred to as a dagesh. Jedidiah Norzi (seventeenth centu (...)
In Gen. 46.13 L has a dot in the second vav of Some early codices do not have the dot, e.g. S:
In B a dot appears to have been written and then erased.68 The name occurs also in Num. 26.23 where L and other early codices have
without the dot. It is likely that the dot in the vocalization of L in Gen. 46.13 should be identified as shureq to mark the consonantal pronunciation of the letter rather than a dagesh and the reading [fuːˈwɔː] was intended, as in other manuscripts.69 The Babylonian vocalization of
(L, Gen. 46.13) is
(Yeivin 1985, 764), with a shureq over the vav and no vocalization on the pe. This could be compared to Tiberian vocalizations such as
which al-Fāsī claims contained a bilabial glide: [R̟uːwaħ]. Babylonian
is likely to have been intended to represent [fuːˈwɔː].
133In Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts, rafe is marked on consonantal vav in a wider range of contexts than in the Standard Tiberian codices. It is found on vav in word-initial and word-medial position, e.g.
(T-S A12.1, Blapp 2017, 99 | L [BHS]:
Ruth 1.12 ‘and also’)
(T-S A12.1, Blapp 2017, 99 | L [BHS]:
Prov. 29.20 ‘hope’)
(T-S A12.1, Blapp 2017, 99 | L [BHS]:
Prov. 29.23 ‘pride’)
134The function of the rafe here is to mark the letter as consonantal but ungeminated.
135Occasionally a rafe sign is used to mark consonantal ungeminated vav in Palestinian vocalization, e.g.
(T-S 12.195, Kahle 1930, 83 | L [BHS]:
Psa. 53.2 ‘iniquity’)
136In Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts, a consonantal vav is indicated by a shewa sign, often written within the letter. The shewa makes it clear that the letter closes a syllable and so is to be read as a consonant, e.g.
137Genizah manuscripts
(T-S A13.18, Blapp 2017, 125 | L [BHS]:
Psa. 89.46 ‘on him’)
(T-S A13.18, Blapp 2017, 125 | L [BHS]:
Psa. 91.4 ‘his wings’)
138European manuscripts
(Codex Reuchlinianus, Morag 1959, 219 | L [BHS]:
Isa. 6.1 ‘and his train’)
(BL Add 21161 | L [BHS]:
Hos. 14.1 ‘and his pregnant women’)
139The distinction in the Middle Ages between the pronunciation of vav as a labio-dental in Palestine and its pronunciation as bilabial in Iraq is continued in modern reading traditions. In reading traditions of the Levant, such as Aleppo, consonantal vav is pronounced as a labio-dental, e.g.
ħajˈjav (Aleppo, Katz 1981,4 | L [BHS]:
Gen. 47.28 ‘his life’)
ˌveƔamˈhuˑ ˌjiƔˈdal (Aleppo, Katz 1981,9 | L [BHS]:
Gen. 48.19 ‘and he also will be great’)
- 70 Here and elsewhere the transcription system of Ben-Ḥayyim is used for the Samaritan tradition.
140In the Samaritan reading tradition, consonantal vav has shifted to [b] (except in the case of conjunctive vav), reflecting its merger with fricative bet [v] and the consequent shift of fricative bet [v] to plosive bet [b] (Ben-Ḥayyim 2000, 33–34), e.g.70
bå̄bīyyima (Samaritan, Ben-Ḥayyim 2000, 33-34 | L [BHS]:
Exod. 26.32 ‘their hooks’)
īšåb (Samaritan, Ben-Ḥayyim 2000, 33-34 | L [BHS]:
Gen. 25.25 ‘Esau’)
- 71 Data supplied by Aaron Hornkohl.
141The occurrence of pe in place of consonantal vav in a biblical manuscript from Qumran could be taken as evidence that the labio-dental pronunciation already existed in the Second Temple period:71
( 4Q111 3.8 | L [BHS]:
Lam. 1.17 ‘The Lord commanded Jacob’)
- 72 Data supplied by Ben Kantor.
142The pre-Masoretic transcriptions into Greek and Latin, however, reflect a pronunciation of the consonantal vav as a bilabial [w]. In Greek this is represented by ου or υ and in Latin by u, e.g.72
143Septuagint (third century B.C.E.)
οὐϰάν (Göttingen Septuagint | L [BHS]:
Gen. 36.27 ‘Akan’)
Εὕαν (Göttingen Septuagint | L [BHS]:
Gen. 4.1 ‘Eve’)
144Hexapla of Origen (c. 185–254 C.E.)
ουαδωρ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]:
Psa. 49.12 ‘and generation’)
βγηουαθω (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]:
Psa. 46.4 ‘at its swelling’)
145Jerome (346-420 C.E.)
uaiomer (Jerome, Epistula LXXIII.55.18, ed. Hilberg | L [BHS]:
Gen. 4.15 ‘and he said’)
illaue (Jerome, Hebraicae Quaestiones in Libro Geneseos, ed. de Lagarde et al., 6.5, 6, 12 | L [BHS]:
Gen. 29.34 ‘ [my husband] will join himself [to me]’)
146In medieval Greek transcriptions, on the other hand, consonantal vav is represented by β, which reflects [v], e.g.
147Nikolaos of Otranto (1155/60–1235)
βεέθ (Kantor forthcoming | L [BHS]:
Gen. 1.1 ‘and (direct object marker)’)
βιγιομερου (Kantor forthcoming | L [BHS]:
Ex. 32.4 ‘and they said’)
148In modern Iraqi reading traditions, such as Baghdad (Morag 1977, 8) and Kurdistan (Sabar 2013), vav is pronounced as a bilabial [w]. The same applies to the Yemenite reading tradition, which was closely related historically with Babylonia in the Middle Ages (Morag 1963; Yaʾakov 2015), e.g.
wejɪdˈgu (Baghdad, Morag 1977,8 | L [BHS]:
Gen. 48.16 ‘and let them increase’)
wă∫ɔfatˁ (Yemen, Morag 1963,42 | L [BHS]:
Isa. 2.4 ‘and He will judge’)
I.1.7. Zayin ז ַיׅן ז( )
149Voiced alveolar sibilant [z]
- 73 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.1.2.
150According to Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, the Tiberians called this letter zāy ( יאז ), which is the name of the corresponding Arabic letter.73 A shortened form of the name, zay, was also used in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (Sokoloff 1992, 175) and Syriac (Payne Smith 1879, 1116).
- 74 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.8. Eldar (1980, fol. 10b, line 77).
- 75 Cf. Eldar (1980, n.70).
- 76 (...)
151Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ states that the place of the articulation of the letter is the teeth.74 This evidently refers to the movement of the teeth accompanying the pronunciation of the sibilants. The author does not mention the action of the tongue, which was the main articulator.75 The Sefer Yeṣira describes zayin as being articulated between the teeth with a ‘resting tongue’, or a ‘flat tongue’ according to some versions.76 In both these passages, the intention may have been that the tongue tip was not engaged in the articulation of the letter, i.e. it was articulated with the blade.
152Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ mentions that there is a variant form of zayin which is called zāy makrūkh, but the author says he knows nothing about it.
- 77 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.2.
It is said that there are some who attribute a particular feature to zayin and call it zāy makrūkh. I have not, however, been able to identify their purpose in using the term makrūkh, so that I could have described it.77
153The term makrūkh was used to refer to an emphatic, i.e. pharyngealized, form of resh (§I.1.20.). It appears, therefore, that the zāy makrūkh was an emphatic [zˁ], though its distribution is unknown.
154An anonymous Masoretic treatise refers to two variant forms of the letter ṣade in the Tiberian Hebrew reading tradition:
- 79 Ed. Allony (1973, 102, lines 29-32 [Allony’s reading has been corrected in places]): (...)
There is another letter (with two realizations), which the people of Palestine never utter (in their vernacular speech). This is ṣade and (variant) ṣade. It is, however, familiar to the inhabitants of the lands (of the diaspora) due to their living in close proximity to other peoples and their using other languages and languages of other nations.79
- 80 He describes the ṣade as al-ṣād al-mušamma bi-l-zāʾ ‘ṣād flavoured with zāʾ’; cf. Schreiner (1886, (...)
It is possible that this is referring to a voiced variant of ṣade, i.e. [zˁ]. Ibn Khaldūn (North Africa, d. 1406), indeed, refers to a voiced allophone of ṣade [zˁ] in the pronunciation of the name i.e. [ʔamazˁˈjɔːhuː].80
155Sībawayhi describes the existence of an emphatic [zˁ] sound in Arabic, which arose through partial assimilation of the letter ṣād to an adjacent voiced consonant. With regard to the pronunciation of the ṣād in the word maṣdar ‘source’ he states:
- 81 فضارعواָ֖بهָ֖اشبهָ֖الحروفָ֖بالدالָ֖منָ֖موضعهָ֖وهىָ֖الزاىָ֖النهاָ֖مجهورةָ֖غيرָ֖مطبقةָ֖ولمָ֖يبدلهاָ֖ (...)
They make it (the ṣād) similar to the homorganic letter that is most like dāl, i.e. zāy, since it is unaspirated and not emphatic, but they do not change it into pure zāy, lest the emphatic quality of the letter be removed.81
- 82 Makkī ibn ʾAbī Ṭālib al-Qaysī (d. 437/1045), for example, refers to ṣād allatī yuḵāliṭu lafẓuhā laf (...)
156An emphatic Arabic zāy was recognized as an additional Arabic letter in some medieval works on the correct recitation of the Qurʾān (tajwīd), where a voiced variant of an Arabic ṣād is intended.82 The Tiberian terminology may have been influenced by this tradition in the Arabic tajwīd literature.
157The statement in Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ concerning the zāy makrūkh implies that it is a variant of the written letter zayin (‘there are some who attribute a particular feature to zayin’). The foregoing discussion, however, suggests that the term is referring to the voiced oral reading of the ṣade.
I.1.8. Ḥet ח (ח תיֵ )
158Unvoiced pharyngeal fricative [ħ]
159This letter is transcribed by Arabic ḥāʾ (unvoiced pharyngeal fricative) in the Karaite transcriptions, e.g.
يح ֵֽ ط (BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 100r, 8 | L [BHS]:
Deut. 19.15 ‘sin’)
(BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 65r, 3 | L [BHS]:
Gen. 21.23 ‘like the kindness’)
(BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 67v, 1 | L [BHS]:
Gen. 22.9 ‘the altar’)
160According to Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, the pharyngeals and the laryngeals had the same place of articulation:
- 83 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.2.
The letters עחהא have a single place of articulation. This is the throat and the root of the tongue. The Tiberians call it the ‘root of the tongue’ and ‘place of swallowing’.83
- 84 Ibn Janāḥ, Kitāb al-Lumaʿ (ed. Derenbourg 1886, 26–27), Menaḥem ben Saruq, Maḥberet (ed. Filipowsk (...)
161It is possible that the division of this place of articulation into the ‘root of the tongue’ and ‘place of swallowing’ was intended to refer to the production of the pharyngeals and laryngeals respectively. Some medieval grammarians state that ḥet and its voiced counterpart ʿayin were articulated less deep in the throat than ʾalef and he.84
- 85 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.5.
162In the Standard Tiberian tradition, ḥet does not take dagesh. According to Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, the letter ḥet could not be made ‘heavy’ with dagesh,85 i.e. it could not be pronounced with different degrees of muscular pressure.
