Conference taveng::bagels

First off, I understand that indeed the explanation of the vowels traditionally
placed with the Tetragrammaton are that they are taken from the vowels of the
word "Adonoi". Of course, we don't know the true pronunciation
of God's name. The "w" sound does not exist in Hebrew (although I once heard
that Yemenite Jews pronounce the vav with the "w" sound). The word "Yaweh"
is clearly from a German-speaking source: "Yaveh" or "Yahovah" is a better
rendering for speakers of English.

In Hebrew, the name of God seems to be related to two forms of the verb
"to be", as in the verse from Exodus where Moses asks God's name and the
answer is something like: "I am that I am" or "I am what I will be".

Of the four letters, none is a hard consonant: yud is a vowel sound (Y),
hay (appears twice) is the aspirant sound of "H", and vav can be either a
vowel ("oo" or "oh") or a consonant ("V"). The true pronunciation might
be just a whisper sound for all we know.

Dave

p.s. The "th" sound does not exist in Hebrew either. In transliterations, "th"
stands for the letter "tav", which is usually pronounced "T" except by
die-hard Ashkenazic congregations. The "th" rendering (as in the name Judith)
distinguishes the tav from the tet which is also pronounced "T".

Background:  elsewhere on the network I have posted the text from the
introduction to the RSV/NRSV bibles explaining that the name "Jehovah"
was a middle ages invention arising from the fact that the vowels
appearing adjacent to the Tetragrammaton in the Masoretic text are those
associated with the word "Adonai" since that (or Elohim) was always what
would be pronounced when the Torah was being read.

/john

    re .1
    
    > The "w" sound does not exist in Hebrew (although I once heard 
    > that Yemenite Jews pronounce the vav with the "w" sound). [...]
    
    > p.s. The "th" sound does not exist in Hebrew either. In
    > transliterations, "th" stands for the letter "tav", which is usually
    > pronounced "T" except by die-hard Ashkenazic congregations. The "th"
    > rendering (as in the name Judith) distinguishes the tav from the tet
    > which is also pronounced "T".
    
    A nit -- you seem to be talking about the contemporary Hebrew and what
    you say might not apply to older versions. For example, "shin" and
    "sin" are the same letter with a different "dot" (whatever it is
    called). The pronunciation of "vav" also depends on a "dot". There
    are two versions of "tav": one w/ a "dot", the other without. There
    may have been "th" after all...
    
    A

    re: .1,.3
    
    When used as a vowel marker, vav takes on a `w' sound, and according to
    an academic friend of mine, there is evidence that the `w' sound may
    have been the original pronunciation.  Similarly, linguists who
    specialize in ancient semitic languages think that each of the 22/23(*)
    letters of the Hebrew alphabet used to have a distinct sound, not
    counting those (the BGDKFT letters) that have (or had) an oral shift
    depending on context.  Thus, it is thought that kuf and k(h)af, samekh
    and sin, tav and tet were distinguishable by sound.  The tav, which is
    has lost its shift in modern Israeli Hebrew may have had more than one
    alternative sound.  That is, the tav without the dagesh (the little
    dot in the middle), which is pronounced with an `s' sound in Ashkenazik
    Hebrew, probably was pronounced with a `th' sound in some of the
    eastern countries.  The alef and ayin are generally regarded as silent,
    but are still pronounced by Yemenis.
    
    					Aaron
    
    (* Even though we treat shin and sin as the same letter, they probably
    are not.  Note that, unlike the BGDKFT letters, they do not shift
    depending on location in the word or sentence.  A shin is always a shin
    and a sin is always a sin.)

    More on ancient vs modern Hebrew pronuciation.
    
    At least two references that I have read, and passing references in
    several more, agree that ancient Hebrew had a "w" pronunciation for the 
    vov. This eventually evolved into both a set of vowels (oo and oh) and
    a consonant. ( a similar affect happened in Latin, cf "V" and "U" -
    modern Italian has a "V" sound where latin didn't).
    
    The shin(sh), Tof(t), and daled(d), gimel(g), and tsade(ts) also had other
    sounds depending on whether or not they had the dot (Dagesh) or not. 
    (strong S), (th as in bath), (th as in those), (J), (strong S). There
    were also differences in pronunciation with between chet and chof,
    Koof, and kof, tet and tof.
    
    The ayin and aleph were also semi-consonents - glotel and pharingeal stops.
    
