I don't usually comment on youtube videos, but I gotta say: Thank you for being the future of academic education! When I went to university, presenting lectures like this on the internet was considered near heresy. Glad that changed. This whole series is very compelling, educative and well-presented. Keep up the good work!
Syrian Jews traditionally pronounce Vav as V, even though such sound doesn't exist in Arabic. It looks like they have carefully maintained the Tiberian Vav.
It doesn't exist in Arabic because it's not a native Semitic sound. It made its way into Hebrew through influence of non-Semitic languages that Jews spoke.
@@AbuRashidIbrahim Arabic is extreamly conservative, while other Semitic language made all kinds of changes. In particular, modern Aramaic has merged W with B. 2000 years ago, European languages did not have V. In late Antiquity a wave of mispronunciation swept over the Mediterranean and changed W to V. It affect Aramaic also, but Arabic was so deep inland, Arabic remained unchanged. Germanic languages 2000 year ago did not have SH. It evolved from SK. Even Arabic did not have SH 1500 years ago, since every SH in Hebrew is switched to S in Arabic, as Moshe became Musa.
@@AbuRashidIbrahim Turning W into V goes up into Russia, and east all the way through India. I would have said you are exactly right, except that although modern Aramaic has merged V and W, it still retains the emphatics Tet and Sade exactly as in Arabic, while non-Semitic languages don't have such sounds. So I think that west Semitic languages are inclined to do strange things like turning W to V, and long A into O. And in Phoenician from O to U.
@@benavraham4397 except very few north west Semitic languages do. Ugaritic does not, other varieties of Canaanite do not and even other dialects of Hebrew do not.
This is an excellent and very thorough treatment of the phonetics, with a delightful clarity for any traditionally trained linguist. Just one slip of the tongue, however, when describing [v and [f] as labiovelars rather than labiodentals.
Great Easter gift (I should have said this about a week ago, but ah well, the circumstances)! I hope to come forward for a video on Classical Arabic/Arabic languages.
I really appreciate these videos, but could I please ask, I heard ayin could also be pronounced like the gamma and is transliterated with g in very old words like Gomorrah, or was I mistaken somehow?
Another correction: as far as I know the letter vav in Tiberian Hebrew was pronounced [v], except before a shva and the letters בומפ when it was pronounced [u], but never [w].
You should read "The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew" published by Geoffrey Khan in 2021. It contains a complete translation of the Hidayat al-Qari by Aaron of Jerusalem and explains these phonetic details.
It differs a lot from any other pronunciation tradition. As far as I understand the Samaritan tradition went its own way long before the codification of Tiberian Hebrew. That's why I didn't include it in this video. It would deserve a video of it's own. Unfortunately the available materials are a little scarce which is why I haven't figured out any plans for a Samaritan Hebrew video yet.
In modern Aramaic they pronounce Chet the same way as European Jews do. Why not say that the European pronunciation Chet was a casual pronunciation of ancient Aramaic/Hebrew?
In ancient Hebrew there were two distinct phonemes, represented as ح and خ in Arabic still, but in ancient Hebrew both were just represented by the same letter ח but we know both phonemes still existed from transliterations into Greek. Modern Hebrew has lost this distinction. In fact modern Hebrew has lost about 1/3 of the original proto-Semitic phonemic repertoire.
@@AbuRashidIbrahim YES👍! It is obvious that Biblical Hebrew had Het vs Khet, and 'Ayin vs Ghayin, just like modern Arabic. Hebrew in the past was much more colorful ! People who know Hebrew and Arabic both are very fortunate.
@@AbuRashidIbrahim Perhaps when Aramaic/Hebrew merged ح and خ, there were many people who took the خ pronunciation, and that included the Jews who went to Europe. Most of modern Aramaic today is uses the خ for Het. How else would you explain that? It's pretty strange that most modern Aramaic has ص and ط, but not ح.
@@benavraham4397 it's a dialect thing maybe? since not all forms of modern aramaic do this. and modern hebrew is a language not a pronunciation. original accent of modern hebrew was more like Russian mixed with sephardic.
@@bangtan8565 the original intent in modern Hebrew was only the Sephardic pronunciation.. meaning using the Spanish R, and the original Hebrew Heth and Ayin. Hebrew was influenced by Yiddish, which is influenced by German... That's the reason for the disappearance of those sounds and the use of the German or French R.