163In Non-Standard Tiberian vocalization, the distribution of dagesh is different from that of the Standard Tiberian tradition. The distribution of dagesh characteristic of the תפכדגב consonants is extended to most other consonants, with the result that, like the תפכדגב consonants, they take dagesh after a silent shewa or at the beginning of a word when not preceded by a word ending in a vowel and a conjunctive accent (Morag 1959; Blapp 2018). The dagesh in these consonants represented gemination (Yeivin 1983; Khan 2017). Further details of this system of marking dagesh will be given in §I.3.3. What is significant here is that the extension of dagesh to consonants other than תפכדגב in Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts does not include the pharyngeals, which in the vast majority of cases do not take dagesh. This reflects the difficulty of geminating these consonants. A dagesh is found only very sporadically marked on ḥet in Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts, e.g.
164Genizah manuscripts
(T-S A13.20, Blapp 2017, 163; 2018, 143 | L [BHS]:
Psa. 69.29 ‘the living’).
165European manuscripts
(Codex Reuchlinianus, Morag 1959, 219 | L [BHS]:
2 Sam. 11.25 ‘your fighting’)
166This may have been a strategy for ensuring that the letter was read correctly and did not lose its consonantal pronunciation, rather than marking gemination. The rafe sign is occasionally used with a similar function in Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts. As in some other contexts in Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts, the rafe here marks the letter as consonantal but not geminated, e.g.
(Blapp 2017, 175 | L [BHS]:
Psa. 69.6 ‘they are [not] hidden’)
167Both of these strategies for ensuring that the letter is read and not weakened are found in Palestinian vocalization, e.g.
168Dagesh
(Fassberg 1987, 84 | L [BHS]:
Lam. 1.2 ‘her cheek’)
169Rafe
(T-S 12.195, Kahle 1930, 82-84 | L [BHS]:
Psa. 53.4 ‘they have become corrupt’)
170The potential vulnerability of ḥet to weakening is reflected in Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts by the practice of marking a shewa sign under the letter in word-final position. The purpose of this was to draw attention to the fact that they are consonants closing a syllable and are not to be weakened and read as vowel letters, e.g.
171Genizah manuscripts
(T-S A11.1, Blapp 2017, 48 | L [BHS]:
Job 39.14 ‘and she forgot’)
(T-S A13.18, Blapp 2017, 127 | L [BHS]:
Psa. 89.47 ‘forever’)
172European manuscripts
(Codex Reuchlinianus, Morag 1959, 233 | L [BHS]:
1 Kings 11.40 ‘and he fled’)
(ASCNON B.I. 2r, Pilocane 2004 | L [BHS]:
1 Chr. 2.4, ‘Zerah’)
Within the Standard Tiberian reading tradition a ḥet was prevented from potential weakening in some contexts by lengthening the vowel before it (§I.2.10.), e.g. [wufˌθaˑḥˈjɔː] ‘and Pethahiah’ (Neh. 11.24),
[ˌmiˑḥˈjɔː] ‘reviving’ (Ezra 9.8). Another strategy to protect the consonantal pronunciation of ḥet at the end of a word-internal syllable was to place a dagesh in the following letter (§I.3.1.11.2.). This is found in some early manuscripts (Yeivin 1980, 295; Ginsburg 1897, 133), e.g.
(JTS ENA 346 | L [BHS]:
‘your bread’ Ezek. 4.15)
- 86 Data supplied by Aaron Hornkohl. Cf. also Reymond (2014, 92).
173There is clear evidence from the Dead Sea scrolls of the weakening of ḥet in some biblical reading traditions in the Second Temple period, especially that of 1QIsaa. This is reflected by the occurrence of he or ʾalef where the Masoretic tradition has ḥet, e.g.86
( 1QIsaa 35.27 | L [BHS]:
Isa. 42.16 ‘darkness’)
( 1QIsaa 37.6 | L [BHS]:
Isa. 43.28 ‘and I will profane’)
( 1QIsaa 44.17 | L [BHS]:
Isa. 53.10 ‘he caused him sickness’)
( 1QIsaa 48.6 | L [BHS]:
Isa. 58.11 ‘in scorched places’)
- 87 Data supplied by Aaron Hornkohl.
174In the modern Samaritan reading tradition ḥet has weakened in most contexts to ʾalef or zero (Ben-Ḥayyim 2000, 38–39), e.g.87
ʾēsəd (L [BHS]:
Gen. 24.14 ‘grace’)
ʾamrāʾēfåt (L [BHS]:
Gen. 1.2 ‘was hovering’)
ruwwi (L [BHS]:
Gen. 6.3 ‘my spirit’)
mār (L [BHS]:
Gen. 30.33 ‘tomorrow’)
wrū (L [BHS]:
Gen. 1.2 ‘and the spirit of’)
175The weakening of the pharyngeals reflected in the Dead Sea scrolls and the Samaritan tradition had its roots in the contact of Hebrew with non-Semitic languages, in particular Greek, in the pre-Islamic period. The measures taken to ensure the correct reading of the ḥet in the medieval manuscripts described above show that a special effort had to be made to avoid its being weakened in the transmission of the Masoretic biblical reading traditions still in the Middle Ages. Indeed, in the medieval period there is evidence for the weakening of the pharyngeals in Palestinian liturgical poetry (§I.0.9.).
I.1.9. Ṭet ט (ט תיֵ )
176Emphatic (i.e. pharyngealized, with retracted tongue root and increased muscular pressure) unvoiced alveolar plosive [tˁ]
- 88 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.7.; ed. Eldar (1980, fol. 10b, lines 67–69 (...)
177According to Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, it was articulated with the tongue tip and the gums.88 In the Karaite transcriptions, it is represented by Arabic ṭāʾ, which was a pharyngealized [tˁ], e.g.
ֵ م ַ ا ֵ ط ֹ وبو (BL Or 2539 MS B, fol. 131v, 11 | L [BHS]:
Num. 24.5 ‘how fair are [your tents]’)
ֵ م ִ وحي ֨ ط (BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 57r, 8 | L [BHS]:
Gen. 14.23 ‘from a thread’)
ֵ ك ִֵ طم ַ حا ַ يو (BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 64r, 3 | L [BHS]:
Gen. 21.16 ‘like the shots of’)
- 89 Data supplied by Ben Kantor.
178In Greek transcriptions from the pre-Masoretic period, ṭet is represented by Greek tau, which was an unaspirated stop [t]. In Latin transcriptions from the pre-Masoretic period it is represented by Latin t, which likewise represented an unaspirated stop [t]. These reflected the unaspirated realization of the ṭet, which is also a feature of Arabic ṭāʾ. Examples:89
179Septuagint (third century B.C.E.)
Φουτιὴλ (Göttingen Septuagint | L [BHS]:
Ex. 6.25 ‘Putiel’)
Ἰεϰτάν (Göttingen Septuagint | L [BHS]:
Gen. 10.25 ‘Joktan’)
Λώτ (Göttingen Septuagint | L [BHS]: ל ֹֽ טו Gen. 11.27 ‘Lot’)
180Hexapla of Origen (c. 185–254 C.E.)
βατε (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]:
Psa. 28.7 ‘ [my heart] trusted’)
εμματ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]:
Psa. 30.7 ‘I [will not] be moved’)
ψελλετηνι (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]:
Psa. 31.2 ‘rescue me! (ms)’)
181Jerome (346-420 C.E.)
phut (Jerome, Commentary on Ezekiel, ed. Glorie, VIII.27.935 | L [BHS]:
Ezek. 27.10 ‘Put’)
atemoth (Jerome, Commentary on Ezekiel, ed. Glorie, XII.40.517–518 | L [BHS]:
Ezek. 40.16 ‘narrowing (fp)’)
bete (Jerome, Hebraicae Quaestiones in Libro Geneseos, ed. de Lagarde et al., 54.5 | L [BHS]:
Gen. 34.25 ‘security’)
mesphat (Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah, ed. Gryson, II.42.6 | L [BHS]:
Isa. 5.7 ‘judgment’)
phaleta (Jerome, Commentary on the Minor Prophets, ed. Adriaen, Joel, II, p. 197, line 783 | L [BHS]:
Joel 3.5 ‘I will pour’)
I.1.10. Yod י ( י ֹ דו )
182Palatal unrounded semi-vowel [j]; voiced palatal stop [Ɉ] when geminated
183Saadya states that the Tiberians pronounced yod with dagesh like Arabic jīm:
- 91 In some of the early Arabic dialects geminated yāʾ was pronounced like jīm; cf. Roman (1983, 101–6 (...)
According to the early Arabic grammarians Sībawayhi and al-Khalīl (eighth century C.E.), jīm was realized as a voiced palatal stop [Ɉ], which had the same place of articulation as the Arabic yāʾ (the semi-vowel [j]), so presumably Saadya is referring to the realization of yod with dagesh as [Ɉ], e.g. [vaɈɈa∫ˈmeːeð] ‘and he destroyed’ (1 Kings 16.12), which resulted from the strengthening of the articulation of [j] to a stop.91
184In many Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts, a word-final consonantal yod is marked by a lower dot, which can be identified as a ḥireq vowel. Occasionally the yod is also marked with a rafe sign, e.g.
185Genizah manuscripts
(T-S A12.1, Blapp 2017, 84 | L [BHS]:
Prov. 30.9 ‘my God’)
(T-S A13.18, Blapp 2017, 130 | L [BHS]:
Psa. 89.35 ‘my lips’)
186European manuscripts
(Codex Reuchlinianus, Morag 1959, 220 | L [BHS]:
Isa. 1.24 ‘from my enemies’)
(BL Add 21161 | L [BHS]:
Joel 1.6 ‘nation’)
- 92 Data supplied by Shai Heijmans.
187In Babylonian vocalization, a ḥireq is marked not only on word-final consonantal yod but also on consonantal yod that occurs within a word, e.g.92
(OB, Yeivin 1985, 277 | L [BHS]:
Psa. 102.12 ‘bent’)
(OB, Yeivin 1985, 277 | L [BHS]:
Jer. 18.8 ‘the nation’)
(OB, Yeivin 1985, 275 | L [BHS]:
Ezek. 17.6 ‘and it became’)
(MB, Yeivin 1985, 275 | L [BHS]:
Prov. 31.10 ‘virtue’)
188Another strategy for marking word-final consonantal yod that is sporadically found in Non-Standard Tiberian is to write a dot within the body of the letter, which can be identified as a mappiq sign, e.g.
(T-S A11.1, Blapp 2017, 51 | L [BHS]:
Job 41.2 ‘before me’)
189These strategies for marking word-final consonantal yod reflect the perception that the letter was a weak consonant and was vulnerable to being slurred over.
- 93 Data supplied by Ben Kantor.
190There is some sporadic evidence in various Greek transcriptions from the pre-Masoretic period of the weakening and contraction of yod where it is consonantal in the Masoretic tradition, e.g.93
191Hexapla of Origen (c. 185–254 C.E.)
192Final ay represented by eta possibly reflecting contraction to ē (Kantor 2017, 234):
ωεβη (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]:
Psa. 35.19 ‘my enemies’)
σωνη (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]:
Psa. 35.19 ‘those who hate me’)
193Septuagint (third century B.C.E.)
