# Hebrew-Arabic Sound Shifts



## 0m1

Can anyone kindly give me, or guide me towards, a list of common sound shifts between Hebrew and Arabic? That is, sound shifts from the earlier shared language into the two languages... as in Hebrew P usually represents Arabic F, Hebrew /x/ sometimes is Arabic /ħ/, etc.

Thanks muchly in advance.


----------



## ks20495

This is a pretty complicated topic...
To begin with, you have to remember that the Arabic alphabet has 28 letters; whereas the Hebrew has only 22. So, a few of the Arabic letters "are collapsed" into other letters in Hebrew:

ص, ض, ظ are all correspond to צ, which is pronounced [ts]
ع, غ both correspond to ע, which used to be pronounced [ʕ] (like Arabic ع), but is now pronounced as a glottal stop [?] (like ء)
ح, خ both correspond to ח, which is generally pronounced as [x] 
ذ, ز both correspond to ז, which is pronounced [z]
ث, ش both correspond to שׁ, which is pronounced  [ʃ]

Next, there are a few letters in Hebrew that have two forms of pronunciation depending on their position in the word:
ב (which corresponds to ب) can either be * or [v]
פ (which corresponds to ف) can either be [p] or [f]
כ (which corresponds to ك) can either be [k] or [x] (so there are two [x] letters)

Next, in Hebrew, there are no more emphatic consonants:
So, ט (which corresponds to ط) is pronounced [t] like ת (which corresponds to ت)
ק (which corresponds to ق) is pronounced [k] like כ

Finally, there are some letters that are just pronounced differently:
ג (which corresponds to ج) is pronounced [g]
ו (which corresponds to و) is pronounced as [v] when it's a consonant

I think that's all!*


----------



## 0m1

Thanks very much, that was exactly what I was after, very helpful. One question though, is there any distinction at all between the emphatic/non-emphatic letters? Or are they just written down in words in which they were pronounced in the past but are now not differentiated between?


----------



## origumi

Nice post ks .


----------



## berndf

ks20495 said:


> ث, ش both correspond to שׁ, which is pronounced  [ʃ]


This is a bit more difficult. Arabic ث and س correspond to Hebrew שׁ (Hebrew ס also corresponds to س but bot to ث) while Arabic ش corresponds to Hebrew שׂ. That's why you have I*s*mael in Arabic and I*sh*mael in Hebrew. See this thread.


----------



## berndf

0m1 said:


> One question though, is there any distinction at all between the emphatic/non-emphatic letters? Or are they just written down in words in which they were pronounced in the past but are now not differentiated between?


There is no audible distinction any more. One thing should be noted: Since כ retains its original pronunciation /k/ only word-initially and where it is a historical geminate (corresponding to what in Arabic is marked by a شدة), the letters כ and ק are de facto often distinguishable. When you hear the sound /k/ at the end of a word, you know it must be a ק and not a כ because the latter would be pronounced /x/.


----------



## Abu Rashid

Here is an illustrative chart which shows how the sounds & letters of Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic merged from the original 29 proto-Semitic phonemes. They are not 100% always the same, but most of the time, this is how they have merged.



			
				berndf said:
			
		

> See this thread.



That thread brings back some memories


----------



## iyavor

KS: Though I agree with much of what you said, emphatics are still used in Sephardic pronunciations of Hebrew words, most notably in the distinction between the ח  and the כ. Since the Hebrew language was revived by an Ashkenazic (European) Jew and subsequently spoken for nearly half a decade by "proto-Israelis", most of whom were Ashkenazim, their traditional pronunciation, with its origins in Ashkenazic liturgy and Torah-reading traditions, determined the "look and feel" of Modern Hebrew...


----------



## berndf

iyavor said:


> KS: Though I agree with much of what you said, emphatics are still used in Sephardic pronunciations of Hebrew words, most notably in the distinction between the ח  and the כ. Since the Hebrew language was revived by an Ashkenazic (European) Jew and subsequently spoken for nearly half a decade by "proto-Israelis", most of whom were Ashkenazim, their traditional pronunciation, with its origins in Ashkenazic liturgy and Torah-reading traditions, determined the "look and feel" of Modern Hebrew...


The phonological base of modern Hebrew is clearly Sephardi (Spanish) and not Ashkenazi (German): A vowel system of five qualities and not seven (i.e. loss of /o/-/ɔ/ and /e/-/ɛ/ distinction) without phonemic vowel length; kamatz gadol is merged with patah, kamatz katan with holam whereas in Ashkenazi both kamtzes are /ɔ/; taw without dagesh is /t/ and not /s/ as in Ashkenazi; holam is not pronounced sliding as it is in Ashkenazi, e.g. _Moses_ is _Moshe_ and not_ Moyshe_.