'Ayin Do have any explation how Italian and Potuagese Jews came to pronounce it Ngayin? For example they would say "Shmang" for "Shma." Also the Ashkenazi Jews pronounce the name Ya'akov as "Yangkov."
I think it was simply the closest phonetic equivalent. Both 'Ayin and the ng-sound are voiced continuants pronounced at the back of the articulatory system. Just Italian and Portuguese don't have pharyngeal sounds, so making it a velar sound was the closest they could get. Apparently there was some inclination to preserve the sound like this instead of just dropping it like in other traditions of Hebrew.
This is not entirely correct. Since everyone spoke the same language more or less in the Iron age Southern Levant, and used the same writing system, local elites begins to distinguish themselves. Each kingdom adopts a unique national god and use special theophoric names, for example Yeho-nadab in Judah would be Chemosh-nadb in Moab. Another way to distinguish youraelf is to make small special nuances in your writing system, and thus an inscription from Judah might, on purpose, look a little bit diffrent than, lets say Moab. My sources are mainly from lectures from Prof. Oded Lipschits from Tel Aviv University
@@1100100il yes there are regional variants but really just one script for all of the Canaanite dialects. The differences are so miniscule that only experts can tell them apart.
@@AbuRashidIbrahim "Hebrew inscriptions, exhibiting grammar very similar to that of Biblical Hebrew, are attested through the first millennium." Huehnergard & Pat-El: Introduction to the Semitic languages and their History. "With a sizeable number of inscriptions ranging from cs. 1200 BC to the Bar Kokhba letters from 132 - 135 AD, the scrolls from the Dead Sea (Qumran), the Samaritan Pentateuch, as well as the early Rabbinical (or 'Tannaitic') literature also make part of the body of 'ancient' Hebrew, this entry [i.e. Biblical Hebrew] focuses on the language in the thirty-nine books that constitute what is known as the Tanakh in the Jewish trafition and the Old Testament in the Christian tradition." Lutz Edzard: Biblical Hebrew. Thus it is only Biblical Hebrew if it is part of the Biblical corpus. If it is outside of the corpus, it is something else, e.g. Epigraphic/Paleo-Hebrew or Qumran Hebrew, even if the language is almost identical. They are all Hebrew. And they are all Ancient Hebrew. But they are not all Biblical Hebrew. There needs to be a label to sum up the paleographical as well as the diachronic differences, even if they are minuscle. Otherwise one could add Ammonite and Moabite to Biblical Hebrew as well.
Nice video. A correction - Yemenite liturgical pronunciation is likely descended from the Babylonian tradition, especially with respect to the vowels (for example, the lack of distinction between patah and segol). It should not be considered the case that modern liturgical traditions are all descended from Tiberian liturgical pronunciation at all. In fact, the five vowel system found historically in old Ashkenazi and in all Sephardi traditions is likely descended from the Palestinian tradition which ultimately became the most widespread. Although the Tiberian vocalization system eventually won out over other systems, Jews were likely still using their own traditions despite Tiberian vocalization being a poor descriptor of these traditions.
I don't usually comment on youtube videos, but I gotta say: Thank you for being the future of academic education! When I went to university, presenting lectures like this on the internet was considered near heresy. Glad that changed. This whole series is very compelling, educative and well-presented. Keep up the good work!
Isiah 53.
Lords language was meant to be shared, perhaps in the world to come. Pbwy.
shalom
מעניין מאוד תודה רבה 🙏
Aloha ani Shainia toda raba for this easy way to learn. Enjoyed this tremendously. Mahaloe nui loa
Aloha
Syrian Jews traditionally pronounce Vav as V, even though such sound doesn't exist in Arabic. It looks like they have carefully maintained the Tiberian Vav.
It doesn't exist in Arabic because it's not a native Semitic sound. It made its way into Hebrew through influence of non-Semitic languages that Jews spoke.
@@AbuRashidIbrahim Arabic is extreamly conservative, while other Semitic language made all kinds of changes. In particular, modern Aramaic has merged W with B.
2000 years ago, European languages did not have V. In late Antiquity a wave of mispronunciation swept over the Mediterranean and changed W to V. It affect Aramaic also, but Arabic was so deep inland, Arabic remained unchanged.
