More than one Hebrew

[rhayat1]

The resh.  In my eyes, the worst abomination the Israelis have committed upon Hebrew is upon the poor, unfortunate resh.  Of course, when I say "Israelis", I don't mean ALL Israelis.  Only 95% of them or so and practically the entire younger generation.  They've taken a letter, whose origins are in the front of the mouth, and moved it so that its origins are in the back of the mouth (the glottis).  The resh, according to Sefer haYyesirah, belongs with the zayin, shin, sin, samekh and sade.  It is not very difficult to accustom oneself to speaking with the correct resh, but ignorance is the rule here.  Ignorance and probably a subconscious desire to sound like "educated" people from central Europe rather than "primitive" people from the Middle East.  It did not help matters that so many North Africans lived in France before coming to Israel.  Their accents had already become corrupted by French.

It is not reasonable that the resh should sound just like the soft ghimel (gimel without a dagesh).  The confusion this would cause is substantial.  Of course, the Israeli solution was to get rid of the soft ghimel.

Sefer haYyesirah lists seven double letters: Beth, gimel, daleth, kaf, pe, resh and taw.  Later sources eliminated the resh, probably because the nature of its double pronunciation had been lost over time.  My opinion on that is that the soft resh is said much like the American "r", while the hard resh is trilled as in Arabic, Russian, Spanish etc.  I've actually heard this distinction amongst Iraqi Jews - but only those who have preserved their accents perfectly (i.e. the elderly and maybe a handful of younger ones).  It is not reasonable to claim that one resh is in the front of the mouth while the other is in the back of the mouth; no Hebrew letter changes location with the presence or absence of a dagesh.

Some later Hebrew "grammarians" had the audacity to list the resh among the letters spoken from the back of the mouth (the glottis).  Those men had no precedent whatsoever and did so only to justify the way modern Israelis speak.  I already mentioned sefer haYyesirah.  R.  Avraham ibn 'Ezra, R. Yohan ben Janah and every other early authority lists the resh as coming from the front of the mouth.  All later authorities do so as well.

As with the waw, when Hebrew characters are used for Arabic, we never find any special marks over the resh.  If the Hebrew resh was different from the Arabic "ra", then there would need to be a special mark to indicate that this "resh" is pronounced differently than it would normally be pronounced in Hebrew.  The absence of any special mark strongly implies that the Hebrew resh and the Arabic "ra" are one in the same.  I will add that if the resh and the ghimel/gimel were actually close in pronunciation, we would find various instances of the two letters being switched around (as we do with other close letters, such as the teth and taw, the sin and samakh and the gutturals) - but we find no such instances.

The ancient sages and Greeks, in the Septuagint, consistently used Greek "ro" for Hebrew resh in proper nouns.  There was no confusion here and this implies that Greek "ro" and Hebrew resh are one in the same - not to mention the obvious derivation Greek from Phoenician in how they are written.

Had the resh originally been pronounced like the soft ghimel (which all peoples of the Middle East can say with no difficulty), then why would millions of them have switched to their current (traditional) resh, in the front of the mouth?  As for central European Jews, their vernacular had nothing equivalent to the proper resh; all they knew was the ovular "r" so it is no wonder their resh became corrupted.  This corruption can happen without people even being aware of it:

I was married to a woman whose parents had come to Israel from Cochin, India.  She is the youngest of 12 siblings and the only one born in Israel.  We had been married a few years and we had a family gathering where her siblings were present.  Somehow we got to the subject of tradition and I pointed out a fact that was obvious to me: my wife was the only one whose resh had moved to the back of her mouth.  All her siblings, who were born in the old country, retained the correct resh.  I brought this up as a matter of fact.  They all looked at me and scoffed.  "That's ridiculous.  We all speak the same!"  These people had GROWN UP TOGETHER.  They had known each other FOR DECADES.  Yet they were unaware of what had transpired within their own mouths.  I had my wife say something with a resh.  They all looked at her.  They looked at me and their jaws dropped.  If they weren't so dark, they probably would have blushed too - that an outsider knew more about them, in this regard, than they did.