194Zero representation where consonantal yod appears in the Masoretic tradition:
Ἀλληλί (Göttingen Septuagint | L [BHS]:
Num. 26.26 ‘Jahleelite’)
Ἀσιηλί (Göttingen Septuagint | L [BHS]:
Num. 26.48 ‘Jahzeelite’)
Ἐτεβάθα (Göttingen Septuagint | L [BHS]:
Num. 33.33 ‘Jotbathah’)
- 94 Data supplied by Aaron Hornkohl.
195In some of the biblical Dead Sea scrolls, an ʾalef occasionally appears where there is consonantal yod in the Masoretic tradition, which reflects weakening, e.g.94
( 1QIsaa 13.3 | L [BHS]:
Isa. 14.30 ‘it/he will kill’)
( 1QIsaa 16.22 | L [BHS]:
Isa. 21.8 ‘lion’)
( 1QIsaa 18.8 | L [BHS]:
Isa. 23.3 ‘nations’)
( 1QIsaa 34.23 | L [BHS]:
Isa. 41.18 ‘hilltops’)
( 4Q98g f1.6 | L [BHS]:
Psa. 89.23 ‘enemy’)
I.1.11. Kaf ך , כ ( ףכ )
196Kaf with dagesh ( כ ּ): unvoiced aspirated velar stop [kh]
197Kaf without dagesh ( כ ): unvoiced uvular fricative [χ]
198A kaf without dagesh is frequently, but not regularly, marked by the rafe sign in the model Standard Tiberian codices.
- 95 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.6. Ed. Eldar (1980, fols. 10a-10b, lines 6 (...)
- 96 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.6. Ed. Eldar (1980, fol. 10a, lines 58-59)
- 97 Roman (1983, 218).
199According to Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, kaf with dagesh was articulated with ‘the middle of the tongue.’95 Kaf without dagesh, on the other hand, was articulated further back, on the posterior ‘third of the tongue, which is adjacent to the pharynx, opposite the (soft) palate.’96 In the Karaite transcriptions fricative kaf is represented by Arabic khāʾ, which was pronounced as an unvoiced uvular fricative,97 e.g.
(BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 74r, 2 | L [BHS]:
Gen. 24.33 ‘to eat’)
(BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 68r, 3 | L [BHS]:
Gen. 22.13 ‘in the thicket’)
(BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 63v, 2 | L [BHS]:
Gen. 21.12 ‘in your (ms) eyes’)
- 98 Data supplied by Ben Kantor.
200Greek transcriptions from the pre-Masoretic period represent plosive kaf with the letter χ, which represented an aspirated voiceless velar stop [kh] until the Byzantine period, rather than ϰ, which represented an unaspirated [k]. This demonstrates that plosive kaf at the time of these transcriptions was aspirated, e.g.98
201Septuagint (third century B.C.E.)
Χαναναῖοι (Göttingen Septuagint | L [BHS]:
Gen. 12.6 ‘Canaanite’)
Χάσαδ (Göttingen Septuagint | L [BHS]:
Gen. 22.22 ‘Chesed’)
Χαλὲβ (Göttingen Septuagint | L [BHS]:
Num. 13.6 ‘Caleb’)
Ἀσχανὰζ (Göttingen Septuagint | L [BHS]:
Gen. 10.3 ‘Ashkenaz’)
202Hexapla of Origen (c. 185–254 C.E.)
χααψαρ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]:
Psa. 18.43 ‘like dust’)
χαμμα (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]:
Psa. 35.17 ‘how long/much...?’)
χελλωθαμ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]:
Psa. 18.38 ‘wiping them out’)
δερχω (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]:
Psa. 18.31 ‘his way’)
- 99 Roman (1983, 55).
203Likewise, in the Tiberian pronunciation tradition, plosive kaf was almost certainly aspirated. In the Karaite transcriptions, plosive kaf with dagesh is represented by Arabic kāf, which was an aspirated stop.99
- 100 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.6. Ed. Eldar (1980, fols. 8b, 10a, 254, n. (...)
204Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ describes the stop [kʰ] as primary (ʾaṣl) and the fricative [χ] as secondary (farʿ).100
I.1.12. Lamed ל ָ מ ֶ ד (ל)
205Voiced alveolar lateral continuant [l]
206In Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ the name of this letter is spelt דאמל , which appears to reflect a different pronunciation from that of the normal Hebrew form of the name ל ָ מ ֶ ד , with stress on the final syllable.
- 101 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.7. Ed. Eldar (1980, fol. 10b, lines 67–69) (...)
207According to Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, the articulation of this letter involved the contact of the tongue tip with the gums.101
I.1.13. Mem מ ֵ ם ( ם, מ )
208Voiced bi-labial nasal [m]
209In Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ the name of this letter is spelt םאמ .
I.1.14. Nun ן , נ ( נ ּ ןו )
210Voiced alveolar nasal [n]
- 102 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.7. Ed. Eldar (1980, fol. 10b, lines 67–68) (...)
211According to Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, it was articulated with the end of the tongue and the gums.102
I.1.15. Samekh ס ( ס ָ מ ְֶ ך )
212Unvoiced alveolar sibilant [s]
In Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ the name of this letter is spelt ךאמס , which appears to reflect a different pronunciation from that of the normal Hebrew form of the name with stress on the final syllable.
- 103 Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3; ed. Eldar (1980, fol. 1 (...)
213According to the medieval sources, it was articulated in the same place as the letter zayin,103 apparently with the blade of the tongue rather than the tip (see the description of zayin §I.1.7.).
In some medieval Muslim sources, the samekh in the name ‘Phinehas’ is transcribed by ṣād [sˁ]: صاحنف (Schreiner 1886, 254). This apparently reflects its pharyngealization after the pharyngeal ḥet.
- 104 Data supplied by Aaron Hornkohl.
214Sporadic examples of the pharyngealization of samekh in the environment of pharyngeals is attested in the Dead Sea scrolls, e.g.104
( 4Q76 4.12 | L [BHS]:
Mal 3.21 ‘and you [pl] will trample’)
I.1.16. ʿAyin ע ַיִו ע( )
215Voiced pharyngeal fricative [ʕ]
216This letter is transcribed by Arabic ʿayn (voiced pharyngeal fricative) in the Karaite transcriptions, e.g.
ع ֵ ني ֵֶַ ها ִ ا (BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 64v, 3 | L [BHS]:
Gen. 21.19 ‘her eyes’)
ֵ و ַ ي ַ ا ַ ع ַ س (BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 63r, 3 | L [BHS]:
Gen. 21.8 ‘and he made’)
ֵ س ֵ֣ م ֵַ عا (BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 63v, 3 | L [BHS]:
Gen. 21.12 ‘hear! ’)
217Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ does not distinguish between the place of articulation of the laryngeals and that of the pharyngeals. Some medieval grammarians, however, state that ḥet and its voiced counterpart ʿayin were articulated less deep in the throat than ʾalef and he (see §I.1.8.).
- 105 Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.2., §II.L.1.3.3.
218In the Standard Tiberian tradition, ʿayin does not take dagesh. According to Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, the letter ʿayin could not be made ‘heavy’ by dagesh,105 i.e. the consonant could not be pronounced with different degrees of muscular pressure. Also in Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts, where the use of dagesh has been extended, ʿayin does not take dagesh.
219In Palestinian vocalization dagesh is sporadically marked on ʿayin, it seems as a measure to ensure that it was pronounced correctly and not weakened, e.g.
(T-S NS 249.6, Dietrich 1968, 74* | L [BHS]:
1 Chron. 2.35 ‘Attai’)
(T-S A43.1, Kahle 1930, 94 | L [BHS]:
Jer. 25.19 ‘Pharaoh’)
220In Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts, ʿayin is occasionally marked with a rafe sign, marking the letter as consonantal but not geminated, e.g.
(T-S A13.18, Blapp 2017, 140 | L [BHS]:
Psa. 89.7 ‘is comparable’)
(T-S A13.20, Blapp 2017, 177 | L [BHS]:
Psa. 68.36 ‘to the people’)
221The rafe sign is occasionally found on ʿayin also in Palestinian vocalization, e.g.
(T-S NS 249.3, Dietrich 1968, 128 | L [BHS]:
Psa. 77.5 ‘my eyes’)
222In many Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts a word-final ʿayin is marked with shewa, indicating that it was a consonant that closed a syllable, e.g.
223Genizah manuscripts
(T-S A13.18, Blapp 2017, 127 | L [BHS]:
Psa. 90.12 ‘teach! ’)
(T-S A13.20, Blapp 2017, 156 | L [BHS]:
Psa. 71.4 ‘wicked’)
224European manuscripts
(Codex Reuchlinianus, Morag 1959, 233 | L [BHS]:
2 Sam. 22.7 ‘and he heard’)
(ACAMO 28 2v, Pilocane 2004, 29 | L [BHS]:
‘evil’ 1 Kings 16.25)
225The use of dagesh, rafe and shewa in the manuscripts with Non-Standard Tiberian and Palestinian vocalization reflect the perceived vulnerability to weakening of the ʿayin. Similar strategies of vocalization were also used for other gutturals in these manuscripts (§I.1.1, §I.1.5., §I.1.8.).
Within the Standard Tiberian reading tradition a ʿayin was prevented from potential weakening in some contexts by lengthening the vowel before it (§I.2.10.), e.g. [∫aˌmaˑʕˈjɔːhuː] ‘Shemaiah (2 Chron. 11.2),
[∫aˌmaˑʕ-ˈnɔː] ‘listen’ (1 Sam. 28.22). Another strategy to protect the consonantal pronunciation of ʿayin at the end of a word-internal syllable was to place a dagesh in the following letter (§I.3.1.11.2.). This is found in some early manuscripts (Yeivin 1980, 295; Ginsburg 1897, 133), e.g.
C: (L [BHS]:
‘he supplants’ Jer. 9.3)
- 106 Data supplied by Aaron Hornkohl. Cf. also Reymond (2014, 92).
226There is clear evidence from the Dead Sea scrolls of the weakening of ʿayin in some biblical reading traditions in the Second Temple period, especially that of 1QIsaa. This is reflected, for example, by the omission of ʿayin where it occurs in the Standard Tiberian Masoretic Text, or its replacement by ʾalef or he, e.g.106
( 1QIsaa 22.19 | L [BHS]: K רבע Q
Isa. 28.15 ‘ [the flood/whip] shall pass’)
( 1QIsaa 22.26 | L [BHS]:
Isa. 28.20 ‘ [is too short] to stretch out’)
( 5Q6 f1v.6 | L [BHS]:
Lam. 5.10 ‘fever from hunger’)
( 4Q27 f24ii + 27–30.18 | L [BHS]:
Num. 24.6 ‘ [Yhwh] planted’)
( 1QIsaa 13.17 | L [BHS]:
Isa. 16.1 ‘from Sela’)
( 1QIsaa 4.16 | L [BHS]:
Isa. 5.5 ‘and now’)
( 1QIsaa 19.27 | L [BHS]:
Isa. 25.1 ‘counsel’)
- 107 Data supplied by Aaron Hornkohl.
227In the modern Samaritan reading tradition ʿayin has weakened in most contexts to ʾalef or zero (Ben-Ḥayyim 2000, 38–39), e.g.107
ʾaz (L [BHS]:
Lev. 3.12 ‘goat’)
yišmå̄ʾu (L [BHS]:
Gen. 11.7 ‘they will (not) understand’)
miyyūlåm (L [BHS]:
Gen. 6.4 ‘of old’)
šār (L [BHS]:
Gen. 25.25 ‘hair’)
šū (L [BHS]:
Gen. 38.2 ‘Shua’)
228The measures taken to ensure the correct reading of the ʿayin in the medieval manuscripts described above show that a special effort had to be made to avoid its being weakened in the transmission of the Masoretic biblical reading traditions still in the Middle Ages.
