# Transliterating the letter ח



## amikama

I have come across with several ways to transliterate the "problematic" Hebrew letter ח: 

The most common way is '*ch*' (as in German or Scottish "loch"), which may be confusing because it represents different consonants in various languages ('tsh' in English, 'sh' in French etc.) Some also transliterate it as '*h*' (the closest consonant to ח in English?) or '*x*' (as in Russian or IPA). On signs bearing street names (in Tel-Aviv for example) I read "rehov" (רחוב, street) where '*h*' represents ח and is underlined to distinguish it from 'h' (representing ה). Recently I even played with the idea to use the Arabic transliteration for the letter ح, namely '*7*' (so for example רחוב becomes "re7ov").

With so many ways to transliterate ח, I wondered which one is the most useful and efficient from the view point of one who don't know to read Hebrew and/or Hebrew-learners. What do you think?


----------



## JLanguage

I prefer "ch". In addition to the transliterations you've mentioned I have also seen h with a dot underneath used to represent ח.


----------



## elroy

Good question.  I think part of the reason the transliteration is so problematic is that the letter has two distinct pronunciations: one identical to the Arabic ح, and one identical to the German "ch."  Most native speakers of Hebrew today pronounce it "ch," but a decent percentage pronounce it ح, as do almost all Arab speakers of Hebrew (which, by the way, was most liketly the original pronunciation of the letter).  

So the question is, which pronunciation do you teach (and transliterate) when teaching the language to foreigners?  Do you go with the majority and teach "ch"?  Do you go with the original pronunciation and teach ح?  Or do you go with linguistic thoroughness and teach both?

What transliteration you use will depend on which one of the above you choose.  For "ch," I think "ch" would be a suitable transliteration, but that can be problematic because there's another letter, namely כ, which can have the same pronunciation.  For ح, I think an "h" with a line or a dot under it would work.  Of course, a "7" is thinkable, by analogy with the Arabic transliteration, but that might be confusing because the reason "7" was chosen in Arabic was that it (kind of) looks like the Arabic letter.  A single "h" would be problematic because there is another letter pronounced like that: ה.  Choosing a transliteration that includes both possible pronunciations is nearly impossible: perhaps one could make up a symbol for it.   Or you could pick the number that looks most like it and use that. 

Those are my thoughts.  Sorry I couldn't give a more conclusive answer, but it's not an easy question.  For that reason, I'm also holding off on voting in the poll.


----------



## amikama

JLanguage said:
			
		

> In addition to the transliterations you've mentioned I have also seen h with a dot underneath used to represent ח.


Oh yes, forgot this one. Let's merge it with the option of h.


----------



## elroy

amikama said:
			
		

> Oh yes, forgot this one. Let's merge it with the option of h.


 
If you'd like, I can edit your poll to add that option.


----------



## amikama

elroy said:
			
		

> If you'd like, I can edit your poll to add that option.


No need to edit the poll, I think, since the underdotted h is basically the same as the underlined h


----------



## Josh_

I think the best transliteration is one that has each sound represented by a single symbol.   I'm not really a fan of h with a line underneath it because if a student is like me, he/she might be reading fast and only see the h and not the line and thus read it as a ה . I'm also not really a fan of numbers in transliteration so I would not use '7'.  Anyway, I voted for 'x' as that is the symbol used in the transliteration I most often use, and it is also used in the IPA (not that I'm advocating the IPA or that I think it the best, but it is well known, among academics anyway).  



elroy said:


> Good question.  I think part of the reason the transliteration is so problematic is that the letter has two distinct pronunciations: one identical to the Arabic ح, and one identical to the German "ch."  Most native speakers of Hebrew today pronounce it "ch," but a decent percentage pronounce it ح, as do almost all Arab speakers of Hebrew (which, by the way, was most liketly the original pronunciation of the letter).


I'd be interested in knowing on what you base the idea that the original sound of ח was the like that of the Arabic ح .  I'm also interested in knowing if Arab speakers of Hebrew (or at least those who know both languages) always pronounce the the ח as a ح .  That is, in all words, including those Hebrew words that contain the ח as a cognate of Arabic خ , such as those  I related in the other thread.


----------



## Nunty

I normally use an h with a dot under it, but voted for the underlined h here.

A sidenote: I have started teaching Hebrew to a Polish man who pronounces ה as a ח or כ or something in between. There have been some amusing misunderstandings, like when I though he was talking about eating his tent.


----------



## elroy

Josh_ said:


> I'd be interested in knowing on what you base the idea that the original sound of ח was the like that of the Arabic ح .


 On the fact that it's pronounced that way by Arab speakers of Hebrew, as well as native speakers of Eastern origin. 





> I'm also interested in knowing if Arab speakers of Hebrew (or at least those who know both languages) always pronounce the the ח as a ح . That is, in all words, including those Hebrew words that contain the ח as a cognate of Arabic خ , such as those I related in the other thread.


 It is pronounced as a ح in the vast majority of cases. It is pronounced as a خ in some common words, like חמש (although "7amesh" is heard from time to time). In some cases, there is some vacillation: the same speaker will alternate between the two pronunciations of the same word. It would be interesting to find out if any of this has to do with which words are cognates of Arabic words containing a خ; at this point, I suspect that the variation simply has to do with being exposed to the widespread pronunciation of the letter in the media as well as, to a lesser degree, in everyday encounters.

