# When did current pronunciation "errors" become "normal"



## hadronic

Hello,

Is there any testimony as to when the current "lazy" pronunciation of Modern Hebrew became standard ?
I'm not talking of the pronunciation of ח and ע, but more about the leveling out of some "unnatural" and intricate rules like :
- li-msiba  -->  le-mesiba
- u-medaber --> ve-medaber

And also, more recently, the following still floating errors:
- ha-nehag --> a-ne'ag
- makir, mevin --> mekir, mavin
- linboax, litpor --> linvoax, litfor

How did this historically happened, when was it first recorded, when did it start being "normal" ?


----------



## Drink

I think they all came into Modern Hebrew through Yiddish and Ashkenazi Hebrew (it may have also occurred in Sephardi Hebrew, but Sephardi Hebrew had very little influence on the revival of Modern Spoken Hebrew). Most study of non-Biblical texts did not include vowels and detailed knowledge of the small details of Hebrew grammar was not common. Thus, for example, לכבוד was pronounced [lə'kovəd] rather than [lix'vo(j)d] (although the latter did become common later on by correction) and לשון קודש was pronounced ['loʃən 'kojdəʃ] rather than [lə'ʃo(j)n 'kojdəʃ]. In fact, I even suspect that this may have occurred before Yiddish when the Ashkenazi Jews still spoke Romance languages or Greek, depending on how far you go back. Medial and final h-dropping was also a feature of Yiddish and Ashkenazi Hebrew. For example: מוהל was pronounced ['mojəl] rather than ['mojhəl].

On the other hand, I think the universal h-dropping is a new feature of Modern Hebrew that was extended from the earlier medial and final h-dropping, or perhaps influenced by Sephardi Hebrew or Ladino, which had no  sound.


----------



## hadronic

Thank you.

I know two Israeli teachers of Hebrew here, both women in their 60s, they pronounce clearly all h's. Their whole accent seems really forceful to me, and sounds nothing like today's people in their 20-30s. Yet, they were born in Israel, and consider themselves as tzabariyot.

So, are you suggesting that, say, on day of Israel's creation, everybody was already saying le-mesiba instead of li-msiba ?


----------



## Drink

hadronic said:


> Thank you.
> 
> I know two Israeli teachers of Hebrew here, both women in their 60s, they pronounce clearly all h's. Their whole accent seems really forceful to me, and sounds nothing like today's people in their 20-30s. Yet, they were born in Israel, and consider themselves as tzabariyot.
> 
> So, are you suggesting that, say, on day of Israel's creation, everybody was already saying le-mesiba instead of li-msiba ?



Not _everybody_. There was always, and still is, a push by language purists to use the "correct" pronunciation. All I am saying is that the "incorrect" pronunciation had already existed from the very beginning of the revival and greatly influenced the development of the spoken language.


----------



## tFighterPilot

hadronic said:


> Thank you.
> 
> I know two Israeli teachers of Hebrew here, both women in their 60s, they pronounce clearly all h's. Their whole accent seems really forceful to me, and sounds nothing like today's people in their 20-30s. Yet, they were born in Israel, and consider themselves as tzabariyot.
> 
> So, are you suggesting that, say, on day of Israel's creation, everybody was already saying le-mesiba instead of li-msiba ?


Both pronunciations would be considered normal. Actually, I'd say that more common than both would be "le-msiba". 

I personally usually pronounce ה, and don't fell it's forced at all. Of course "-את ה" turns into "ta", which is not modern at all, as visible in Bar Kokhba's writings.


----------



## theunderachiever

I'm not native and have a limited speaking ability, but for what it's worth, I find this sort of pronunciation more common among the younger generation and the "proper" pronunciation more common among the middle-aged to older generation.  This isn't a hard and fast rule, as I've observed both pronunciations in both demographics, but because of that generational discrepancy, if I had to hazard a guess, I'd guess this pronunciation emerged and gained popularity some time in the 80s.  That guess is also based on how I've heard Hebrew spoken in Israeli media going back to the 70s.  I'm factoring in a little bit of lag, as prestigious dialects and pronunciation tend to be disproportionately represented in media.

