# Mishnaic Hebrew - one or two ח sounds?



## origumi

In a Yerushalmi page referenced by Albert Shlef in another thread, the following is written:


> חמר למירכב או חמר למישתי או עמר למלבש או אמר לאיתכסאה


To demonstrate how the Galileans mixed ח, ע, א. But there's an interesting distinction between חמר (_wine_ to drink) and חמר (_donkey_ to ride). Arabic shows that these are two different ח sounds:   خمر (wine, spelled with /x/) and حمار (donkey, spelled with /ħ/). The usual notion is that the two kinds of ח were merged much earlier, and therefore I am curious - maybe not all Hebrew pronunciations of the time lost this distinction.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pagefeed/hebrewbooks_org_42526_38.pdf


----------



## berndf

Here is a reference to an article which apparently discusses the of the H/kh merger which apparently hadn't been completed before the time of the LXX. I cannot get access to the text. Maybe you can:
_Joshua Blau, "On Polyphony in Biblical Hebrew", Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Volume 6 No. 2 (1982, Jerusalem)._


----------



## origumi

Thanks. I cannot find the article online . According to commentary he suggests that the two kinds of ח survived in early LXX books (3rd century BC) and merged before the translation of Ezra and Nehemia (1 century BC?). However, the quotation above about חמר from Babli, Erubin 53:2 (not Yerushalmi as I wrote there) contains wording that should have been understood (including the subtle sound different of ח and ח) by Gemaraic time readers, 3rd century AD or later. So there's a 3 centuries or more gap.

Yet, as Blau's findings in this article are based mainly on LXX Hebrew sounds transcription, it's not unlikely that LXX represents one Hebrew phonological tradition while other traditions that preserves the two kinds of ח survived much later.


----------



## berndf

origumi said:


> Thanks. I cannot find the article online .


Yes, you need either a JSTOR account or you have to do it the old way: go (I mean physically "go") to the library.



origumi said:


> So there's a 3 centuries or more gap.


Sure, but a gap that is many, many centuries smaller than we had previously thought. This makes a survival in at least _some _dialects quite likely.


----------



## berndf

I looked up a few more LXX transcriptions. What I found interesting was Genesis 22,24


ופילגשו ושמה ראומה ותלד גם־הוא את־*טבח* ואת־*גחם* ואת־*תחש* ואת־ *מעכה*׃
καὶ ἡ παλλακὴ αὐτοῦ ᾗ ὄνομα ρεημα ἔτεκεν καὶ αὐτὴ τὸν *ταβεκ *καὶ τὸν *γααμ *καὶ τὸν *τοχος *καὶ τὸν *μωχα*


where we find:
טב*ח* - ταβε*κ*
ג*ח*ם - γα-*Ø*-αμ
ת*ח*ש - το*χ*ος
מע*כ*ה - μω*χ*α

Which indeed suggests that the _Het-khet_-merger was not yet complete while it confirms_ khet_ and _khaf_ to be homophone.


----------



## origumi

berndf said:


> טב*ח* - ταβε*κ*
> ג*ח*ם - γα-*Ø*-αμ
> ת*ח*ש - το*χ*ος
> מע*כ*ה - μω*χ*α


Your example demonstrates interesting things:

1. There are 3 kinds of ח, transliterated as κ, (nothing), χ. I guess that "clean" ח (the Yemenite) is written as (nothing), modern ח as χ, and yet I wonder about the κ. Also, it would be even better to find names for which there's an Arabic variant so it's known which ח was there.

2. כ is also transliterated to χ. In some recent threads I saw the idea that pronouncing ב-ג-ד-כ-פ-ת as bh-gh-dh-kh-ph-th is under Aramaic influence. This example may prove that it existed at least in the 3rd century BC, so likely to be genuine Hebrew (although Aramaic arrived already to the neighborhood).


----------



## berndf

origumi said:


> 2. כ is also transliterated to χ. In some recent threads I saw the idea that pronouncing ב-ג-ד-כ-פ-ת as bh-gh-dh-kh-ph-th is under Aramaic influence. This example may prove that it existed at least in the 3rd century BC, so likely to be genuine Hebrew (although Aramaic arrived already to the neighborhood).


Not necessarily. Aramaic had already been firmly established as the lingua franca of the region when the LXX was written (it was the administrative language of the Babylonian empire and after the Persian conquest stayed in that role in the Western part of the empire). After all, it would be difficult to explain how Aramaic became so dominant, if it hadn't already been so before Alexander.