I.1.17. Pe פֵּ ה (פ, ף)
229Pe with dagesh ( פ ): unvoiced aspirated bi-labial stop [ph]
230Pe without dagesh ( פ ): unvoiced labio-dental fricative [f]
231A pe without dagesh is frequently, but not regularly, marked by the rafe sign in the model Standard Tiberian codices.
- 108 E.g. Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, short version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.S.1.7.
232In Masoretic treatises the name of this letter is sometimes spelt ’ פ or אפ .108
- 109 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.9.; ed. Eldar (1980, fols. 10b-11a, lines (...)
- 110 Cf. the commentary to this passage by Eldar (1980, n.75.).
233According to Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, pe with dagesh was pronounced by closing the lips firmly and pe without dagesh was pronounced by closing the lips lightly.109 Taken by itself, this could be a description of a bilabial articulation [ɸ]. This appears, however, to be only a partial description of the sound, as is the case with the description of bet without dagesh (see §I.1.2.). The light closure of the lips would have accompanied a labio-dental articulation [f] and no doubt it is this secondary feature that the author refers to.110
- 111 Kutscher (1965, 24–35).
- 112 Data supplied by Ben Kantor.
234We know from Greek and Latin transcriptions that in the pre-Masoretic period plosive pe was aspirated.111 This is shown by the fact that it is represented in Greek by ϕ, which in the periods in question represented an aspirated stop [pʰ], and in Latin by the digraph ph, the h reflecting aspiration [pʰ]. Greek π and Latin p represented unaspirated [p]. Examples:112
235Septuagint (third century B.C.E.):
Φαλτιὴλ (Göttingen Septuagint | L [BHS]:
Num. 34.26 ‘Paltiel’)
Ἀρϕαξὰδ (Göttingen Septuagint | L [BHS]:
Gen. 10.22 ‘Arpachshad’)
Ζέλϕα (Göttingen Septuagint | L [BHS]:
Gen. 30.12 ‘Zilpah’)
236Hexapla of Origen (c. 185–254 C.E.)
ϕααδ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]:
Psa. 36.2 ‘fear of (cstr.)’)
ϕαδιθ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]:
Psa. 31.6 ‘you redeemed’)
ϕαλητ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]:
Psa. 32.7 ‘deliverance’)
αρϕαθ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]:
Psa. 89.51 ‘the reproach of (cstr.)’)
λαμεσϕατι (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]:
Psa. 35.23 ‘to my judgment’)
237Jerome (346-420 C.E.)
pharis (Jerome, Commentary on Ezekiel, ed. Glorie, VI.18.504 | L [BHS]:
Ezek. 18.10 ‘violent one’)
phacud (Jerome, Commentary on Ezekiel, ed. Glorie, VII.23.1001 | L [BHS]:
Ezek. 23.23 ‘Pekod’)
iesphicu (Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah, ed. Gryson, I.52.4 | L [BHS]:
Isa. 2.6 ‘ [they] clap’)
mesphat (Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah, ed. Gryson, II.42.6 | L [BHS]:
Isa. 5.7 ‘judgment’)
- 113 113(...)
- 114 Dunash ibn Tamim, Commentary on Sefer Yeṣira (ed. Mann 1931, 1: 670, n.106). For this passage see (...)
238Saadya refers to the existence of a ‘hard pe’ (al-fāʾ al-ṣulba) in the hapax legomenon פא ְ נד ַֹ֔ ו ‘his palace’ (Dan. 11.45), which he describes as ‘between bet and pe with dagesh’.113 This appears to be referring to an unaspirated, fortis realization of [p]. One may infer from this that the normal unvoiced stop pe was aspirated also in the Middle Ages. Dunash ibn Tamim reports that the scholar Isaac Israeli (ninth-tenth centuries), who was ‘an expert in the reading of the Tiberians’, pronounced the dalet in this word like an Arabic ḏāʾ, i.e. as emphatic (pharyngealized).114 This implies that the ‘hard’ pe was also emphatic, the dalet being pronounced emphatic by assimilation (Steiner 1993).
- 115 The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chciago, A/2 (1968), Chicag (...)
The word is a loanword from Old Persian. The source word in Old Persian is reconstructed by Iranists as apadāna, āpadāna or appadāna ‘palace, audience chamber’. The p in Old Persian was unaspirated. The lack of aspiration was preserved when the word was loaned into Hebrew and this was transmitted in the Tiberian oral tradition down to the Middle Ages. There is no consensus among Iranists about the length of the initial vowel in the Old Persian word and whether the p was geminate or not (Ciancaglini 2008, 113–14). According to Henning (1944, 110 n.1), the p was originally geminated but the gemination of the Old Persian p was lost in Middle Persian (Old Persian appadān > Middle Persian *āpaðan). In the Tiberian tradition, the pe is geminated, which could, therefore, be an ancient feature. The antiquity of the gemination is shown, moreover, by the fact that the Old Persian word appears as a loanword in an Akkadian text datable to the Late Babylonian period where the p is represented as geminated: ap-pa-da-an (appadān).115
- 116 Data supplied by Ben Kantor.
239There is evidence for the unaspirated pronunciation of the pe in this word in Greek and Latin transcriptions in the pre-Masoretic period, e.g.116
Απαδανω (Theodoretus, fifth century C.E., Commentarius in Visiones Danielis Prophetae, e.g. Migne, 81.1532)
apedno (Jerome, fourth century C.E., Commentarii in Danielem, ed. Glorie, IV.11)
240In these transcriptions the pe is represented by Greek π and Latin p without following h, both of which represented unaspirated [p]. Jerome (Commentarii in Danielem, IV, 11–12) comments on the pe in this word as follows:
Notandum autem quod cum pe littera hebraeus sermo non habeat, sed pro ipsa utatur phe cuius uim graecum ψ sonat, in isto tantum loco apud Hebraeos scribatur quidem phe sed legatur pe.
But it should be noted that while Hebrew speech does not have the letter pe (i.e. Latin p [p]), but instead of it uses phe, the force of which is approximated by the sound of Greek ϕ (i.e. [ph]), in that particular place (i.e. Dan. 11.45) among the Hebrews phe (i.e. פ [ph]) indeed is written but it is read as pe (i.e., Latin p [p]).
241It should be noted, however, that some Greek transcriptions are extant that represent the pe in the word by ϕ, reflecting an aspirated pronunciation, e.g.
εϕαδανω (Theodotion, second century C.E.)
εϕαδανω/αϕαδανω (Polychronios, fifth century C.E., Commentarii in Danielem, ed. Moutsoulas, 11.45)
242This suggests that there were variant traditions of reading the pe, some preserving the unaspirated pe others pronouncing the pe as aspirated.
243Another feature of all the Greek and Latin transcriptions cited above is that they represent the pe as ungeminated, whereas it is geminated in Tiberian tradition.
The word appears in various dialects of Aramaic, including Syriac, Jewish Babylonian Aramaic and the Aramaic of Targum Jonathan (Sokoloff 2009, 81, 2002, 154). In Syriac, where there is a reliable tradition of vocalization, the pe is ungeminated: (ʾāpadhnā). There are, however, variant vocalizations of the word in the sources (Payne Smith 1879, 329–30). In some manuscripts, the pe is marked with a diacritic that is used elsewhere to represent the pe corresponding to an unaspirated π in Greek loanwords (J. B. Segal 1989, 489). The word appears in Arabic as fadan ‘palace’.
The pe in in the Tiberian reading tradition was pronounced not only unaspirated but also pharyngealized. Elsewhere in the sound system of Tiberian Hebrew unaspirated unvoiced stops were pharyngealized, i.e. ṭet and qof. The feature of lack of aspiration did not exist in unvoiced stops without pharyngealization. Pharyngealization was, therefore, perceived to be the closest equivalent in the sound system of Tiberian Hebrew to the feature of lack of aspiration of the pe. This also applied to the sound system of the spoken language of the tradents of the reading tradition. At the time of Saadya and Isaac Israeli, who report this feature, the spoken language was Arabic, in which unvoiced unaspirated stops were pharyngealized (i.e. the ṭāʾ and the qāf). It is not clear whether the pharyngealization of the pe in
existed in the reading tradition in the pre-Islamic period. Greek unaspirated τ and ϰ, likewise, were perceived to correspond most closely to Hebrew emphatic ṭet and qof, as shown by Greek transcriptions of Hebrew, e.g. Λώτ (Septuagint,
Gen. 11.27 ‘Lot’), Ἐνάϰ (Septuagint,
Deut. 9.2 ‘Anak’) and by Greek loanwords in Hebrew, e.g.
‘colonnade’ < περίστυλον (Copper Scroll 3Q15),
(ketiv
) ‘zither’ < ϰίθαρος (Dan. 3.5, 7, 10, 15) (Heijmans 2013a).
244A Masoretic note to Dan. 3.21 in L reads as follows
245The meaning of this is not fully clear. One possible interpretation is as follows:
There are three cases where pe is pronounced differently by the reader, namely
‘stringed instrument’ (Dan. 3.5 ,3.7 ,3.10 ,3.15),
,) ‘their tunics’ (ketiv
Dan. 3.21), פא ְ ד ַ֔ נ ֹ ו ‘his palace’ (Dan. 11.45).
This suggests that the pe also of the words and
which occur in the Aramaic section of the Bible, were pronounced unaspirated. The word
is a loan from Greek ψαλτήριον, so the pe would correspond to the unaspirated segment in the affricate ψ [ps]. The word
is of uncertain etymology, but it has been suggested by Nyberg (1931, 187) that the source is Old Persian *patuš ‘garment’, in which case the pe would correspond to an Old Persian unaspirated p. The ṭet in the word would, moreover, reflect the Old Persian unaspirated t.
It should be noted that there are a number of other Old Persian loanwords in Biblical Hebrew in which a Hebrew pe corresponds to an unaspirated p in the Old Persian source word but which were pronounced aspirated in the Tiberian Hebrew reading tradition, e.g. ‘satrap’ (< Old Persian xšaθra-pāwan) (Esther 3.12, 8.9, 9.3; Ezra 8.36),
‘message’ (< Old Persian *patiy-gama) (Ecc. 8.11; Esther 1.20),
‘a copy’ (< Old Persian *patiy-caγniya or *patiy-caγna) (Esther 3.14, 4.8, 8.13) (Gindin 2013). It would appear that in such cases the original unaspirated p was adapted to the sound system of Hebrew. Greek transcriptions such as εϕαδανω (Theodotion, second century C.E.) and εϕαδανω/αϕαδανω (Polychronios, fifth century C.E.), cited above, would reflect a similar adaption of the pe also in the word
in some reading traditions.
I.1.18. Ṣade צָדּ ֵ י (צ, ץ)
246Unvoiced emphatic (pharyngealized) alveolar sibilant [sˁ]
The name of the letter is vocalized in a Masoretic treatise (ed. Allony and Yeivin 1985, 102), with shewa in the initial syllable, reflecting a pronunciation with stress on the final syllable.
- 117 Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.8.; ed. Eldar (1980, fol (...)
247According to the medieval sources, it was articulated in the same place as the letters zayinָ֖and samekh,117 apparently with the blade of the tongue rather than the tip (see the description of zayin §I.1.7). In the Karaite transcriptions, it is represented by Arabic ṣād, which was an unvoiced pharyngealized alveolar sibilant [sˁ], e.g.
