Very interesting. I like the sound of Ashkenazic pronunciation, but I'm very much in the minority at my synagogue as far as that goes. I would rather hear "Yisgadal v'yiskadash" than "Yitgadal v'yitkadash". Roots, you know, sounds of the soul.
Pronunciation of soft tav as saf is older than Ashkenaz, though; it's reflected in the Hebrew spellings of Greek and Latin words ending in -s in Galilean writings of the Rabbinic Period.
When my father was sitting shivah for his father, a professor at JTS who is in the neighborhood came regularly for davening. After I leined on a Monday or Thursday, he came up to me and said that he had never heard an Orthodox leining that was pronounced so properly. I was surprised, because at the time I davened in Chaim Berlin fairly regularly and their leining is also grammatically proper. I jokingly told the professor that he needs to hang out with a higher class of Orthodox Jews. Probably not the most respectful of answers.
> Pronunciation of soft tav as saf is older than Ashkenaz, though; it's reflected in the Hebrew spellings of Greek and Latin words ending in -s in Galilean writings of the Rabbinic Period.
I didn't write anything about that in this post because its sketchier. I wasn't aware of the beginnings of the s, although of course its reflected as th in the Septuagint and other writings.
This post is very interesting.
I always wondered what the origin of transliterating the soft tav as "th" was... I have a Sephardic friend who does this all the time in writing (Shabbath, Sukkoth, etc.) There must be some confluence of the ancient pronunciation of the soft tav with however the "th" combination was pronounced as Latin evolved into the modern European languages.
You talked about the pronunciation of shuruq/qubutz as "i". My Galicianer uncle does this and also often moves the kamatz toward "u". (He once described the additional words in the kaddish according to nusach Sephard as something like "v'yatzmach pirkanei vikureiv meshichei".) Any comments?
Jordan, the Septuagint transliteration of words with a sav (the undotted tav), used a theta. That's the origin of words like "sabbath". Because Greek had the tau, its taken as reasonably good evidence that some kinds of tavs (namely, the ones that would later not be dotted in contrast to the ones that would be dotted) were pronounced as "Th" of some sort, assuming we know how theta was pronounced.
As a result, the Eastern Ashkenazim made fun of their Western brethren, calling them בני הית (Benei Hes). The Westerners countered by referring to the Easterners as בני כית (Benei Khes) as if to say, "Hey buddies, a ח isn't a ה, granted, but it ain't a כ either." This was, of course, a sly reference to the Children of Heth, in Gen. 23. Medieval humor; gotta love it.
A tangential humorous interlude [from the 20th century]:
The story goes that R' Moshe Bick was unhappy with the proliferation of shalom bayis problems among couples who had not got to know each other well enough before they married. Therefore, R' Bick instituted that a boy and girl go out on no less than eight dates before they get engaged.
The Satmar Rav was very unhappy with this and sent the following message to R' Bick:
Katzti bichayai mipnei Bnos Ches
[R' Bick's reply: He can talk. He is a mesader kiddushin; I am a mesadder gittin!]
Facinating! Thank you!
Thanks for reading it!
"I like the sound of Ashkenazic pronunciation"
So do I. It rankles me no end when people say or Shabbat instead of Shabbos. Who are they trying to impress with their Anglicized pronunciations?
The "Yankel" thing comes from Western Ashkenazic communities borrowing from Western Sephardic communities, who always pronounce "ngayin" - This is especially noticeable in the Netherlands, where the two communities often intermingled.
Also note that in Litvish communities, where the pronunciation has become the dominant "Ashkenazic" pronunciation, Cholam has begun to merge with Tsere as "ey". Qamatz had become a full "o" (not "aw").
"Who are they trying to impress with their Anglicized pronunciations?"
So just which one is the more anglicized? The dialect that Moroccan, Turkish, and Syrian Jews have spoken for generations, or the Yeshivish shprach of fully American MO bochrim? It's a matter of perspective, really.