It might go back further, but some of these tendencies appear to have been around for a while.  I always just assumed the dropping of "ה" from everything was a result of Ladino influence.


----------



## vivnara

"Lazy" pronunciation occurs in all languages and is the key to language change. I once heard from a linguist that the universal law for language change is the law of least effort, so it is the "lazy" speakers who are actually the pioneers when it comes to the development of language.


----------



## Drink

vivnara said:


> I once heard from a linguist that the universal law for language change is the law of least effort



This is a common misconception. While the "law of least effort" is important (in all fields, not only linguistics), it is by no means the main source of language change, so I would hardly call it "_the_ universal law of language change".

Anyway, I think the issue hear is the misconception some people have that the "lazy" pronunciation is some kind of new abomination in Hebrew, when in reality it is some kind of old abomination in Hebrew. But the real bottom line is that if you want a "pure" language, then you have to go back all the way to first sounds the cavemen were making, which had not yet had time to be corrupted.


----------



## David S

hadronic said:


> Thank you.
> 
> I know two Israeli teachers of Hebrew here, both women in their 60s, they pronounce clearly all h's. Their whole accent seems really forceful to me, and sounds nothing like today's people in their 20-30s. Yet, they were born in Israel, and consider themselves as tzabariyot.
> 
> So, are you suggesting that, say, on day of Israel's creation, everybody was already saying le-mesiba instead of li-msiba ?



I have a Hebrew teacher in his thirties who is very careful to only teach us "correct" Hebrew. He pronounces his heh's, distinguishes ayin from aleph, chet from khaf, and says limsiba instead of le-mesiba. Ironically he isn't always sure of tsere vs. segol and patach vs. qamats.


----------



## theunderachiever

Drink said:


> This is a common misconception. While the "law of least effort" is important (in all fields, not only linguistics), it is by no means the main source of language change, so I would hardly call it "_the_ universal law of language change".



I'm not sure you have much of a basis for these assertions.  I think vivnara nailed it.

If you hold the view that language use is an innate mechanism within the mind, and that we access and manipulate a "universal grammar" (posited by Noam Chomsky) to generate an infinite amount of new clauses, one might further deduce that the changes in phonology that a language undergoes is strictly a matter of efficiency.

Why are we lazy if not to get something done by applying the least amount of effort we can?  This seems implied, to me.

If necessity is the mother invention, a lack of necessity would be the mother of improvement and I believe the most determinative factor in the simplification of a language's pronunciation.  We're not talking about structures, here.

You know, it only takes a single generation to go from a pidgin to a creole language.  Think about how remarkable that is for a moment.  One child can effectively turn a pidgin into a functional tongue, on his own, intuitively and efficiently.  Auxiliary verbs, misc. function words, and morophological aspects of grammar spontaneously arise out of the minds of children when exposed to the pidgin and are then governed by an extremely complex set of rules that they themselves do not fully understand.

Do you really think kids aren't doing the same thing phonologically?

Considering all of that, I think it's absurd to hold the view that there is any reason for the reduction in complexity of the pronunciation of a tongue greater than that of saved time and a way to be lazier for laziness's sake.

It obviously can work in reverse and language can become a more embellished creature, but that's a different topic.

Sorry for the length of the post (a sin I will commit over and over again) but I felt it was necessary to fully illustrate my point.  What's a claim worth if it's baseless?


----------



## Drink

theunderachiever said:


> Considering all of that, I think it's absurd to hold the view that there is any reason for the reduction in complexity of the pronunciation of a tongue greater than that of saved time and a way to be lazier for laziness's sake.



First of all, not all changes are reductions in complexity. For example, why did people start saying "in between A and B", when this means exactly the same thing as "between A and B"? What complexity does that reduce?