ֵ
(BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 64v, 9 | L [BHS]:
Gen. 21.22 ‘his host’)
(BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 92r, 6 | L [BHS]:
Deut. 7.18 ‘Egypt’)
248In §I.1.7. references are given to what appears to have been a voiced emphatic variant of ṣade [zˁ].
249A Karaite transcription is extant in which Arabic sīn is written where the Masoretic Text has ṣade, reflecting the weakening of the emphatic pronunciation:
(BL Or 2555 fol. 111v, 3 | L [BHS]: ּ
Ecc. 10.8 ‘and he who breaks’)
I.1.19. Qof ק וֹף ( ק )
250Unvoiced advanced uvular unaspirated plosive [q̟]
- 118 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.6.; ed. Eldar (1980, fols. 10a–10b, lines (...)
251According to Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, qof was articulated with the ‘middle of the tongue’, and so further forward than fricative gimel and kaf, which were pronounced with the ‘back third of the tongue’.118 This suggests an advanced uvular point of articulation. In the Karaite transcriptions, this letter is represented by Arabic qāf, e.g.
(BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 85v, 4 | L [BHS]:
Deut. 4.19 ‘he divided’)
(BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 74r, 5 | L [BHS]:
Gen. 24.35 ‘and cattle’)
(BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 63r, 2 | L [BHS]: : Gen. 21.7 ‘in his old age’)
252According to the medieval Arabic grammarians, qāf was unaspirated and articulated between the velar stop kāf and the uvular fricatives khāʾ and ghayn (Roman 1983, 110), i.e. in advanced uvular position. It is the emphatic counterpart of the dorsal velar stop kāf (Jakobson 1978; Watson 2007, 43–44).
- 119 Data suppied by Ben Kantor.
253The lack of aspiration of qof is reflected by Greek and Latin transcriptions from the first half of the first millennium C.E. In these the letter is transcribed by Greek ϰ and Latin c or g, which represented unaspirated stops, e.g.119
254Septuagint (third century B.C.E.)
Κεδαμὼθ (Göttingen Septuagint | L [BHS]:
Deut. 2.26 ‘Kedemoth’)
Ἐνάϰ (Göttingen Septuagint | L [BHS]:
Deut. 9.2 ‘Anak’)
255Hexapla of Origen (c. 185–254 C.E.)
ϰουμ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]:
Psa. 18.39 ‘to rise’)
ουαϰισα (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]:
Psa. 35.23 ‘awake! (ms)’)
256Jerome (346-420 C.E.)
cira (Jerome, Commentary on the Minor Prophets, Amos, ed. Adriaen, I.1, 217 | L [BHS]:
Amos 1.5 ‘Kir’)
boger (Jerome, Commentary on the Minor Prophets, Amos, ed. Adriaen, III.7, 324 | L [BHS]:
Amos 7.14 ‘herdsman’)
I.1.20. Resh ר ֵּישׁ ( ר)
(i) Voiced advanced uvular trill or advanced uvular frictionless continuant
and (ii) pharyngealized apico-alveolar trill [rˁ]
According to Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, the Tiberians pronounced resh in two different ways, as was the case with the letters
Its basic articulation was with ‘the middle third of the tongue’, as was the case with qof and plosive kaf, suggesting an advanced uvular position. It is not made clear whether it was a trill or frictionless continuant
In what follows, it will be
- 120 Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.6.; Eldar (1984a).
transcribed as an advanced uvular trill120
- 121 Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.9.6.; Eldar (1984a).
- 122 Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.9.5., §II.L.1.9.7. The Heb (...)
The secondary pronunciation of resh is said in the medieval sources to occur in the environment of the alveolar consonants and can be inferred to be an apical alveolar trill. It is described by Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ as being intermediate in status (manzila bayna manzilatayn ‘grade between two grades’), i.e. intermediate between the simple primary resh, which is described as ‘light’ (khafīf), and geminated resh marked with the dagesh sign in the Tiberian vocalization, which is termed ‘major resh’ (al-resh al-kabīr).121 When contrasting it with the primary resh, Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ describes the secondary resh as having the feature of ‘heaviness’ (thiqal) whereas the simple resh has the feature of ‘lightness’ (khiffa).122 The intermediate status of the secondary resh, therefore, can be identified as being an intermediate degree of muscular tension, between the light advanced uvular resh and the maximal degree of muscular tension brought about by the gemination of the resh. The instances of geminated resh marked with dagesh in the Standard Tiberian reading tradition appear to have lengthened forms of the primary resh, i.e. advanced uvular trills. They do not occur in the contexts that are said to condition the secondary alveolar resh. So geminated resh ר ּ may be transcribed
e.g.
‘to irritate her’ (1 Sam. 1.6).
257We know from various sources that the Hebrew letter resh had two different types of pronunciation in the Middle Ages. The earliest text referring to this is Sefer Yeṣira:
- 124 (...)
In his commentary on Sefer Yeṣira, Saadya discusses the double pronunciation of the Hebrew resh. He states that the letters are called double (muḍāʿafa) ‘because each of the letters is pronounced with two pronunciations, a hard pronunciation and a soft pronunciation’.124 He refers to a difference between the Tiberian and Babylonian pronunciations of resh:
- 125 (...)
As for the double nature of the resh, the Tiberians have it in their reading of the Bible, whereas the Iraqis have it in their speech but not in their reading of the Bible. They call one type resh makrūkh and the other ghayr makrūkh (‘not makrūkh’). As for the customs of the Iraqis in this matter, we have examined them but have found no principle uniting them. As for the customs of the Tiberians, we shall mention them in the commentary on the fourth part of this book.125
- 126 Ed. Lambert (1891, 79). In some medieval sources describing the two different types of Tiberian re (...)
258Elsewhere in his commentary on Sefer Yeṣira Saadya refers to the ‘hard’ resh as resh dagesh and the ‘soft’ resh as resh rafe.126
- 127 Morag (1960, 217–19).
The word makrūkh, which is used by Saadya in the passage cited above, has been interpreted by scholars in various ways.127 The most satisfactory interpretation is that it is an Arabicized form of the Hebrew word ‘wrapped up, closed up’, analogous to the forms madgūsh ‘with dagesh’ and marfī ‘with rafe’, which are widely attested Arabicizations of the Hebrew terms ד ָ ג ּ ו ׁ ש and
The term
is found in Masoretic sources in reference to closed syllables, as in the following passage from Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim:
- 128 Ed. Baer and Strack (1879, §53). For variant texts of this passage see ed. Dotan (1967, 140, 263).
If a form of the root
has a bet with a vowel and the accent falls on it (i.e. the bet), it is always pronounced ‘closed up’ as in
‘and may they bless themselves by him’ (Psa. 72.17)… But if the accent falls on the resh, it is opened up in speech and pronounced with a vowel as in
‘and I will bless those who bless you’ (Gen. 12.3)… Except for one word, which is unique in the Bible, for its accent falls on the kaf but it is not opened up in speech:
‘and my reason returned to me and I blessed the Most High’ (Dan. 4.31).128
In this passage, the term ךורכ is used to describe forms in which a shewa is silent, i.e. the shewa coincides with the closure of the syllable. The opposite of ךורכ is when , which literally means ‘it is opened up in speech’. This refers to the fact that the shewa is vocalic.
- 129 For details see Khan (1995).
259In the phrase resh makrūkh, the term is a calque of the Arabic phonetic term muṭbaq (literally ‘closed, covered’), which was used in the medieval Arabic grammatical tradition to refer to emphatic consonants, i.e. pharyngealized consonants.129 A non-emphatic letter was referred to in the Arabic grammatical tradition by the term munfatiḥ ‘open’. The description of the Arabic emphatic letters by the grammarian Sībawayhi (eighth century C.E.) is as follows:
- 130 وهذه الحروف الار بعة اذا وضعت لسانك فى مو اضعهن انطبق لسانك من مو اضعهن الى ما حاذى130 الحنك الا عل (...)
When you position your tongue in the places of articulation of these four (emphatic) letters, your tongue forms a cover/closure extending from their place of articulation until the palate. You raise the back of the tongue towards the palate and when you have positioned your tongue thus, the sound is compressed between the tongue and the palate up to the place of articulation of the letters.130
260The terminological opposition between הכורכ and חתפי םאנב in the passage from Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim above would, therefore, be directly parallel to the contrasting pair of terms muṭbaq vs. munfatiḥ, which designated emphatic vs. non-emphatic consonants.
- 131 For this passage see §I.1.4.
This variant of resh, therefore, was pronounced pharyngealized. Evidence for such an interpretation is found in the report by Dunash ibn Tamim that his teacher Isaac Israeli (tenth century), ‘an expert in the Tiberian reading tradition’, pronounced the dalet in the word ‘and they bent’ (Jer. 9.2) like the pharyngealized Arabic letter ḍād
by which he meant a pharyngealized voiced interdental [ðˁ]. This must have arisen by the spreading the pharyngealization of the contiguous resh.131
- 132 Allony (1973, 102, text line 28).
- 133 E.g. in Neo-Aramaic dialects (Khan 2008, 32).
261In a fragment of a Masoretic treatise datable to the tenth century, it is stated that this variant of resh ‘is pronounced with a turning of the tongue’ (yuqāl bi-taqallub al-lisān).132 This seems to be referring to the retroflection of the tongue tip (Khan 1995, 79). Retroflection of the tongue tip is a feature often associated with pharyngealized alveolar r in modern spoken Semitic languages.133
262The references to the ‘heavy’ or ‘hard’ pronunciation of the secondary resh and its association with the term dagesh (e.g. Saadya resh dagesh), can be correlated with the fact that pharyngealized r was pronounced with greater muscular tension.
- 134 Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.9.4., §II.L.1.9.7.; Saadya (...)
263According to Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ and other medieval sources, this apico-alveolar pharyngealized resh occurred when it is preceded by the consonants ןלסטתצזד or followed by ןל and when either resh or one of these consonants has shewa.134 This can be reformulated as the rule that alveolar resh occurs when one of the following conditions holds:
(i) Resh is in immediate contact with a preceding alveolar, e.g. [bamizˈrˁƐː] ‘with a pitchfork’ (Jer. 15.7),
[mⱭsˁˈrˁeːef] ‘crucible’ (Prov. 17.3).
- 135 These last two examples are cited by Saadya, Commentary on Sefer Yeṣira (ed. Lambert 1891, 79).
(ii) Resh is in the same syllable, or at least the same foot, as a preceding alveolar, e.g. [dⱭrˁˈkʰoː] ‘his way’ (Gen. 24.21 ) ,
,) [tˁⱭrˁˈpʰeː] ‘the leaves’ (Ezek. 17.9). The condition applies also to a resh in word-final position that is in the same syllable or at least the same foot as an alveolar, although the resh is not marked with a shewa in such cases, e.g. ‘commander of’ (1 Sam. 18.13),
[limˈtˁⱭːⱭrˁ] ‘by the rain’ (Deut. 11.11).135 A consonant with vocalic shewa is treated as belonging to the same foot as the following resh in the metrical structure of the phonetic realization of the word (§I.2.5.2.), e.g.