As for the transliteration, your preference assumes that ח is always pronounced like a خ, but what makes the letter "problematic" (and probably the reason Amikama started this thread) is that it is has two distinct pronunciations, both of which are used by native speakers.


----------



## Josh_

elroy said:


> On the fact that it's pronounced that way by Arab speakers of Hebrew, as well as native speakers of Eastern origin.


I don't know.  Hebrew is an old language and basing an idea about original pronunciation on modern day speech patterns does not seem like enough evidence to me.  I'm not saying it's wrong, but I'd need a little more proof to be convinced.  Like I said in the other thread it is possible that there were two distinct sounds that emerged into one.



> As for the transliteration, your preference assumes that ח is always pronounced like a خ, but what makes the letter "problematic" (and probably the reason Amikama started this thread) is that it is has two distinct pronunciations, both of which are used by native speakers.


True,  but isn't that the predominant, if not official, sound.  In my Hebrew resources where a transliteration is used (of which there is a dearth -- something you and I have discussed before) it is always transliterated as a voiceless velar fricative.  Further, as far as teaching Hebrew to foreigners is concerned it seems to me that the voiceless velar fricative pronunciation of ח is almost always, if not always, the one taught.  But if one wanted to show the different pronunciations of Hebrew letters, then I agree that it might be problematic.  But this can be resolved by transliterating the word with each pronunciation in in order to show the variation.  For instance מאוחר could be transliterated as me'uukhar and me'uuHar.


----------



## elroy

It is generally accepted that the Sephardi pronunciation of Hebrew is older, and that the Ashkenazi one arose because many European immigrants and their descendants were unable to correctly produce certain Semitic sounds and pronounced them with a European influence.  I cannot cite any academic sources, but I am sure that if you researched this topic you would find many that corroborate my view.

But back to the transliteration topic, which is the main topic of this thread: Yes, the [x] pronunciation is the one that is most often taught to foreigners, and it is the one used in standard Hebrew, but I still think it would be more correct to go with a symbol that is not biased towards a specific pronunciation yet unequivocally indicates that the letter in question is ח, and to let the reader/learner decide for himself how to pronounce the letter.  Maybe I'm being too idealistic. 

By the way, the "u" in "meu*ח*ar" is short (and there is no glottal stop, if that's what the ' was supposed to indicate).


----------



## Josh_

elroy said:


> It is generally accepted that the Sephardi pronunciation of Hebrew is older, and that the Ashkenazi one arose because many European immigrants and their descendants were unable to correctly produce certain Semitic sounds and pronounced them with a European influence.  I cannot cite any academic sources, but I am sure that if you researched this topic you would find many that corroborate my view.


Yes, I agree.  In fact as you were writing this I was writing something similar in the other thread.



> But back to the transliteration topic, which is the main topic of this thread: Yes, the [x] pronunciation is the one that is most often taught to foreigners, and it is the one used in standard Hebrew, but I still think it would be more correct to go with a symbol that is not biased towards a specific pronunciation yet unequivocally indicates that the letter in question is ח, and to let the reader/learner decide for himself how to pronounce the letter.  Maybe I'm being too idealistic.


Then we need to choose a symbol that is not associated with either sound, in any way.



> By the way, the "u" in "meu*ח*ar" is short (and there is no glottal stop, if that's what the ' was supposed to indicate).


Are you sure?  The way I was taught it is pronounced as I outlined.  Milon Morfix seems to agree with me --  מְאֻחָר , about the long 'u' anyway; the pronunciation of the aleph is not as apparent, but if I remember correctly how my Hebrew professor pronounced it, it was as a glottal stop.  Just to be clear, I'm talking about the translation of the English word 'late'.  Given what we've been discussing, there may be more than one pronunciation.


----------



## elroy

Josh_ said:


> Then we need to choose a symbol that is not associated with either sound.


 I agree - but that may not be possible. 


> Are you sure? The way I was taught it pronounced as I outlined. Milon Morfix seems to agree with me -- מְאֻחָר , about the long 'u' anyway; the pronunciation of the aleph is not as apparent, but if I remember correctly how my Hebrew professor pronounced it, it was as a glottal stop. Just to be clear, I'm talking about the translation of the English word 'late'. Given what we've been discussing, there may be more than one pronunciation.


 I am sure.   The Morfix entry does not contradict me.  But this is off-topic, so if you would like to discuss the pronunciation of the word please PM me or open a new thread.


----------



## MarX

I transliterate it with *h*, that's how my Israeli friend taught me.
I can also use *kh*.

Edit:
I just found that scriptum uses *hh* to transliterate it. Not a bad idea.


scriptum said:


> - "Resh" is not a guttural, but, like the gutturals, it cannot have a dagesh.
> - In modern Hebrew there is no doubling of consonants. Dagesh qal & dagesh hhazaq are pronounced in the same way. In other words, you can hear a dagesh only in the consonants ב כ פ. (*b* as opposed to *v*, *k* as opposed to *kh*, *p* as opposed to *f*).


----------