Germanic languages 2000 year ago did not have SH. It evolved from SK.
Even Arabic did not have SH 1500 years ago, since every SH in Hebrew is switched to S in Arabic, as Moshe became Musa.
@@benavraham4397 I think both Aramaic and Hebrew got this sound from Persian influence. Persians do pronounce w as v.
@@AbuRashidIbrahim Turning W into V goes up into Russia, and east all the way through India. I would have said you are exactly right, except that although modern Aramaic has merged V and W, it still retains the emphatics Tet and Sade exactly as in Arabic, while non-Semitic languages don't have such sounds. So I think that west Semitic languages are inclined to do strange things like turning W to V, and long A into O. And in Phoenician from O to U.
@@benavraham4397 except very few north west Semitic languages do. Ugaritic does not, other varieties of Canaanite do not and even other dialects of Hebrew do not.
This is an excellent and very thorough treatment of the phonetics, with a delightful clarity for any traditionally trained linguist. Just one slip of the tongue, however, when describing [v and [f] as labiovelars rather than labiodentals.
Yes, I meant labiodentals of course.
Very thankful for this vid!
Great Easter gift (I should have said this about a week ago, but ah well, the circumstances)! I hope to come forward for a video on Classical Arabic/Arabic languages.
I'm already working on a Classical Arabic video. It's going to be video #8.
/ɬ/ did in fact merge with /ʃ/ in Samaritan Hebrew (possibly a descendant of Ephraimite Hebrew).
how do we know about this merger in Phoenician?
Congratulation for becoming active again. What happend to your older videos? I really liked the video about the letters from Ugarit.
They are not listed but you can still access them.through a playlist.
I really appreciate these videos, but could I please ask, I heard ayin could also be pronounced like the gamma and is transliterated with g in very old words like Gomorrah, or was I mistaken somehow?
Another correction: as far as I know the letter vav in Tiberian Hebrew was pronounced [v], except before a shva and the letters בומפ when it was pronounced [u], but never [w].
You should read "The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew" published by Geoffrey Khan in 2021.
It contains a complete translation of the Hidayat al-Qari by Aaron of Jerusalem and explains these phonetic details.
I understand that in modern Turkish
and modern Farsi The word for ''and'' presumably borrowed from Arabic ''wa'' is ''va''.
as in Tiberian Hebrew.'
So it seems.
1:00:01 1:00:44 1:00:50 1:00:56 1:01:10 1:01:23 1:01:38 1:01:48 1:02:00 1:02:04 1:02:10 1:02:20 instances of ayin
39:00 treatment of resh
Since I’m an Arabic speaker I want to know what is your favorite dialect and also why are you uploading fastly?
Where does Samaratian pronunciation fit in?
It differs a lot from any other pronunciation tradition. As far as I understand the Samaritan tradition went its own way long before the codification of Tiberian Hebrew. That's why I didn't include it in this video. It would deserve a video of it's own. Unfortunately the available materials are a little scarce which is why I haven't figured out any plans for a Samaritan Hebrew video yet.
I wish modern Hebrew will fix these vowels to more easily represent how they speak now.
In modern Aramaic they pronounce Chet the same way as European Jews do. Why not say that the European pronunciation Chet was a casual pronunciation of ancient Aramaic/Hebrew?
In ancient Hebrew there were two distinct phonemes, represented as ح and خ in Arabic still, but in ancient Hebrew both were just represented by the same letter ח but we know both phonemes still existed from transliterations into Greek.
Modern Hebrew has lost this distinction. In fact modern Hebrew has lost about 1/3 of the original proto-Semitic phonemic repertoire.
@@AbuRashidIbrahim
YES👍!
It is obvious that Biblical Hebrew had Het vs Khet, and 'Ayin vs Ghayin, just like modern Arabic. Hebrew in the past was much more colorful ! People who know Hebrew and Arabic both are very fortunate.
@@AbuRashidIbrahim
Perhaps when Aramaic/Hebrew merged ح and خ, there were many people who took the خ pronunciation, and that included the Jews who went to Europe. Most of modern Aramaic today is uses the خ for Het. How else would you explain that? It's pretty strange that most modern Aramaic has ص and ط, but not ح.