[(sˁⱭ.rˁuː.) (ˈfɔː)] ‘refined’ (2 Sam. 22.31), where feet are enclosed in round brackets and syllable boundaries are marked by dots. Likewise, as can be seen from the transcription
[limˈtˁⱭːⱭrˁ], a closed syllable containing a long vowel has an epenthetic vowel of the same quality following the long vowel. It will be argued, however, that it is nevertheless in the same prosodic foot, viz. [(lim.) (ˈtˁⱭː. Ɑrˁ)] (§I.2.4.). On the phonetic level, therefore, the resh is strictly not in the same syllable as the alveolar in forms such as
[sˁⱭ.rˁuː.ˈfɔː] and
[lim.ˈtˁⱭː. Ɑrˁ]. The conditioning factor for the emphatic allophone of the resh is that it occurs in the same foot as a preceding alveolar.
(iii) Resh is in immediate contact with or in the same syllable, or at least in the same foot, as a following ל or ן , e.g. [ʕⱭrˁleː-leːev] ‘uncircumcised in heart’ (Jer. 9.25),
[gɔrˁniː] ‘my threshing-floor’ (Isa. 21.10),
[rˁⱭnnaˈnuː] ‘rejoice! ’ (Psa. 33.1),
[rˁⱭnɔːˈnɔː] ‘joyful cry’ (Job 3.7).
Elsewhere resh had an advanced uvular realization, e.g. [ˈR̟ƐːxƐv] ‘chariotry’ (Exod. 14.9),
[maR̟ˈʔƐː] ‘appearance’ (Gen. 12.11),
[∫ɔːˈmaːaR̟] ‘he kept’ (Gen. 37.11),
[ʔƐR̟ˈdoːof] (Psa. 18.38).
As can be seen in (ii) above, Saadya cites the example [sⱭrˁ] with sin. The letter sin
, therefore, also conditioned the occurrence of the pharyngealized resh in the appropriate contexts, although it is not explicitly mentioned in the list of conditioning consonants in the medieval sources, which includes only ןלסטתצזד . The letters sin and samekh had the same realization [s]. The written letter sin was considered to have samekh as its qere (§I.0.8.).
264Pharyngealized resh is not unknown in modern reading traditions, e.g. in the tradition of Morocco (with the exception of Tetouan) resh may be realized as an emphatic alveolar trill [rˁ], generally in the environment of a or u or an emphatic consonant
ʔúrˁ (Akun 2010, 49 | L [BHS]:
Gen. 1.3 ‘light’)
265This pharyngealization, moreover, may spread to adjacent consonants, e.g.
isˁrˁⱭˈil (Akun 2010, 72 | L [BHS]:
Exod. 15.1 ‘Israel’)
jⱭrˁˈdˁu (Akun 2010, 72 | L [BHS]:
Exod. 15.5 ‘they went down’)
- 136 For labialization associated with pharyngealized consonants in modern spoken Arabic dialects see B (...)
266In Jewish Palestinian Aramaic sources from the pre-Masoretic period, an a or i vowel sometimes shifts to a rounded vowel represented by vav in the orthography. This occurs in particular in a syllable closed by a labial consonant or resh, e.g. ארבוג (< *gavrā), ‘man’, אשמור (< *ramšā) ‘evening’, אערות (< *tarʿā) ‘door’, אנדרוי (< *yardenā) ‘Jordan’ (Dalman 1894, 65). A similar vowel shift is attested in Christian Palestinian Aramaic, Samaritan Aramaic and also Palestinian Rabbinic Hebrew (Ben-Ḥayyim 1946, 194–96; Kutscher 1979, 496–97; Mishor 1998). Rounding of a vowel in the environment of labials is a natural development. The motivation for the rounding and backing in the environment of resh is not so clear, but could reflect a pharyngealized pronunciation of resh. Pharyngealized consonants involve the retraction of the tongue and consequent lip-rounding.136 In Palestinian Aramaic and Rabbinic Hebrew, the vav before resh is not restricted to the environments that induced the pharyngealized resh in Tiberian Hebrew, but it may be interpreted as evidence that a pharyngealized resh existed in the spoken language of the Jews of Palestine in the pre-Islamic period.
267In the passage from his commentary on the Sefer Yeṣira that is cited above, Saadya states that the Tiberians have a double resh in their reading of the Bible, whereas the Iraqis (i.e. Babylonians) have it in their speech but not in their reading of the Bible.
- 137 137בין שינים ובלשון ישן ‘between the teeth and with a resting tongue’, בלשו שכובה ושטוחה ‘with a r (...)
268Saadya does not specify which type of Tiberian resh resembles the resh in the Babylonian biblical reading tradition. Sefer Yeṣira classifies resh among the consonants pronounced at the front of the mouth ‘between the teeth and with a resting tongue’137 According to Morag (1960, 233), this reflects the pronunciation of the Babylonian Jews. This was no doubt similar to the pronunciation of resh in the modern reading tradition of the Jews of Baghdad, in which it is realized as an alveolar trill (Morag 1977, 6). It is significant to note that in the modern Arabic dialect of the Jews of Baghdad there are two reflexes of Classical Arabic rāʾ, viz. (i) a back velar or uvular fricative ( [Ɣ], [ʁ]) or (ii) an alveolar trill [r] (Blanc 1964, 20–25; Mansour 1974, vol. 1, 25-31, 34-35). This two-fold pronunciation in the Arabic vernacular may be the double resh of the speech of the Iraqis described by Saadya. So, the comparison by Saadya of the Tiberian resh with the Iraqi vernacular resh can be taken as evidence supporting the proposal to identify the two types of Tiberian resh as apical and advanced uvular.
269Saadya does not refer to the speech of the Tiberians, but other sources indicate that the distinction between different types of resh in the Tiberian reading is also found in the local vernacular speech. The author of one extant Masoretic Treatise datable to the tenth century states that he undertook fieldwork in the streets of Tiberias to verify his analysis of the resh of the Tiberian reading, on the grounds that resh had the same pronunciation in the local speech of the (Jewish) inhabitants of Tiberias:
- 138 וכנת אטיל עלג̇לוס פי סוחאת טבריה ושוארעהא א [סת]מע כלאם אלסוקה ואלעאמה 138 ואבחת ען עללגה ואצול [הא (...)
‘I spent a long time sitting in the squares of Tiberias and its streets listening to the speech of the common people, investigating the language and its principles, seeing whether anything that I had established was overturned or any of my opinions proved to be false, in what was uttered with regard to Hebrew and Aramaic, etc., that is the language of the Targum, for it resembles Hebrew... and it turned out to be correct and accurate.’138
- 139 Baer and Strack (1879, §7).
270The interpretation of this is not completely clear. The Aramaic mentioned by the author could have been vernacular Aramaic that was still spoken in Tiberias at the period. The Hebrew must have been the recitation of Hebrew liturgy or the occurrence of a ‘Hebrew component’ (Hebrew words and phrases) within vernacular speech. The reference to the two types of resh is found also in a Hebrew treatise in the corpus published by Baer and Strack,139 in which, likewise, it is stated that this pronunciation existed in the conversational speech of the common people.
I.1.21. Sin שׂׅין (שׂ)
271Unvoiced alveolar sibilant [s]
- 140 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.8.
272This had the same pronunciation as samekh in the Tiberian tradition. It is not distinguished from samekh in Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ. When it is stated in this work that ‘The fourth place of articulation is the teeth, from which are heard four letters, namely שצסז (zayin, samekh, ṣade and shin), ’140 the letter ס is intended to refer to both samekh and sin. As discussed in the Introduction (§I.0.8.), the written letter sin was considered to have samekh as its qere.
273In the Karaite transcriptions, the diacritical dot of Hebrew sin is sometimes written over the left side of Arabic sīn when it transcribes samekh, e.g.
(BL Or 2551 fol. 10r, 8 | L [BHS]:
Psa. 52.11 ‘your saints’)
(BL Or 2551 fol. 13v, 7 | L [BHS]:
Psa. 54.2 ‘he who hides’)
(BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 65r, 3 | L [BHS]:
Gen. 21.23 ‘like the kindness’)
274As remarked in the Introduction (§I.0.8.), samekh and sin sometimes interchange in the same word or root in the fixed orthography of the Masoretic Text, e.g.
Ezra 4.5:
‘and they hire’ vs. 2 Chron. 24.12
- 141 Data supplied by Aaron Hornkohl.
275In the biblical manuscripts from Qumran, there are many cases of sin occurring in place of Masoretic samekh and vice versa, which is additional evidence that the equivalence in pronunciation existed already in the Second Temple Period, e.g.141
( חשפ 4Q136 f1.8 | L [BHS]:
Exod. 12.48 ‘Passover’)
םתרשו (XHev/Se5 f1.14 | L [BHS]:
Deut. 11.16 ‘and you [mpl] will turn away’)
( יפעש םיעלסה 1QIsaa 47.4 | L [BHS]:
Isa. 57.5 ‘the clefts of the rocks’)
( דשי ץרא 4Q93 1.11 | L [BHS]:
Psa. 104.5 ‘he established the earth’)
( והדס 4Q134 f1.26 | L [BHS]:
Deut. 5.21 ‘his field’)
( ףוסחלו 1QIsaa 24.23 | L [BHS]:
Isa. 30.14 ‘and to scoop’)
( 1QIsaa 41.16 | L [BHS]:
Isa. 49.18 ‘lift up [fs]! ’)
- 142 Kitāb al-Lumaʿ (ed. Derenbourg 1886, 240), Schreiner (1886, 241).
Ibn Janāḥ (Spain, eleventh century) states that the dagesh in the sin of ‘herbage’ (Prov. 27.25) has the purpose of ensuring that it is not interchanged with zayin.142 This suggests that sin in contact with voiced consonants was susceptible of being read as voiced.
In some medieval Muslim sources, sin is represented by ṣād [sˁ] in the name وصيع : (Schreiner 1886, 254). This apparently reflects its pharyngealization after the pharyngeal ʿayin.
276The pharyngealization of sin in the environment of emphatic consonants is attested in some modern reading traditions, e.g.
277Yemen
[wajjɪsˁtˁɞːm]) (Morag 1963, 37-38 | L [BHS]:
Gen. 27.41 ‘and [Esau] hated’)
I.1.22. Shin שׁׅין (שׁ)
278Unvoiced palato-alveolar fricative [∫]
- 143 Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.8.; ed. Eldar (1980, fol (...)
- 144 144 חרף אלתפשי (Kitāb al-Lumaʿ, ed. Derenbourg, 27).
- 145 Roman (1983, 202, 218, 248).
279According to the medieval sources, its place of articulation was the same as that of the sibilants zayin and samekh, namely the teeth.143 As was pointed out above in the section on zayin (§I.1.7.), this did not necessarily imply that the teeth were one of the primary articulators. It is described by Ibn Janāḥ as a ‘spreading letter’,144 which no doubt referred to its palatalized articulation. In the Karaite transcriptions, it is represented by Arabic shīn, which, according to the Arabic grammarians, was a palatal fricative [ç], a pre-palatal fricative [ç+] or an alveolo-palatal [ɕ].145 Tiberian shin was not primarily palatal, since it was not included by Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ among the letters that are pronounced with the middle of the tongue.
I.1.23. Tav ת ָּו ( ת )
280Tav with dagesh ( ת ּ): unvoiced aspirated alveolar stop [th]
281Tav without dagesh ( ת ): unvoiced alveolar fricative [θ]
282A tav without dagesh is frequently, but not regularly, marked by the rafe sign in the model Standard Tiberian codices.
- 146 E.g. short version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.S.3.0., §5.1.
