# "No"



## Abu Rashid

The word for "no" in Hebrew is לא correct?

Shouldn't this be pronounced the same as the Arabic لا (la) instead of as "lo"?? Or is there some point I'm missing?


----------



## Flaminius

The pronunciation of לא in Modern Hebrew is _lo_.  The glottal stop is not pronounced.  It may have been _loʾ_ in Tiberian Hebrew or older.

N.B.
It is of note that Hebrew א is either a vowel (most typically /a/) or a consonant (glottal stop; Arabic uses hamza for this).


----------



## elroy

Actually, strictly speaking א is silent.  לא is pronounced the way it is because of the vowel under the ל.  The א does not affect the pronunciation and is probably there for historical reasons.  The word ראש is similar: it is pronounced _rosh_ despite the fact that there is an א.


----------



## amikama

I'm not a linguist, but if I'm not mistaken the so-called the Canaanite shift explains why in Hebrew it's pronounced "lo" whereas in Arabic it's "la".


----------



## clevermizo

amikama said:


> I'm not a linguist, but if I'm not mistaken the so-called the Canaanite shift explains why in Hebrew it's pronounced "lo" whereas in Arabic it's "la".




Yep. I think this shift also explains why the participle in Hebrew (also the present tense)  is po'el where Arabic has faa'il.


----------



## Abu Rashid

> Actually, strictly speaking א is silent.  לא is pronounced the way it is because of the vowel under the ל.



Shukran elroy. That's what I was thinking, it must be due to the 'harakah' of the lamed, but just couldn't work out how the alef would be completely ignored.



> The word ראש is similar: it is pronounced _rosh_ despite the fact that there is an א.



So there are a small number of examples of this same phenomena, but it's not across the board??

amikama,



> I'm not a linguist, but if I'm not mistaken the so-called the Canaanite shift explains why in Hebrew it's pronounced "lo" whereas in Arabic it's "la".



That's what I initially thought it must be due to before I saw how it is spelt. I assumed that like with shalom/salam the spelling would reflect the shift.


----------



## clevermizo

Abu Rashid said:


> Shukran elroy. That's what I was thinking, it must be due to the 'harakah' of the lamed, but just couldn't work out how the alef would be completely ignored.



It's called _niqqud_. 




> That's what I initially thought it must be due to before I saw how it is spelt. I assumed that like with shalom/salam the spelling would reflect the shift.



In the case of _shalom_ a _vav_ is being used to represent the sound _o_. You're correct in that the spelling reflects the shift _aa > oo_.

However, what you should understand is that in Tiberian Hebrew, at least, the vowel _o_ was always long, so the dot representing it needed no extra letter. In other words, writing the _vav_ was not necessary. In some words it's there, but in other words its not. Writing it out with a vav I believe is called _ktiv male_ ("full spelling"). Even in the Bible I think you find _shalom_ very often without a vav.

Furthermore, classically the letter _aleph_ was not used to represent a long vowel like its counterpart is in Arabic. In this case I would presume that the aleph represented a glottal stop (like the pronunciation لأ in Arabic). In other words, perhaps the original pronunciation was [lo?] (my '?' is crude ASCII IPA). However, in modern Hebrew, aleph rarely (if ever) represents a glottal stop, so it is simply a silent letter.


----------



## Abu Rashid

> It's called _niqqud_.



I think niqqud (same as niqaaT in Arabic I assume) refers specifically to the dots, no? What I meant by harakah is the movement of the consonants, so the vowel sounds themselves. Yes the niqqud represent them in Hebrew, but refer to the actual representation of them rather than to the movement itself. It's a technicality I guess, and I was merely using the Arabic term since elroy is obviously familiar with it.



> what you should understand is that in Tiberian Hebrew, at least, the vowel _o_ was always long, so the dot representing it needed no extra letter.



But I'd assume they still wrote the alef in לא correct?



> Even in the Bible I think you find _shalom_ very often without a vav.



I guess this is similar to the omission of the alef in many words in the Qur'an.



> However, in modern Hebrew, aleph rarely (if ever) represents a glottal stop, so it is simply a silent letter.



So does this mean the glottal stop is no longer used in Hebrew? Much like it's disappeared out of some dialects of Arabic?


----------



## clevermizo

Abu Rashid said:


> But I'd assume they still wrote the alef in לא correct?



Yes, always. But it has nothing to do with the vowel [o] - this was my point. My guess is that it is in the word because it represented a glottal stop.



> I guess this is similar to the omission of the alef in many words in the Qur'an.


That's a good comparison, actually.



> So does this mean the glottal stop is no longer used in Hebrew? Much like it's disappeared out of some dialects of Arabic?


Rarely, but it is sometimes used as a pronunciation of 'ayin. Anyway, for 'aleph, I think the glottal stop is rarely pronounced and that the 'aleph is just either a placeholder for a vowel, or completely silent.

I think even in traditional pronunciations of Hebrew that do pronounce a pharyngeal 'ayin, they still treat the 'aleph as completely silent rather than as a glottal stop. I'm not certain about this.


Just as an aside, most length contrast in traditional Hebrew vowels was represented within the symbols of the niqqudot themselves and rarely with other consonants (though the vav, yud and heh were used) representing vowels. Tiberian Hebrew has three lengths: long, short and extra-short, and this is represented in the symbols for the vowels. Long and short vowels also all had different vowel qualities, which probably contributed to disappearance of length contrast.


----------



## chaostrivia

There are several cases in Hebrew where "א" is not pronounced as English "a". 
לאמר
ראשון


----------



## berndf

Abu Rashid said:


> just couldn't work out how the alef would be completely ignored.


It is not. Aleph is not a vowel but a consonant sign and can carry any vowel, not only "a", e.g. in "'irgun"="organization" it carries an "i". In "lo" it carries no vowel and is mute. The vowel is carried by the lamed.

I think you misunderstand the Aleph as corresponding to Arabic Alif. Both letter signs share the same Phoenician root but their functions in the Hebrew and Arabic alphabets are different. The Hebrew Aleph corresponds in function to the Arabic Hamza. The Arabic Alif is derived from the Aramaic Aleph. In Aramaic, Aleph has a bit of a dual role as consonant and as an indicator of an "a", like Waw for "o/u" and Jod for "i". But in Hebrew there is no connection between Aleph and "a" though a mute aleph can be indicators of a long vowel but not necessarily an "a".

The original function of Aleph in the Phoenician alphabet was without a shadow of a doubt that of a consonant. The first alphabet based on Phoenician I am aware of which reused the sign as a vowel sign to represent an "a" was Greek.


----------



## Abu Rashid

> I think you misunderstand the Aleph as corresponding to Arabic Alif. Both letter signs share the same Phoenician root but their functions in the Hebrew and Arabic alphabets are different. The Hebrew Aleph corresponds in function to the Arabic Hamza. The Arabic Alif is derived from the Aramaic Aleph.




Rav todot berndf, I was not aware of that distinction.


----------