 Second of all, even reductions in complexity can have other factors driving them. For example, two similar sounds can often be difficult for the ears to distinguish, causing them to be misheard, and thus confused or even merged. This is why English has lost noun declension. It's not due to grammatical simplification, but because the Old English case endings had phonologically merged in Middle English and had later fallen off entirely when the silent e stopped being pronounced. There was no laziness involved, just faulty ears.

If you want me to find you credible sources, I will do so later.


----------



## theunderachiever

Drink said:


> First of all, not all changes are reductions in complexity. For example, why did people start saying "in between A and B", when this means exactly the same thing as "between A and B"? What complexity does that reduce?
> 
> Second of all, even reductions in complexity can have other factors driving them. For example, two similar sounds can often be difficult for the ears to distinguish, causing them to be misheard, and thus confused or even merged. This is why English has lost noun declension. It's not due to grammatical simplification, but because the Old English case endings had phonologically merged in Middle English and had later fallen off entirely when the silent e stopped being pronounced. There was no laziness involved, just faulty ears.
> 
> If you want me to find you credible sources, I will do so later.



It reduces the need for one of the prepositions.  I'm pretty sure that makes it empirically simpler for a mind to process.

I pointed out not all changes reduce complexity.

What's that?  English underwent a massive change to its morphology to better accommodate the speakers' collective ability to understand and be understood?  It must have really been hard for those speakers to speak that language at that point in its development for such a dramatic change to occur.  You're right, that didn't occur as a result of laziness.  It occurred as a result of a complex (phonological) system becoming too nuanced for the average speaker to reasonably make use of it in that state.  Or in other words, the speakers opted for using the least amount of effort.  Unless, of course, listening doesnt require effort.  (I can only imagine how you all must feel.)

I didn't mean to seriously imply speakers of a language spanning generations had poor work ethic.  It wasn't intended to be taken too literally.  My mistake there.

I was trying to suggest two ideas. (not absolutes.  language continually proves there is always an exception) 

I posit language change ​generally occurs:

As a result of social forces that abruptly call for adaptations or innovations to be made, as in the case of Jamaican Patois

And, I think more frequently, as a result of an ongoing, collaborative assessment which occurs unconsciously and (if only inadvertently) increases the efficiency of language by common lingual modifications being adopted into the vernacular and uncommon lingual modifications (older, less frequently used language and anomalies that never gain traction) being *forgotten.
*
We all know language is in a constant state of flux.  We know the people who use it determine its nature as they use it.  Why is it, then, unreasonable to assume that people are constantly adapting the language they use so they can use it more easily or efficiently?

There's no doubt many forces drive a language.  I think that compared to the human mind's need to find patterns, create meaningful representations, and to do a thing *better, faster, and easier than before. *(I feel compelled to say that "before" in this instance is relative to the speaker while speaking, as once again I'm positing this is an ongoing endeavor) Other drivers can't quite compare to something so intrinsic, I would humbly suggest.  We create and try to perfect.

Complexity is a damn relative term, though.  But really all that's relevant is what seems efficient to the speakers while these changes are in the process of catching on or falling into obscurity.

I think it's always about finding better ways to get things done.  I think it has been throughout human history.  Regarding the original post, pronunciation errors have always been normal because they define the next generation of the tongue in which they err, either through inclusion or exclusion.


----------



## Drink

theunderachiever said:


> It reduces the need for one of the prepositions.  I'm pretty sure that makes it empirically simpler for a mind to process.



Umm... Are you looking at it backwards? It adds an extra preposition, it does not "reduce the need" for any of them.



theunderachiever said:


> We all know language is in a constant state of flux.  We know the people who use it determine its nature as they use it.  Why is it, then, unreasonable to assume that people are constantly adapting the language they use so they can use it more easily or efficiently?



Maybe you misunderstood my original point. I did not say that this "law of least effort" does not exist. It may even be the most important one, but it is not the only important force driving language change. And it is certainly not "universal", since there are language changes, however few, that go directly against it.