In some manuscripts of Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, the name of this letter is spelt .146
- 147 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.7.; ed. Eldar (1980, fol. 10b, lines 67–69 (...)
- 148 Commentary on Sefer Yeṣira (ed. Lambert 1891, 75).
283According to Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, tav was articulated with ‘the end of the tongue and the flesh of the teeth’, i.e. the gums or alveolar ridge.147 Likewise, Saadya describes the place of articulation of tav as being adjacent to the inside of the upper teeth.148 When the letter had dagesh, the tongue was pressed firmly against the gums. When it was without dagesh, the tongue was pressed lightly against the gums. Both forms of the letter were articulated in the same place according to the medieval sources. It appears to have been pronounced with the tip of the tongue rather than the blade (see the description of dalet §I.1.4.).
- 149 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.2.
284Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ describes the stop [tʰ] as primary (ʾaṣl) and the fricative [θ] as secondary (farʿ).149
- 150 Kutscher (1965, 24–35).
- 151 Data supplied by Ben Kantor.
285We know from Greek transcriptions that in the first half of the first millennium C.E. plosive tav was pronounced with aspiration.150 In Greek transcriptions from the pre-Masoretic period, plosive tav is represented by Greek theta, which was an aspirated stop [tʰ]. In Latin transcriptions from the pre-Masoretic period, it is represented by the Latin digraph th, which likewise represented an aspirated stop [tʰ]. Examples:151
286Septuagint (third century B.C.E.)
Θάρα (Göttingen Septuagint | L [BHS]:
Gen. 11.24 ‘Terah’)
Νεϕθαλί (Göttingen Septuagint | L [BHS]:
Gen. 30.8 ‘Naphtali’)
287Hexapla of Origen (c. 185–254 C.E.)
θαμιμ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]:
Psa. 18.26 ‘blameless’)
αμαρθι (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]:
Psa. 30.7 ‘I said’)
288Jerome (346-420 C.E.)
tharsis (Jerome, Commentary on Ezekiel, ed. Gorie, III.10.763 | L [BHS]:
Ezek. 10.9 ‘Tarshish’)
machthab (Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah, ed. Gryson, XI.14.6 | L [BHS]:
Isa. 38.9 ‘writing’)
- 152 Roman (1983, 55).
289This aspirated realization of plosive tav continued in the Tiberian reading tradition. In the Karaite transcriptions, plosive tav with dagesh is represented by Arabic tāʾ, which was aspirated according to the medieval Arabic grammarians.152
I.1.24. Consonant Phonemes
- 153 The inventory of consonant phonemes presented here corresponds to that proposed by Schramm (1964, (...)
290The inventory of consonant phonemes in the Tiberian reading tradition can be reconstructed as follows:153
Phoneme | Allophones | Orthography | Comments |
/ʔ/ | [ʔ] | א | |
/b/ | [b] | ּב | |
/v/ | [v] | ב | See §I.1.25. below |
/g/ | [g] | ּג | |
/ʁ/ | [ʁ] | ג | See §I.1.25. below |
/d/ | [d] | ּד | |
/ð/ | [ð] | ד | See §I.1.25. below |
/h/ | [h] | ה | |
/v/ | [v], [w] | ו | There are variations in the realization of the allophones across different sub-traditions of reading (§I.1.6.). |
/z/ | [z] | ז | |
/ħ/ | [ħ] | ח | |
/tˁ/ | [tˁ] | ט | |
/j/ | [j], [ɟ] | י | The stop allophone [ɟ] occurs only when the consonant is geminated. |
/kʰ/ | [kʰ] | ּ ך ּ , כ | |
/χ/ | [χ] | ך , כ | See §I.1.25. below |
/l/ | [l] | ל | |
/m/ | [m] | ם , מ | |
/n/ | [n] | ן , נ | |
/s/ | [s] | ש ֹ , ס | These were equivalent in the oral reading tradition. The distinction in orthography is an archaism (§I.0.8.). |
/ʕ/ | [ʕ] | ע | |
/pʰ/ | [pʰ] | פ | |
/pˁ/ | [pˁ] | פ | This is attested only in פא ְ נד ַֹ֔ ו ‘his palace’ (Dan. 11.45), where its occurrence is not conditioned by the phonetic environment, so it should be identified as a phoneme (§I.1.17.). |
/f/ | [f] | פ | See §I.1.25. below |
/sˁ/ | [sˁ], [zˁ] | צ | For the voiced variant see §I.1.7. |
/q̟/ | [q̟] | ק | |
/r/ | [R̟], [rˁ] | ר | The two variant realizations are conditioned by the phonetic environment and so should be identified as allophones (§I.1.20.). |
/∫/ | [∫] | ׁ ש | |
/tʰ/ | [tʰ] | ּת | |
/θ/ | [θ] | ת | See §I.1.25. below |
I.1.25. Distribution of the Variants of תפכדגב
In general, the fricative variants of the תפכדגב letters (i.e. the forms written without a dagesh sign: [v], [ʁ], [ð], [χ], [f] and [θ], respectively) occur after a vowel when the letter is not geminated, e.g. ר ַ֣ ב [ˈR̟aːav] ‘much’ (Gen. 24.25), [ji∫kʰaˈvuː] ‘they will lie’ (Isa. 43.17). In principle, therefore, the stop and fricative variants appear to be allophones conditioned by the environment. In many cases, however, the preceding vowel had been elided in some previous stage of the language, but the consonant nevertheless remained a fricative, e.g.
[baχɔθˈvoː] ‘when he had written’ (Jer. 45.1) < *bakutubō
[malˈχeː] ‘kings of’ (Gen. 17.16) < *malakē
291In a few such cases, a plosive and a fricative are in free variation, e.g.
[R̟i∫ˈfeː] (Psa. 76.4),
[R̟i∫ˈpʰeː] (Cant. 8.6) ‘flames’
292The distribution of the plosive and fricative allophones, therefore, is not completely predictable from the phonetic context in Tiberian Hebrew. Consequently, the plosive and fricative variants of the letters should be distinguished in a synchronic phonological representation, e.g.
/malχē/ [malˈχeː] ‘kings of’ (Gen. 17.16)
/binfol/ [binˈfoːol] ‘at the falling of’ (Isa. 30.25)
293In the corpus of the Hebrew Bible, however, there is no certain minimal pair arising from the phonemicization of the variants of the תפכדגב consonants, though such oppositions could hypothetically occur in Tiberian Hebrew. Such minimal pairs are found in Aramaic, where the תפכדגב consonants were likewise phonemicized (Khan 2005, 84–87).
Notes
1 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.2.
2 Ginsburg (1880, §5), source: Masora magna in British Library, Harley 1528 (fourteenth century, Spain).
3 Ginsburg (1905, 2), source: Masora magna in the Second Rabbinic Bible (Venice 1516–17, Bomberg) to Lev. 23.17, Job 33.21 and Ezra 8.18.
4 I am grateful to Ben Kantor for drawing these to my attention.
5 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.5.
6 6 Diqduq (ed. Khan 2000b, 369).
7 , Diqduq (ed. Khan 2000b, 399).
8 8 (Baer and Strack 1879, 5).
9 These are listed in the Masora, e.g. Ginsburg (1880, §16a).
10 In the Non-Standard Tiberian manuscript BL Add MS 21161, fol. 250v this word is vocalized which appears to be a hybrid form of
and ּ
11 Data supplied by Aaron Hornkohl.
12 Ginsburg (1880, §13).
13 A possible parallel to this elision of the ʾalef can be identified in the proper name [dɔːniɟɟeːel] ‘Daniel’ < *dānī-ʔēl. Yeivin notes that in both names the ʾalef is followed by the letter lamed.
14 The second [u] is an epenthetic, which is inserted after the long vowel in CVVC syllables (§I.2.4.).
15 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.1.2.
16 Allony and Yeivin eds. (1985, 96), Baer and Strack (1879, 7, §6)
17 Arabic version of Maḥberet ha-Tījān (ed. Neubauer 1891, 10), Hebrew version of Maḥberet ha-Tījān (ed. J. Derenbourg 1871, 36).
18 E.g. Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.1.1., §II.L.1.1.2.; the treatise on the shewa edited by Levy (1936, .)כו
19 Eg. ed. Hayman (2004, 51).
20 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.9. Eldar (1980, fols. 10b-11a, lines 84-88).
21 Cf. Eldar’s (1980) commentary to this passage, n.75.
22 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.7.7. Eldar (1984b, Hebrew section, 10).
23 (ed. Levy 1936,–כו).
24 Data supplied by Aaron Hornkohl.
25 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.2.
26 The spelling גמאל is used by ʾAbū al-Faraj Hārūn also in his grammatical text al-Kitāb al-Kāfī (ed. Khan, Gallego and Olszowy-Schlanger 2003, e.g. §I.25.35., §I.25.40., §I.28.2., §I.28.11., §I.28.12.) and by the anonymous Karaite author of the grammatical text Kitāb al-ʿUqūd (ed. Vidro 2013, 27, 317).
27 Ed. Derenbourg (1871, 36).
28 28 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.7.; Eldar (1980, fols. 10a-10b, lines 61-73).
29 Khan (1990, 4, 2013).
30 Roman (1983, 101–6, 218)
31 , Long version of Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.6.; ed. Eldar (1980, fol. 10a, lines 58-59).
32 Roman (1983, 218).
33 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.6.; Eldar (1980, fols. 8b, 10a, 254, n.58). Watson (2007, 43–44) considers the uvular fricative [ʁ] in Modern Arabic dialects to be the emphatic counterpart of the dorsal [g], involving a primary dorsal and non-primary ‘guttural’ feature.
34 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.1.2.
35 E.g. ed. Gruenwald (1971, 156), ed. Hayman (2004, 54).
36 Ed. Neubauer (1891, 12).
37 Ed. Derenbourg (1871, 36).
38 , Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.7.; ed. Eldar (1980, fol. 10b, ed. Eldar, 1980-81, lines 67-69).
39 ; Saadya, Commentary on Sefer Yeṣira (ed. Lambert 1891, 75).
40 (ed. Gruenwald 1971, 147; ed. Hayman 2004, 92–98). According to Morag (1960), however, the phonetic descriptions in Sefer Yeṣira reflect the pronunciation of Hebrew in Babylonia, so it must be used with caution when reconstructing the Tiberian pronunciation tradition.
41 ‘This end (of the tongue) is not the tip of the tongue but what is slightly posterior to the tip’; Kitāb al-Lumaʿ (ed. Derenbourg 1886, 28).
42 , Sefer Yeṣira (ed. Hayman 2004, 93).
43 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.2., Eldar (1980, fol. 8b, 254, n.58).
44 BHS erroneously reads L as
45 cited by Mann (1931, 670, n.106). Cf. Schreiner (1886, 221), Dukes (1845, 9, 93), Grossberg (1902, 24).
46 See the discussion by Wagner (2010, 28–32).
47 Ed. Khan, Gallego and Olszowy-Schlanger (2003, §I.24.2):
48 E.g. CUL T-S D1.2.
49 E.g. MS S27, fols. 1r-1v, Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, short version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.S.2.0.
50 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.4.; Eldar (1980, fol. 9b, line 31).
51 Ofer (2013).
52 Yeivin (1980, 285).
53 Yeivin (1968, 49–50).
54 Data supplied by Aaron Hornkohl.
55 Data supplied by Shai Heijmans.
56 E.g. short version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.S.2.2.
57 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.9.