"Hebrew was voiced in Ashkenaz much like that of the Sephardim until the 14th century. For example, they did not distinguish between kamatz and patah or tzere and segol."
A common mistake -probably because of the mistaken belief that Israeli Hebrew=Sephardic Hebrew- to think that Sepharadhim traditionally don't distinguish between qames/pattah sere/seghol. In fact, most do.
re: Yankev. I've seen evidence arguing that the similarity between Sephardic/Italian Yangaqob and Yankev is coincidental. If you want I can look it up.
re: daled. It might be connected to the Italian pronunciation of thaw as "daw". (shabbad, taled...)
Interesting about Ashkenazi Hebrew is the change in pronunciation of saddi. In old manuscript German names with Z (ts) were written in Hebrew with tet-saddi, not just saddi.
You write: "For example, they did not distinguish between kamatz and patah or tzere and segol". That would mean: First they made a difference (if not, they wouldn't have introduced a different punctuation), then they gave up the difference, and finally they reintroduced it - sorry, but that is completely impossible. In (today's) Ashkanazic Hebrew, passakh alef /a/ is based on older short /a/, but kometz alef /o/ (or /u/) is based on older long /a:/. When it is spoken "dam" in Yiddish and not /dom/, is this therefore because there has taken place an early shortening in closed syllables, i.e. from /da:m/ to /dam/, and not because there was not any difference in pronounciation between passakh and kometz alef.
>You write: "For example, they did not distinguish between kamatz and patah or tzere and segol". That would mean: First they made a difference (if not, they wouldn't have introduced a different punctuation), then they gave up the difference, and finally they reintroduced it - sorry, but that is completely impossible.
No, it wouldn't mean first they made a difference and then they didn't and then they did (although that would, in fact, be possible rather than impossible). The Ashkenazim didn't create the Tiberian nekkudot; the ba'alei ha-mesorah of Tiberius did.
In effect, it would mean that originally the Ashkenazim read Hebrew in a way that was similar to what we think of as the Sephardic pronunciation. Then, they changed aspects of that pronunciation to conform with the Tiberian nikkud. This is not only not implausible, there is no evidence for any other scenario. The evidence that Ashkenazim originally pronounced it the other way is too great.
I see this whole facination with the way Hebrew was pronounced in non-semitic countries to be somewhat of a waste of time compared to the more important task of trying to figure out which of the semitic pronounciations is most correct (there's no question the European pronounciations were way off).
My own research has evidenced that the Iraqi pronounciation is a lot more correct than that of the Yemenites (I accept that even though I'm an Israeli-Moroccan)..
>I see this whole facination with the way Hebrew was pronounced in non-semitic countries to be somewhat of a waste of time compared to the more important task of trying to figure out which of the semitic pronounciations is most correct (there's no question the European pronounciations were way off).
The reason why I disagree with you is because I don't think there is any valid notion of what is most correct. Correct in what sense? Correct in the sense of how ancient Israelites pronounced it? What about their own dialectical variations? Correct in the sense that it conforms to the Tiberian pointing? If that be the case, than the Yemenites are surely closer than the Iraqis for the simple reason that they pronounce dagesh/ rafe for more letters. What about how Hebrew was pronounced in the time of the Mishnah? In Eretz Yisrael? Bavel? Elsewhere? And so forth.
Rather, I think none of the many ways in which Hebrew has been pronounced is correct or incorrect, all have rationales and reasons for their development, and all are interesting to me.
could it possibly be that yankev isn't really connected to 'ain?
perhaps yankev is simply instead of yaykev. (as in mayseh)
Yes. In fact, the more I think about it the more I doubt that it actually is connected with a pronounced 'ayin.
However, you have to consider, if yankev is the same phenomenon as mayseh and mayriv, why then it it yankev and not yaykiv? Furthermore, although I don't seriously believe this to be the case, perhaps mayseh and the like is itself an echo of the pronounced ayin?
Commenting by HaloScan