----------



## Abu Rashid

origumi said:


> 2. כ is also transliterated to χ. In some recent threads I saw the idea that pronouncing ב-ג-ד-כ-פ-ת as bh-gh-dh-kh-ph-th is under Aramaic influence. This example may prove that it existed at least in the 3rd century BC, so likely to be genuine Hebrew (although Aramaic arrived already to the neighborhood).



Heavy Aramaic influence over Hebrew began during the captivity, so it's not surprising this phenomena appeared in Hebrew prior to the the 3rd. century B.C.E.



origumi said:


> Also, it would be even better to find names for which there's an Arabic variant so it's known which ח was there.




One that springs to mind is the name רחל (Rachel), which is transliterated as Ῥαχήλ in Greek, and which the root exists in Arabic and has خ.


----------



## origumi

Abu Rashid said:


> Heavy Aramaic influence over Hebrew began during the captivity, so it's not surprising this phenomena appeared in Hebrew prior to the the 3rd. century B.C.E.


If it appeared (from Aramaic).


----------



## Abu Rashid

origumi said:


> If it appeared (from Aramaic).


I think it quite obviously appeared, as it is not a natural part of Semitic phonology.


----------



## berndf

Abu Rashid said:


> I think it quite obviously appeared, as it is not a natural part of Semitic phonology.


He didn't question that the shift happened _some_ time but that it happened _then_ and as a result of Aramaic influence. I personally think it did but the question is valid.


----------



## Abu Rashid

berndf said:


> He didn't question that the shift happened _some_ time but that it happened _then_ and as a result of Aramaic influence. I personally think it did but the question is valid.



He said "if it appeared (from Aramaic)". The way I understood this was that he was questioning whether it did even appear at all (as opposed to having always been there). If he meant something else, then he is free to disregard, no harm done.

It's also quite quite likely to have come from Aramaic influence, as several of the pairs seem to mimic Aramaic mergers of phonemes, not Hebrew ones. In fact I think there's a few features in what we call mainstream Hebrew, that originate in Aramaic. The s2 + s3 merger for instance, doesn't seem to be a feature of Canaanite languages, and interestingly an obscure dialect of Hebrew, Samaritan, which is supposed to have developed separately to mainstream Hebrew precisely during the period of the captivity, actually has the more Canaanite-like s1 + s2 merger, instead of the s2 + s3 merger.

This would tend to indicate that Samaritan Hebrew could possibly be a more direct descendant of the Ancient Hebrew language, and that mainstream Hebrew is actually a mildly creolised form of Hebrew & Aramaic.


----------



## origumi

Abu Rashid said:


> It's also quite quite likely to have come from Aramaic influence


Quick search shows some other opinions, I am sure that there are many more:

* Torczyner suggested a shift that started under Akkadian influence with later Aramaic influence
* Kaufman said that spirantization appeared only in imperial Aramaic (600-200 BC), which happens to be the time when Judeans arrived to Babylon, so not sure who influenced who
* Speiser wrote that Hurrian influenced both Aramaic and Hebrew in this regard

I don't know who (if any) of them is correct. For sure this is not a simple issue that can be resolved by few examples.

---

BTW - the bgd-kpt discussion is off-topic. Maybe a moderator can split the thread.


----------



## berndf

Abu Rashid said:


> It's also quite quite likely to have come from Aramaic influence, as several of the pairs seem to mimic Aramaic mergers of phonemes, not Hebrew ones. In fact I think there's a few features in what we call mainstream Hebrew, that originate in Aramaic. The s2 + s3 merger for instance, doesn't seem to be a feature of Canaanite languages...


The s2,s3 merger is spoken Hebrew and s1,s2 merger in the Phoenician derived script and the shibboleth story (pre-exile) rather suggests dialectal variation concerning s1,s2 & s3 separation or non-separation. I am afraid, we can't draw too many conclusions from that.


Abu Rashid said:


> an obscure dialect of Hebrew, Samaritan


What is obscure about Samaritan? Modern Samaritan is highly influenced by Levantine Arabic (e.g. loss of /p/ and /q/>/?/). We cannot learn too much from that either.


----------



## Abu Rashid

Right it's not 100% conclusive, but quite likely.