----------



## theunderachiever

Yes, I looked at that backwards.

Yeah, I think I must have misinterpreted your point.  I thought the idea being conveyed was that ithe law of least  effort was a general aspect of language with a likely presence, rather than absolute.  I don't think absolutes _can_ exist in language considering how variable a vehicle it is.


----------



## hadronic

I agree mostly with the law of less effort, but I disagree with the fact it leads to simplified / reduced / "easier" system (talking about phonetics).
French from Latin is one example.


----------



## theunderachiever

That's an excellent point.  I assume though that there were good reasons it developed that way, even if those reasons aren't evident.


----------



## berndf

Drink said:


> I think they all came into Modern Hebrew through Yiddish and Ashkenazi Hebrew (it may have also occurred in Sephardi Hebrew, but Sephardi Hebrew had very little influence on the revival of Modern Spoken Hebrew). Most study of non-Biblical texts did not include vowels and detailed knowledge of the small details of Hebrew grammar was not common. Thus, for example, לכבוד was pronounced [lə'kovəd] rather than [lix'vo(j)d] (although the latter did become common later on by correction) and לשון קודש was pronounced ['loʃən 'kojdəʃ] rather than [lə'ʃo(j)n 'kojdəʃ]. In fact, I even suspect that this may have occurred before Yiddish when the Ashkenazi Jews still spoke Romance languages or Greek, depending on how far you go back. Medial and final h-dropping was also a feature of Yiddish and Ashkenazi Hebrew. For example: מוהל was pronounced ['mojəl] rather than ['mojhəl].


What you tell there baffles me. The Modern Hebrew revival was based explicitly on Sphardi with only limited Ashkenasi influence. The Ashkenasi influence increased only after Modern Hebrew became a living (rather than a constructed) language, mainly because the majority of early Zionist settlers were Ashkenasi.

['lɔʃ(ə)n] *is *the Ashkenasi/Yiddish pronunciation of לשון and not the pronunciation Ashkenasi Hebrew moved away from as you described it. Or did I misunderstand you?


----------



## Drink

berndf said:


> What you tell there baffles me. The Modern Hebrew revival was based explicitly on Sphardi with only limited Ashkenasi influence. The Ashkenasi influence increased only after Modern Hebrew became a living (rather than a constructed) language, mainly because the majority of early Zionist settlers were Ashkenasi.



The Modern Spoken Hebrew revival was Ashkenazi Jews trying to base their pronunciation on Sephardi Hebrew. It would have been impossible for them to completely remove their Ashkenazi influence.



berndf said:


> ['lɔʃ(ə)n] *is *the Ashkenasi/Yiddish pronunciation of לשון and not the pronunciation Ashkenasi Hebrew moved away from as you described it. Or did I misunderstand you?



I think you misunderstood me. All I said is that Ashkenazi Hebrew has ['loʃən 'kojdəʃ] instead of the expected [lə'ʃo(j)n 'kojdəʃ] (expected if one were to follow proper Hebrew grammar). The issue is that the word "לשון" in "לשון קודש" is in the construct state; ['loʃən] by itself is not the issue.


----------



## berndf

Drink said:


> The Modern Spoken Hebrew revival was Ashkenazi Jews trying to base their pronunciation on Sephardi Hebrew. It would have been impossible for them to completely remove their Ashkenazi influence.


Ok, that sounds different. We obviously meant the same thing.



Drink said:


> I think you misunderstood me. All I said is that Ashkenazi Hebrew has ['loʃən 'kojdəʃ] instead of the expected [lə'ʃo(j)n 'kojdəʃ] (expected if one were to follow proper Hebrew grammar). The issue is that the word "לשון" in "לשון קודש" is in the construct state; ['loʃən] by itself is not the issue.


I am relieved. The non-constructed state is also different - Modern Israeli Hebrew /laˈʃɔn/ - Ashkenasi /'lɔʃ(ə)n/ (the Schwa is normally elided and the /n/ is syllabic; typical German/Yiddish influence). Ashkenasi has the stress on the first syllable in both states, but I guess it doesn't really matter. The important thing is that I misunderstood you.