Since I'm telling stories, here's another one.  This one has to do with the waw.  I used to attend a very traditional Iraqi beth kenesseth.  The hakham there, R. Musafi, was of the old school.  He dressed traditionally, spoke traditionally and snorted snuff traditionally.  He would speak to us and bless us after every service.  We would sing together.  He had no teeth.  One day, I got into a debate with one of my Moroccan friends, who sat next to me.  I told him he should correct his waw and stop saying vav.  I said, "listen to Hakham musafi.  He says it right."  He retorted, "Hakham musafi has no teeth; this is why he can't say 'vav' ".  We argued a bit and I challenged him to ask the Hakham and so we did.  My friend was standing by my side when I asked the Hakham, "how should one say, VaYyomer Moshe or WaYyomer Moshe?"  He answered very loudly, and in no uncertain terms "WaYyomer Moshe".  I'm not sure if my friend corrected his waw.

That's it for now.

[Edward]

thanks for the info.. it is highly appreciated

[rhayat1]

The 'ayin and the het.  This is a case where there really is no dispute  how it is supposed to be said.  Ask an Israeli about it and he'll say something like, "The Yemenites have the correct Hebrew; they say the hhhhhet and the 'aaaaayin."  He will emphasize those two letters, showing that, with some effort, he can actually pronounce them.  And yet, in day to day life, he will NOT pronounce them properly.  I conclude that this is a combination of laziness and a fear of being laughed at.  What really irks me is that the younger Israelis whose grandparents came from Yemen or Morocco or Iraq or Syria etc. will also refuse to pronounce these two letters properly.  Are they ashamed of their own heritage?  One can here the het being pronounced clearly on Israeli radio but the 'ayin is more rare.  I learned how to say it be exposing myself to Arabic being spoken (this was before I went to Israel and there was an Arabic radio station in my area).  When I did arrive in Israel, I spoke Hebrew as properly as I knew at the time and this included the correct pronunciation of the 'ayin and the het.  People knew I was American - and I got nothing but admiration for my efforts - but this was a long time ago.  Maybe things have changed for the worse.  In any case, it has been said that it is virtually impossible for a Westerner to master the pronunciation of these two letters.  That one must be raised with it.  I am living proof that this is not so and I've met others (very few) who have also learned.  I am not going to try to describe their pronunciation in print; you just need to hear them.  They are, of course, both guttural.  Here's a good article about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayin

Here are some tidbits about the 'ayin and het:

Talmud Meghilla (24 and Yerushlami Berakhoth 82).  "Those who read the 'ayin like aleph are not to publicly read from the Torah and are not to participate in the blessing of the Cohanim".

I shall quote from my mentor, Ben Siyyon Cohen "If, until now they had an excuse to say 'it wasn't our fault for we didn't know the pronunciation of the het and 'ayin and we had nobody from whom to learn'.  Behold, now in the Land of Israel they have the ability and opportunity to learn and yet they make no effort to do so or to teach them to their children.  Those people will be judged as though they sinned on purpose.  For how can a religious Jew entertain the concept of reading prayers and Torah while substituting the aleph for the 'ayin?.  How will he read "wa'avadhtem ("you shall serve" but, with an aleph, it would mean "you shall destroy") G-d".  "Nishba' haShem ("you will swear to G-d" but, with an aleph, it would mean "G-d will be taken captive")".  "Laahava eth hashem ul'ovdo ("to love G-d and to serve Him" but, with an aleph, it would mean "to love G-d and to lose Him")".  And similar to these?  Is this not blasphemy and cursing heavenward if he is able to learn to pronounce the 'ayin and yet he is too lazy, or for whatever reason, neglects doing so?  How much more so those who err and misinterpret "Do not forsake the teachings of your mother..." as if they were commanded to pursue traditions even after it becomes clear that they are corrupt...  How much more so if he is in the Land of Israel, that if he wishes to learn, he can learn the correct pronunciation of the letters easily and yet he makes no effort.  He will be judged as "mezid" (sinning on purpose) and as one who makes light (of the commandments)..."

Regarding the heth.  It is counted amongst the guttural letters whereas the khaf has its source in the back of the pallet.  This, alone should make it clear they cannot have the same sound.  The sound of the heth is close to that of the he and, in some places, they were pronounced the same.  We find in Meghilla (24:b) "concerning Rav Hiyya, who used to pronounce the heth like a he, Rabbenu haQqadosh told him 'when you reach to word "wehhikiti lahaShem", do you not find yourself blaspheming? (with a heth, it means, "I waited for G-d" but with a he, it means "I struck G-d")"

We find that Ashkenazi Jews used to pronounce the heth the same as the he as well.  These are the words of R. Yosef Ometz (Germany, letter 21):

"And so the reading of the heth, which we Ashkenazim pronounce like the he, it seems to me that we are correct."  And he brings three pieces of evidence against the habit of Polish Jews - who would pronounce it like the soft khaf.