----------



## Abu Rashid

berndf said:


> The s2,s3 merger is spoken Hebrew and s1,s2 merger in the Phoenician derived script and the shibboleth story (pre-exile) rather suggests dialectal variation concerning s1,s2 & s3 separation or non-separation.


 
The typical situation in Canaanite languages was for s1 + s2 to merge. In Samaritan Hebrew this occurred, in the Hebrew that developed through the captivity, and which was then re-planted into Palestine by the Persians, an s2 + s3 merger occurred, exactly as had happened in Aramaic. This suggests Samaritan developed along the normal Canaanite path, whilst the Hebrew which developed in the captivity was heavily influenced by Aramaic and adopted some of its evolutions, such as s2 + s3 merger and begadkefat spirantisations.



berndf said:


> What is obscure about Samaritan?


 
It's spoken by a tiny group of people, and is little known.



berndf said:


> Modern Samaritan is highly influenced by Levantine Arabic (e.g. loss of /p/ and /q/>/?/). We cannot learn too much from that either.



Yes it has been heavily effected by Arabic but also by MIH, and is almost extinct now.


----------



## berndf

Abu Rashid said:


> The typical situation in Canaanite languages was for s1 + s2 to merge.


Again, I doubt we know what was a _typical situation_ nor that there was one at all, for that matter. The Canaanite dialect continuum seems to have been highly fragmented in this respect.. Concerning the Samaritans, we don't know how much the modern pronunciation has in common with the historical one. To my knowledge there is no coeval description of classical Samaritan phonology. Furthermore, according to their own ethnogenesis stories, they are descendents of the Ephraimites, exactly that tribe which had, according to the Sibboleth story, a deviant pronunciation of s1 among Israelite dialects.


----------



## Abu Rashid

berndf said:


> Again, I doubt we know what was a _typical situation_ nor that there was one at all, for that matter. The Canaanite dialect continuum seems to have been highly fragmented in this respect..


 
It does? As far as I was aware the situation of the sibilants in Canaanite languages was s1 + s2 (+ th) merging as 'sh' and s3 remaining distinct as 's'. Please do share if you know of other situations. 



berndf said:


> Concerning the Samaritans, we don't know how much the modern pronunciation has in common with the historical one.


 
So why'd you question me referring to the dialect as obscure if you now admit we don't have much knowledge about it?



berndf said:


> exactly that tribe which had, according to the Sibboleth story, a deviant pronunciation of s1 among Israelite dialects.



Good thing we don't base our knowledge of linguistics on tales from the Bible.


----------



## berndf

Abu Rashid said:


> As far as I was aware the situation of the sibilants in Canaanite languages was s1 + s2 (+ th) merging as 'sh' and s3 remaining distinct as 's'.


We know only that in the Phoenician alphabet. s1, s1 and th were merged. We don't know how they were pronounced nor does this imply the merger was complete in the entire dialect continuum. There are other distinction which continued to existed in pronunciation though they were merged in spelling (`ayin-ghayin and the Het-khet we're discussing here).


Abu Rashid said:


> So why'd you question me referring to the dialect as obscure if you now admit we don't have much knowledge about it?


The we don't know how certain phonemes were pronounced 2550 years ago doesn't make an entire ethnicity "obscure".


Abu Rashid said:


> Good thing we don't base our knowledge of linguistics on tales from the Bible.


It is a contemporary account of phonetic differences which we take as seriously as other primary sources.


----------



## Abu Rashid

berndf said:


> We know only that in the Phoenician alphabet. s1, s1 and th were merged. We don't know how they were pronounced nor does this imply the merger was complete in the entire dialect continuum. There are other distinction which continued to existed in pronunciation though they were merged in spelling (`ayin-ghayin and the Het-khet we're discussing here).



That's for languages like Hebrew & Aramaic which borrowed the alphabet, I don't think it's suggested that was the case for those who contrived the alphabet to represent their phonemic repertoire.

Besides we know from later Phoenician (Punic) that it does seem to have merged s1 + s2 anyway.


----------



## berndf

Abu Rashid said:


> That's for languages like Hebrew & Aramaic which borrowed the alphabet, I don't think it's suggested that was the case for those who contrived the alphabet to represent their phonemic repertoire.


I am confused now. So you agree with me that the Alphabet was not designed for Hebrew and that we can't deduce from the alphabet which is just borrowed that and how other Canaanite languages merged phonemes. Why then do you say "_The typical situation in Canaanite languages was for s1 + s2 to merge_".