@@benavraham4397 it's a dialect thing maybe? since not all forms of modern aramaic do this. and modern hebrew is a language not a pronunciation. original accent of modern hebrew was more like Russian mixed with sephardic.
@@bangtan8565 the original intent in modern Hebrew was only the Sephardic pronunciation.. meaning using the Spanish R, and the original Hebrew Heth and Ayin.
Hebrew was influenced by Yiddish, which is influenced by German... That's the reason for the disappearance of those sounds and the use of the German or French R.
34:33 😳
It's like.... things I've learned are wrong
עליכם שלום
'Ayin
Do have any explation how Italian and Potuagese Jews came to pronounce it Ngayin? For example they would say "Shmang" for "Shma." Also the Ashkenazi Jews pronounce the name Ya'akov as "Yangkov."
I think it was simply the closest phonetic equivalent. Both 'Ayin and the ng-sound are voiced continuants pronounced at the back of the articulatory system. Just Italian and Portuguese don't have pharyngeal sounds, so making it a velar sound was the closest they could get.
Apparently there was some inclination to preserve the sound like this instead of just dropping it like in other traditions of Hebrew.
@@AncientSemitic Thank you!👍
@@benavraham4397 Same as Yankiv in Ukrainian Yiddish.
Just a correction: not "wu-ḵǝṯuḇim" but "uḵṯuḇim".
I think at 23:24 you meant labio-dental.
Of course! Labio-dental, not labio-velar. 🤦♂️
Biblical hebrew doesn't exist. It's an aramaic dialect like all languages of this region .
There's no such language as Paleo-Hebrew. It is a writing system, and actually is really just the Phoenician script.
Call it what you want. Paleo-Hebrew, Old Hebrew, Epigraphic Hebrew. It is a distinct chronological stage of Hebrew.
This is not entirely correct. Since everyone spoke the same language more or less in the Iron age Southern Levant, and used the same writing system, local elites begins to distinguish themselves.
Each kingdom adopts a unique national god and use special theophoric names, for example Yeho-nadab in Judah would be Chemosh-nadb in Moab. Another way to distinguish youraelf is to make small special nuances in your writing system, and thus an inscription from Judah might, on purpose, look a little bit diffrent than, lets say Moab.
My sources are mainly from lectures from Prof. Oded Lipschits from Tel Aviv University
@@AncientSemitic the language stage is called biblical Hebrew.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleo-Hebrew_alphabet
@@1100100il yes there are regional variants but really just one script for all of the Canaanite dialects. The differences are so miniscule that only experts can tell them apart.
@@AbuRashidIbrahim
"Hebrew inscriptions, exhibiting grammar very similar to that of Biblical Hebrew, are attested through the first millennium." Huehnergard & Pat-El: Introduction to the Semitic languages and their History.
"With a sizeable number of inscriptions ranging from cs. 1200 BC to the Bar Kokhba letters from 132 - 135 AD, the scrolls from the Dead Sea (Qumran), the Samaritan Pentateuch, as well as the early Rabbinical (or 'Tannaitic') literature also make part of the body of 'ancient' Hebrew, this entry [i.e. Biblical Hebrew] focuses on the language in the thirty-nine books that constitute what is known as the Tanakh in the Jewish trafition and the Old Testament in the Christian tradition." Lutz Edzard: Biblical Hebrew.
Thus it is only Biblical Hebrew if it is part of the Biblical corpus. If it is outside of the corpus, it is something else, e.g. Epigraphic/Paleo-Hebrew or Qumran Hebrew, even if the language is almost identical.
They are all Hebrew. And they are all Ancient Hebrew. But they are not all Biblical Hebrew. There needs to be a label to sum up the paleographical as well as the diachronic differences, even if they are minuscle.
Otherwise one could add Ammonite and Moabite to Biblical Hebrew as well.
Nice video. A correction - Yemenite liturgical pronunciation is likely descended from the Babylonian tradition, especially with respect to the vowels (for example, the lack of distinction between patah and segol). It should not be considered the case that modern liturgical traditions are all descended from Tiberian liturgical pronunciation at all. In fact, the five vowel system found historically in old Ashkenazi and in all Sephardi traditions is likely descended from the Palestinian tradition which ultimately became the most widespread. Although the Tiberian vocalization system eventually won out over other systems, Jews were likely still using their own traditions despite Tiberian vocalization being a poor descriptor of these traditions.