Also we find R. Shemuel haLlewi (lived in Piorda, Germany about 300 years ago), in his book "Nahalath Shiv'ah" (chapter 46) on the letter heth, regarding the spelling of the name "Hanokh".  He writes, as a matter of fact, that the Ashkenazim pronounce the heth like the he and these are his words "in any case, it is known that the Ashkenazim pronounce the heth like the he".

Nevertheless, it is obvious that the heth is not the same as the he.  However, it behaves much like the he in Hebrew grammer.  Had the heth been originally pronounced like the khaf, we would have a hard time explaining how ancient sages and Jews in Germany came to pronounce it like a he; after all, they had no problems pronouncing the khaf.  Why would they have changed the heth to a he?

What I quoted above regarding the 'ayin, and how today's Jews have an obligation to learn the correct way of reading it, applies equally to the het.  There is no excuse for not learning it correctly.

[rhayat1]

The Teth and the Qof.  These two letters have no equivalent in English.  Of course the Teth does sound somewhat like the letter "t" and the Qof like the letter "k".  This is why the ancient Greeks transliterated them thus.  When, during the times of the geonim and onward, Jews wrote Arabic in Hebrew letters, they always used the Hebrew letter Teth for Arabic "TA" and Hebrew Qof for Arabic "QAF".  The Arabic pronunciation of these two letters is not in dispute.

In Hebrew grammar, there are seven "binyanim" (vowel forms).  One of them is "hithpa'el", where the three letter root takes an initial "he" and "taw", followed by the three letters of the root.  For example, "Sekhel" (intellect) becomes "histakel" (observe/view).  However, when the the first letter of that root is a "strong" letter, such as "sadi" (yet to be discussed), then things change somewhat.  In this case, the "he" is followed by the first of the three root letters, followed by a teth instead of the taw and then the last two root letters.  For example, "sedeq" (justic) becomes "hisTadeq".   If we pronounce the sadi correctly, it is somewhat awkward to switch from the strong sadi to a weak taw with no vowel in between.  The natural flow of consonants demands the the adjacent letter also be strong.  The sadi and the teth go together.  The sadi and the taw do not.  Of course this only makes sense if there is a difference between the taw and the teth - which, of course, there is.

It would make no sense to have two letters with exactly the same pronunciation in Hebrew.  If the soft thaw were to turn into a teth, with the addition of a dagesh, then the teth with no dagesh would logically also turn into a soft thaw - which, of course, it does not.

The qof retained its original value everywhere Arabic "QA" also did.  In Europe, it is pronounced just like the hard "Kaf".  Again, if the kaf and the qof were the same, then the same dagesh that turns the soft khaf into the hard kaf would, in its absence also turn the qof into a khof.  It, of course, does not.  We find that most of the Jews of Yemen pronounced the qof as if it were a hard gimel, hard "g" in English.  If the qof were originally pronounced just like a kaf, then why would they have changed it to "g"?  After all, they are perfectly capable of pronouncing the "k" sound; they say it with the kaf all the time.  Likewise we find many of the Jews of Syria pronouncing the qof as a glottal stop (like an aleph).  Yet they had no problems pronouncing the kaf - so why would they have converted the qof to aleph?  Of course, the fate of Arabic "QA" was exactly the same in those places.  The Jews of Cochin (Southern India) would say the qof as if it were chaf - but they had no problems pronouncing the hard kaf.  Again, the same question: why would they have switched from the "k" sound (which they could say perfectly well) to a "kh" sound?  The only logical explanation is that the qof was difficult to pronounce in all those places and the people, trying to say it correctly, ended up converting it to another letter.

In Talmud 'Eruvin (53:b) "that woman who said 'mari kiri'" and Rashi explains that she meant to say "qiri" which means "master", but she said "kiri", which means "slave" instead.  This implies that even in Rashi's days, the distinction was known.

You can hear the teth pronounced correctly by listening to Arabic - but the qof, being more difficult, is harder to find.  Most Arabs have turned it either into aleph or "kaf" and its pronunciation will vary from word to word even within the same dialect.  Maybe some day I'll upload audio files...

[rhayat1]

The letter Sadi.  Each Hebrew letter is a pure sound.  Like the other letters, mentioned above, the letter Sadi was used for many centuries by Jews as the exact equivalent of Arabic Sad.  That is to say, with no special marks that would imply it was pronounced any differently.  In contrast, the Arabic "hard Sad", when written in Hebrew, would have a special mark above the Hebrew Sadi to show that this letter has no equivalent in Hebrew.  Early grammarians considered the Hebrew and Arabic versions of this letter to be exactly the same.