58 Kitāb Jāmiʿ al-ʾAlfāẓ, ed. Skoss (1936, vol. 2, 451-452):
59 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.7.7.
62 (CUL Or 1080.13.3.2 fol. 1r–1v and Levy ed., 1936, כז). See on this passage Posegay (2019).
63 Data supplied by Ben Kantor.
64 Data supplied by Shai Heijmans.
65 Yeivin (1980, 285–286).
66 Yeivin (1980, 286).
67 Data supplied by Shai Heijmans.
68 A trace of dot is visible and the parchment has been scraped.
69 In later sources the dot in the word is referred to as a dagesh. Jedidiah Norzi (seventeenth century) in his work Minḥat Shai (Mantua, 1742–44 ad loc. Gen. 46.13) refers to it as dagesh and notes that there were differences of opinion about its presence in the name in Gen. 46.13 in the sources available to him.
70 Here and elsewhere the transcription system of Ben-Ḥayyim is used for the Samaritan tradition.
71 Data supplied by Aaron Hornkohl.
72 Data supplied by Ben Kantor.
73 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.1.2.
74 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.8. Eldar (1980, fol. 10b, line 77).
75 Cf. Eldar (1980, n.70).
76 ‘between the teeth and with a resting tongue’,
‘with a resting and flat tongue’ (ed. Gruenwald 1971, 147; ed. Hayman 2004, 92–98).
77 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.2.
78 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.9.8. Cf. also Eldar (1984a, 32). The Yemenite orthoepic treatise known as the Hebrew Maḥberet ha-Tījān, which was based on the long version of the Hidāya, contains a similar statement: ‘They (i.e. the Jews of Palestine) have a zayin called makrūkh, but it is unfamiliar to us (i.e. the Jews of Yemen)’ (ed. J. Derenbourg 1871, 81); cf. Morag (1960, 210, n. 45).
79 Ed. Allony (1973, 102, lines 29-32 [Allony’s reading has been corrected in places]): Allony attributed this text to ʿAli ben Yehudah ha-Nazir, but this attribution has been disputed by Eldar (1984a, 33, n.54, 1986, 59–61).
80 He describes the ṣade as al-ṣād al-mušamma bi-l-zāʾ ‘ṣād flavoured with zāʾ’; cf. Schreiner (1886, 254).
81 فضارعواָ֖بهָ֖اشبهָ֖الحروفָ֖بالدالָ֖منָ֖موضعهָ֖وهىָ֖الزاىָ֖النهاָ֖مجهورةָ֖غيرָ֖مطبقةָ֖ولمָ֖يبدلهاָ֖ 81 زاياָ֖خالصةָ֖كراهيةָ֖االجحافָ֖بهاָ֖لالطباق, al-Kitāb, ed. Derenbourg (1889, 476–77).
82 Makkī ibn ʾAbī Ṭālib al-Qaysī (d. 437/1045), for example, refers to ṣād allatī yuḵāliṭu lafẓuhā lafẓa al-zāy ‘A ṣād whose pronunciation is mixed with that of zāy’, as in قصد =( قزد) and الصراط =( الزراط), al-Riʿāya li-Tajwīd al-Qirāʾa wa-Taḥqīq Lafẓ al-Tilāwa (ed. Farḥāt 1996, 107).
83 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.2.
84 Ibn Janāḥ, Kitāb al-Lumaʿ (ed. Derenbourg 1886, 26–27), Menaḥem ben Saruq, Maḥberet (ed. Filipowski 1854, 6).
85 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.5.
86 Data supplied by Aaron Hornkohl. Cf. also Reymond (2014, 92).
87 Data supplied by Aaron Hornkohl.
88 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.7.; ed. Eldar (1980, fol. 10b, lines 67–69).
89 Data supplied by Ben Kantor.
90 Commentary on Sefer Yeṣira (ed. Lambert 1891, 42–43).
91 In some of the early Arabic dialects geminated yāʾ was pronounced like jīm; cf. Roman (1983, 101–6, 218). Ibn Sīnā in the eleventh century describes jīm as pronounced slightly further forward (Roman 1983, 243–46).
92 Data supplied by Shai Heijmans.
93 Data supplied by Ben Kantor.
94 Data supplied by Aaron Hornkohl.
95 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.6. Ed. Eldar (1980, fols. 10a-10b, lines 61-73).
96 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.6. Ed. Eldar (1980, fol. 10a, lines 58-59).
97 Roman (1983, 218).
98 Data supplied by Ben Kantor.
99 Roman (1983, 55).
100 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.6. Ed. Eldar (1980, fols. 8b, 10a, 254, n.58). Watson (2007, 43–44) considers the uvular fricative [χ] in Modern Arabic dialects to be the emphatic counterpart of the dorsal [kʰ], involving a primary dorsal and non-primary ‘guttural’ feature.
101 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.7. Ed. Eldar (1980, fol. 10b, lines 67–69). See the description of dalet (§I.1.4.) for a discussion of the passage.
102 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.7. Ed. Eldar (1980, fol. 10b, lines 67–68). lbn Janāḥ (Kitāb al-lumaʿ, ed. Derenbourg, 27-28) distinguishes between the nun with a following vowel, which was pronounced with an admixture of nasal resonance, and nun without a vowel, which was articulated entirely in the nasal cavity.
103 Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3; ed. Eldar (1980, fol. 10b, line 77); Sefer Yeṣira (ed. Gruenwald 1971, 147; ed. Hayman 2004, 92–98).
104 Data supplied by Aaron Hornkohl.
105 Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.2., §II.L.1.3.3.
106 Data supplied by Aaron Hornkohl. Cf. also Reymond (2014, 92).
107 Data supplied by Aaron Hornkohl.
108 E.g. Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, short version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.S.1.7.
109 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.9.; ed. Eldar (1980, fols. 10b-11a, lines 84-88).
110 Cf. the commentary to this passage by Eldar (1980, n.75.).
111 Kutscher (1965, 24–35).
112 Data supplied by Ben Kantor.
113 113 Commentary on Sefer Yeṣira (ed. Lambert 1891, 42).
114 Dunash ibn Tamim, Commentary on Sefer Yeṣira (ed. Mann 1931, 1: 670, n.106). For this passage see §I.1.4.
115 The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chciago, A/2 (1968), Chicago: Oriental Institute, 178.
116 Data supplied by Ben Kantor.
117 Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.8.; ed. Eldar (1980, fol. 10b, line 77), Sefer Yeṣira (ed. Gruenwald 1971, 147; ed. Hayman 2004, 92–98).
118 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.6.; ed. Eldar (1980, fols. 10a–10b, lines 61–72).
119 Data suppied by Ben Kantor.
120 Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.6.; Eldar (1984a).
121 Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.9.6.; Eldar (1984a).
122 Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.9.5., §II.L.1.9.7. The Hebrew Maḥberet ha-Tījān (ed. J. Derenbourg 1871, 81) states that the Tiberians pronounced this resh strongly . An anonymous Masoretic treatise preserved in the Genizah fragment CUL T-S NS 311.113 states that the Tiberians pronounced the resh with dagesh
, but ‘in our country we do not know (this pronunciation)’. This is presumably referring to the Tiberain secondary resh.
123 123 (ed. Gruenwald 1971, 156; ed. Hayman 2004, 54). For variant versions see Hayman (2004, 51, 127).
124 (ed. Lambert 1891, 29).
125 (ed. Lambert 1891, 46). In part four Saadya describes how the hard resh occurs in certain phonetic environments (see below).
126 Ed. Lambert (1891, 79). In some medieval sources describing the two different types of Tiberian resh the terms dagesh and rafe are confused. This is the case, for example, in Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim (ed. Baer and Strack 1879, §7) and the Hebrew Maḥberet al-Tījān (ed. J. Derenbourg 1871, 138). According to Revell (1981, 133) this confusion arose from the fact that in the few cases where the dagesh sign is marked in the resh in the Tiberian text, the resh is not preceded by the letters nor is it followed by לן. A resh that did occur in the environment of these letters was, therefore, considered to be rafe. Such sources, or the versions that have come down to us, must have been written by scribes who had no direct knowledge of the Tiberian pronunciation tradition.
127 Morag (1960, 217–19).
128 Ed. Baer and Strack (1879, §53). For variant texts of this passage see ed. Dotan (1967, 140, 263).
129 For details see Khan (1995).
130 وهذه الحروف الار بعة اذا وضعت لسانك فى مو اضعهن انطبق لسانك من مو اضعهن الى ما حاذى130 الحنك الا على من اللسان تر فعه الى الحنك فاذا وضعت لسانك فالصوت محصور فىָ֖ ما بين اللسانָ֖ والحنك الى موضع الحروف, al-Kitāb, ed. Derenbourg (1889, 455).
131 For this passage see §I.1.4.
132 Allony (1973, 102, text line 28).
133 E.g. in Neo-Aramaic dialects (Khan 2008, 32).
134 Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.9.4., §II.L.1.9.7.; Saadya, Commentary on Sefer Yeṣira (ed. Lambert 1891, 79); Masoretic treatise attributed to Yehudah ha-Nazir (ed. Allony, 104, text lines 51-56).
135 These last two examples are cited by Saadya, Commentary on Sefer Yeṣira (ed. Lambert 1891, 79).
136 For labialization associated with pharyngealized consonants in modern spoken Arabic dialects see Bellem (2007) and for this feature in Neo-Aramaic see Khan (2016, vol. 1, 50).
137 137בין שינים ובלשון ישן ‘between the teeth and with a resting tongue’, בלשו שכובה ושטוחה ‘with a resting and flat tongue’ (ed. Gruenwald 1971, 147; ed. Hayman 2004, 92–98).
138 וכנת אטיל עלג̇לוס פי סוחאת טבריה ושוארעהא א [סת]מע כלאם אלסוקה ואלעאמה 138 ואבחת ען עללגה ואצול [הא] אנט̇ר הל ינכסר שי ממא אצלת או ינפסד שי ממא ט̇הר לי ופי מא נֻקט ב [ה מן] אלעבראני ואלסריאני ואנואעה אע לגה אלתרגום וגירה פאנה מגאלנס ללעבראני ...פכרג צחיח מחרר (Allony 1973, 98–100).
139 Baer and Strack (1879, §7).
140 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.8.
141 Data supplied by Aaron Hornkohl.
142 Kitāb al-Lumaʿ (ed. Derenbourg 1886, 240), Schreiner (1886, 241).
143 Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.8.; ed. Eldar (1980, fol. 10b, line 77). Sefer Yeṣira (ed. Gruenwald 1971, 147; ed. Hayman 2004, 92–98).
144 144 חרף אלתפשי (Kitāb al-Lumaʿ, ed. Derenbourg, 27).
145 Roman (1983, 202, 218, 248).
146 E.g. short version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.S.3.0., §5.1.
147 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.7.; ed. Eldar (1980, fol. 10b, lines 67–69).
148 Commentary on Sefer Yeṣira (ed. Lambert 1891, 75).
149 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.2.
150 Kutscher (1965, 24–35).
151 Data supplied by Ben Kantor.
152 Roman (1983, 55).
153 The inventory of consonant phonemes presented here corresponds to that proposed by Schramm (1964, 63) on the basis of the graphemes of Tiberian Hebrew, although he did not have access to the original phonetic realizations.
© Open Book Publishers, 2020
Creative Commons - Attribution 4.0 International - CC BY 4.0