Just out of interest: Why did you say "expected [lə'ʃo(*j*)n 'kojdəʃ]"? The off-glide in the long o (and in the long e) is typically Yiddish. Why would you expect this in "proper Hebrew grammar".


----------



## hadronic

Proper Hebrew grammar, as pronounced by Ashkenazis.
Meaning, reduction of the first kamatz gadol to shva.


----------



## Drink

berndf said:


> I am relieved. The non-constructed state is also different - Modern Israeli Hebrew /laˈʃɔn/ - Ashkenasi /'lɔʃ(ə)n/ (the Schwa is normally elided and the /n/ is syllabic; typical German/Yiddish influence). Ashkenasi has the stress on the first syllable in both states, but I guess it doesn't really matter. The important thing is that I misunderstood you.



The pronunciation of [-ən] really doesn't matter. In reality, the situation is much more complicated and the exact pronunciation (i.e. how much of a schwa there is and how syllabic the [n] is, as well as other things) depends on the preceding consonant.



berndf said:


> Just out of interest: Why did you say "expected [lə'ʃo(*j*)n 'kojdəʃ]"? The off-glide in the long o (and in the long e) is typically Yiddish. Why would you expect this in "proper Hebrew grammar".



Like hadronic pointed out, I am not referring to Modern Hebrew, but to "Proper Hebrew grammar, as pronounced by Ashkenazis." The reason the first [j] is optional (while the second one is not) is that (with some exceptions) long vowels in closed syllables were shortened before the change [o:] > [oj]. This was frequently undone through hypercorrection.


----------



## berndf

Drink said:


> ...the situation is much more complicated and the exact pronunciation (i.e. how much of a schwa there is and how syllabic the [n] is, as well as other things) depends on the preceding consonant.


Of course. Did I say anything to the contrary?


Drink said:


> Like hadronic pointed out, I am not referring to Modern Hebrew, but to "Proper Hebrew grammar, as pronounced by Ashkenazis."


Ah.


----------



## Drink

berndf said:


> Of course. Did I say anything to the contrary?



I forgot to get to my point, which was that I write [-ən] just to simplify things. The important thing is to distinguish it from [-en].


----------



## berndf

Drink said:


> I forgot to get to my point, which was that I write [-ən] just to simplify things. The important thing is to distinguish it from [-en].


Fine. Now we are totally in sync.


----------



## maxl

The formulation "Modern Israeli Hebrew /laˈʃɔn/ - Ashkenasi /'lɔʃ(ə)n/" for non-construct is wrong. Only Yiddish has /'lɔʃ(ə)n. Ashkenazi Hebrew (say, in reading the Torah or in prayer) will be lɔʃɔjn.


----------



## Drink

maxl said:


> The formulation "Modern Israeli Hebrew /laˈʃɔn/ - Ashkenasi /'lɔʃ(ə)n/" for non-construct is wrong. Only Yiddish has /'lɔʃ(ə)n. Ashkenazi Hebrew (say, in reading the Torah or in prayer) will be lɔʃɔjn.



That's not exactly right. When reading from the Torah, a special "full" pronunciation is used. When quoting the Torah in a discussion, either the reduced or full pronunciation might be used, but traditionally it would have been the reduced pronunciation (/'lɔʃ(ə)n/). Things aren't today the same as they used to be. When studying Mishnah or any other non-Biblical Hebrew text, the reduced pronunciation is probably still more common even today. Unless you want to claim that when Ashkenazis read the Mishnah, it suddenly becomes written in Yiddish? Keep in mind that there was never a fine line between "Yiddish" and Ashkenazi Hebrew.


----------



## sawyeric1

So, what is the effect on register of not pronouncing the 'h' sound in '-ה' - or is it more just a matter of the mentioned age group differences?


----------