To produce the Semitic Sadi, shape your tongue like a bowl whose opening is on top and blow air out from around it without letting your tongue actually touch your palette at all.  While doing this, your tongue should be positioned a bit further back in your mouth.  Make sure the sound is not like the "sh" in English "ship".  The difference between the Sadi and the Sin is clear to one who is accustomed to it.  While in yeshiva in Jerusalem, the subject came up and one of my Yemeni friends told me that there is no difference between the Sadi and the Sin, in pronunciation.  We argued for a while.  People laughed at me since the Yemeni had come from a traditional background and had been raised with Yemeni Hebrew since an early age - yet here I was, a young American who thought he knew better.  I challenged him to come with me to Mori Yihyeh alSheikh, who lived only a couple blocks away.  That Yemeni friend of mine was red-faced when he realized how wrong he was.  Mori alSheikh set him straight.

The "ts" we find among Ashkenazi Jews is simply the closest Germanic approximation they could come up with to this uniquely Semitic letter.  Sephardic Jews ended up pronouncing it just like the letter Sin; they had nothing that came close to it in their language.  In the past, it would seem that the Ashkenazim also pronounced the Sadi like the Sin - so that they ended up with four redundant letters.  They had to change one of them to avoid confusion and that was the Sadi, which took on the German ts sound.  Both the Radaq (Mikhlol pg. 73) and Rashbas (Maghen Avoth part 3 pg. 55:b) wrote that one must be careful to distinguish between the Sin and the Sadi.  Only in Arabic speaking lands did the Jews preserve the original sound of the Sadi.

To cite the Book of Yesirah again, it divides the Hebrew letters according to their origins in the mouth.  From the tip of the tongue we have daleth, teth, lamedh, nun and taw.  From the teeth we have zayin, samekh, shin, resh and sadi.  If the sadi were said "ts", then it would actually have two origins in the mouth.

When a Hebrew letter takes a dagesh hazaq, its pronunciation becomes doubled.  For example, "Millah" (word) is pronounced as if the letter lamedh appeared twice: mil-lah.  Meghilla = meghil-la.  The only Hebrew letters that do not take a dagesh hazaq are the guttural letters.  Therefore, when we find a word like "Massah" (unleavened bread), the sadi is actually doubled = mas-sah.  If the sadi were supposed to be pronounced "ts", then we would end up with the impossible "mats-tsah".  You cannot double a combination letter like that unless you introduce some kind of vowel in between; something that is unheard of and strongly against Hebrew grammar.  Some might say that it should be pronounced "mat-tsah", doubling only the first half of the letter.  But this would necessitate two silent vowels (shewa nah) in quick succession - which does not happen in Hebrew in the middle of a word. 

When Hebrew uses the letter waw as "and", it is pronounced as "oo" (waw with a shureq) whenever the next letter has the silent vowel (shewa nah).  If the sadi were indeed "ts" then it would always fall into this category - seeing as the "t" part of it would effectively have a shewa nah - and we would always find the preceeding waw with a shureq (oo).  But this is not the case for we find words like "weSaddiqim", not "ooSaddiqim".

My mentor Bensiyyon Cohen dedicates several pages of proofs regarding the sadi.  34 proofs in all.  If anybody is interested, I'd be happy to scan in those pages and post them; this would be easier than typing the whole thing.  Yeah, I'm being lazy!

[Hyades]

Intersting. Because actually many sounds do still exist today in Arabic. Hebrew lost much of it's Semitic character because it adopted the Yiddishe (German and French) pronounciation. However, some Mizrahim and Sefardim still speak some sounds differently. A friend of mine prounounces the Tzadi, Resh, Tet and Het with an Arabic touch - giving Hebrew the sound of a real Semitic language...

[דוד בן זאב אריה]

The note here on the Ayin is wrong it has a sound like a "ng" except it come from the gut. There is no sound like it in english

[Hyades]

The note here on the Ayin is wrong it has a sound like a "ng" except it come from the gut. There is no sound like it in english

No, it sounds like the sound of same name in Arabic. But in Modern Hebrew it has almost disappeared. At least that's my impression when I go to Israel. I think only the Mizrahim still speak it that way.

[דוד בן זאב אריה]

It's the correct way. for example Ani with an alef means Me or I and oni with an aiyn means poor. Im with and alef means with if and with and ayin means with.