Compared to original modern Hebrew, Israeli Hebrew has adopted some characteristics of Ashkenazi pronunciation, though. Notably the widespread omission of Aleph and Ayin and the sliding pronunciation of  Tzere, i.e. a _house _is a _beyt_ and not _bet_.


----------



## origumi

berndf said:


> and the sliding pronunciation of Tzere, i.e. a _house _is a _beyt_ and not _bet_.


Not sure that there's such sliding pronounciation of tzere except of few exceptions. Do we say _be*y*t-sefer_ or _bet-sefer _(school, _beyt_ in construct state)? Both sound ok. I suspect that the _y_ of _beyt_ is not so much a sliding vowel, but more a consonant _y_ originated by reading the י (yod) letter in בית, and maybe by influence of similarity to words like _zayit _(olive) or _`ayit_ (eagle) or _mayim_ (water) where the י (yod) is regarded as a consonant in most conjugations. _Te*y*sha_ / _tesha _(nine) is another example where both variants sound good. But in general Israelis cannot tell when there's a tzere and where a segol, both sound the same.


----------



## ks20495

> KS: Though I agree with much of what you said, emphatics are still used in Sephardic pronunciations of Hebrew words, most notably in the distinction between the ח and the כ.



Neither ח nor כ are emphatic consonants. The collapse of the difference between ח and כ in the speech of most Israelis is analogous to the collapse between ו עיצורית and ב thousands of years ago. 

The emphatic consonants (עיצורים נחציים) are ط, ظ, ص, ض, ق. They are called emphatic, because they are pharyngealized (מלועלעים). This means that, after you make the sound with your mouth, you add a secondary 'little' sound that sounds something like a small Arabic ayin.


----------



## berndf

ks20495 said:


> Neither ח nor כ are emphatic consonants. The collapse of the difference between ח and כ in the speech of most Israelis is analogous to the collapse between ו עיצורית and ב thousands of years ago.


This makes it sound a bit older than it is. The _beth/veth_-split was post-exile, probably under Aramaic influence and the _waw/veth_-merger was probably post-Mishnaic.



ks20495 said:


> The emphatic consonants (עיצורים נחציים) are ط, ظ, ص, ض, ق. They are called emphatic, because they are pharyngealized (מלועלעים). This means that, after you make the sound with your mouth, you add a secondary 'little' sound that sounds something like a small Arabic ayin.


Already in Biblical Hebrew, those where reduced to only the emphatics:
ط = ט
ص, ض, ظ = צ
ق = ק
The loss of pharyngeal pronunciation happened relatively late, later than Mishnaic Hebrew.


----------



## iyavor

How do you account for the more prominent use of the glottal "resh" at the expense of the trilled "resh" generally used my Sephardi Hebrew speakers?


----------



## Abu Rashid

This is from the wikipedia article about Modern Israeli Hebrew:



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> Ben-Yehuda decided that the standard accent would be the Sephardi one, but eventually, the standard accent became something in between the Ashkenazi and Sephardi one.



And:



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> Phonologically, standard Hebrew accent may most accurately be described as an amalgam of pronunciations preserving Sephardic vowel sounds and some Ashkenazic consonant sounds with Yiddish-style influence, its recurring feature being simplification of differences among a wide array of pronunciations.



It seems that in the case of consonants, which is what this thread seems more about, then MIH is definitely much more Ashkenazi than it is Sefardi.


----------



## berndf

Abu Rashid said:


> It seems that in the case of consonants, which is what this thread seems more about, then MIH is definitely much more Ashkenazi than it is Sefardi.


The main difference is in the vowel system (5 vs. 7+Schwa) and accent (ultima vs. initial stress) anyway. If you hear the Ashkenazii and standard Israeli Hebrew spoken side by side, the difference is striking.

 The biggest Ashkenazi influence on the consonant system is the uvular pronunciation or resh and muting of Aleph/Ayin. The uvular resh is apparently a very early feature of modern Hebrew while softening/omission of Alpeh/Ayin is a more recent feature in standard modern Hebrew which developed only after the the creation of the State of Israel. A friend of mine born in the 1920s in Jerusalem and raised in Standard Modern Hebrew of the time pronounces resh invariably uvular while he perceives a missing stop as grossly wrong: e.g. he hears אני אלך ('ani 'elekh - I I-will-go) the way many young Israelis say it as if they said אני ילך ('ani yilehk - I he-will-go).

The most important feature of the Ashkenazi consonant system which did not catch on in modern Israeli Hebrew is the merger of thaw and samekh /s/.


----------



## clevermizo

iyavor said:


> How do you account for the more prominent use of the glottal "resh" at the expense of the trilled "resh" generally used my Sephardi Hebrew speakers?



There is a discussion of this here. And I think you mean uvular not glottal. I don't think a glottal trill is even possible.


----------