----------



## Abu Rashid

berndf said:


> I am confused now. So you agree with me that the Alphabet was not designed for Hebrew and that we can't deduce from the alphabet which is just borrowed that and how other Canaanite languages merged phonemes. Why then do you say "_The typical situation in Canaanite languages was for s1 + s2 to merge_".



It seems to be the case that in pretty much all Semitic languages in the north, s1 + s2 merged, except for Aramaic, and Hebrew that developed under heavy Aramaic influence.


----------



## berndf

Abu Rashid said:


> It seems to be the case that in pretty much all Semitic languages in the north, s1 + s2 merged, except for Aramaic...


Maybe, maybe not. All Canaanites used the same writing system. So you can't say which dialects had merged them and which hadn't.


----------



## Abu Rashid

berndf said:


> Maybe, maybe not. All Canaanites used the same writing system. So you can't say which dialects had merged them and which hadn't.



Well it seems to be most languages from that region did merge s1 + s2, even Ugaritic which is almost considered to be a 'cousin' of proto-Canaanite, and Akkadian did too.


----------



## berndf

Abu Rashid said:


> Well it seems to be most languages from that region did merge s1 + s2, even Ugaritic which is almost considered to be a 'cousin' of proto-Canaanite, and Akkadian did too.


It is certainly not that simple. We cannot conclude from North Canaanite/Ugraitc s1, s2 mergers that they existed also in Southern Canaanite languages. In late Biblical Hebrew when the Samekh, Sin merger set in (under Aramaic influence or not) we find examples of Samekh/Sin confusion. If there had been a completed Shin/Sin merger before, we should find at least some Samekh/Shin confusions too which we don't. Even though many Hebrew roots have obvious Aramaic cognates, it is difficult to conceive how an already completely merged Shin/Sin phoneme should have split again etymologically correct. The most plausible assumption is that in the early Biblical period at least some dialects distinguished all three phonemes, possibly also θ.


----------



## Abu Rashid

berndf said:


> It is certainly not that simple. We cannot conclude from North Canaanite/Ugraitc s1, s2 mergers that they existed also in Southern Canaanite languages. In late Biblical Hebrew when the Samekh, Sin merger set in (under Aramaic influence or not) we find examples of Samekh/Sin confusion. If there had been a completed Shin/Sin merger before, we should find at least some Samekh/Shin confusions too which we don't. Even though many Hebrew roots have obvious Aramaic cognates, it is difficult to conceive how an already completely merged Shin/Sin phoneme should have split again etymologically correct. The most plausible assumption is that in the early Biblical period at least some dialects distinguished all three phonemes, possibly also θ.



I think you meant sin/shin confusions there, not samek/shin confusions.

And no more than we'd expect to find sin/samek confusions in Samaritan were the situation reversed (ie. the generally accepted view).


----------



## tFighterPilot

Shin Sin only merged in very few dialects which disappeared later (except in Samaritan Hebrew). A rather later example of Sin/Samekh confusion was made by Shimon Bar Kokhva who called himself נסי instead of נשיא.


----------



## Abu Rashid

tFighterPilot said:


> Shin Sin only merged in very few dialects which disappeared later (except in Samaritan Hebrew). A rather later example of Sin/Samekh confusion was made by Shimon Bar Kokhva who called himself נסי instead of נשיא.



Yes it is not surprising some sin/samek confusions do exist in mainstream Hebrew, and in fact if it weren't for the solidifcation of their orthography prior to this time, then I'm sure they would've shifted to spelling all sin with samek, as Aramaic did.


----------



## Ben Jamin

I know very little about Semitic languages, but I was surprise to see that you use the letter 'n' to denote laryngeal sounds.


----------



## tFighterPilot

Ben Jamin said:


> I know very little about Semitic languages, but I was surprise to see that you use the letter 'n' to denote laryngeal sounds.


it's not n it's ח


----------



## Abu Rashid

Ben Jamin said:


> I know very little about Semitic languages, but I was surprise to see that you use the letter 'n' to denote laryngeal sounds.



I was wondering if someone not familiar with Hebrew alphabet was going to confuse this with the Latin letter n.

The letter is:
ח

Not:
n

If you look closely there's a difference.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Thanks! With the little letters on my screen I couldn't see the difference.


----------