    If you want to hear all of these sounds find a native Arabic speaker.
    Modern Arabic has retained many of these sounds.
    
    It is also interesting that modern Hebrew has had to re-invent some by
    attaching an apostrophe to consonents such as gimel to get a "J" sound
    or daled to get a voiced "th" for "foreign" words.
    
    Hebrew like English has evolved and continues to evolve with modern
    pronuciation changing in real time. Remember the modern "pointing"
    system that "we" use was attached well over 1000 years after the fact.
    
    Neil

It's not just Yemenite Jews who pronounce ayin and aleph.  I know a Moroccan
who does.  And Iranian Jews differentiate between a gimel with a dagesh
and one without (I believe one without is like a rolled "r").

    re .2 (COVERT::COVERT)
    
>Background:  elsewhere on the network I have posted the text from the
>introduction to the RSV/NRSV bibles explaining that the name "Jehovah"
>was a middle ages invention arising from the fact that the vowels
>>appearing adjacent to the Tetragrammaton in the Masoretic text are those
>associated with the word "Adonai" since that (or Elohim) was always what
>would be pronounced when the Torah was being read.
    
    	I'm familiar with your note [in CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE, right?], as
    well as the introduction in the RSV (since I have a copy ... though I
    don't have a copy of the NRSV); but the remarks in the RSV aren't
    supported by quotes from ancient sources.  They only state [or restate]
    the explanation that is currently accepted by modern scholars.
    
    	For what it's worth, I don't believe the RSV intro is entirely
    accurate, for they state that:
    
    		"The ancient Greek translators substituted
    		the word _Kyrios_ (Lord) for the Name."
    
    I believe this opinion has its roots in scholarship from the last
    century or two, which was based primarily upon Common Era manuscripts
    of fairly late dates which contained these substitutions.  More ancient
    manuscripts and manuscript fragments from before the Common Era and
    early into it have since been discovered (in the 20th century) which
    show that it was actually the practice of the Greek translators (and/or
    the scribes which copied their work) to use the Tetragrammaton in
    ancient Hebrew characters in what was otherwise Greek text.  In other
    words, where the Greek word Kyrios was substituted in manuscripts of
    later dates, earlier manuscripts contain YHWH in Hebrew characters.
    Thus, this opinion is obsolete.
    
    	Actually, I find it ironic that the form "Jehovah" [or in Latin,
    Iehovah] is considered to be an "invention" from the middle ages since
    it seems to me to be the obvious form to use when transliterating the
    characters and vowels from the Hebrew text into the Latin and English
    alphabets.  Since the vowels supplied are neither the vowels for Adonai
    or Elohim alone (i.e., they're mixed), the traditional explanation that
    is now commonly accepted by most scholars strikes *me* and a cludge
    [but then, who am I, right?].  Nevertheless, I'm still interested in
    whatever ancient sources say which document the history of this
    explanation [of why the vowel points in existing manuscripts are what
    they are].
    
    								-mark.

    I may be wrong, but I don't believe that what you describe as
    "pointing" was used 2000 years ago.  Thus it would be impossible to
    ascertain the proper pronounciation from sources that are that old
    (even if you where able to get access to them.)
    Jake

    re .8 (CXCAD::BERZON)
    
>    I may be wrong, but I don't believe that what you describe as
>    "pointing" was used 2000 years ago.  Thus it would be impossible to
>    ascertain the proper pronounciation from sources that are that old
>    (even if you where able to get access to them.)
    
    	... I knew that.  The introduction of 'vowel points' was 
    introduced more like 1000 years ago (give or take a century or two).
    However, for most other words, the supplied vowels are taken to be
    correct (correct?) [I mean, there's not too much controversy over the
    pronunciation of the rest of the text, right?].
    
    	To reiterate, I'm very familiar with the explanation that is most
    popular today, that the proper pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton has
    been lost [i.e., we can't be absolutely sure], and that it's probably
    Yahweh, and that the Masoretes used the vowels for _adonai_ so that
    readers would avoid pronouncing the Name out loud and use _adonai_ (or
    _elohim_) instead; but what I'm wondering is how far back in ancient
    Jewish writings can this explanation actually be traced?  Is it in the
    Talmud, for instance, or other ancient Rabbinical works?
    
    	For that matter, how long has the form "Yahweh" been popular?  For
    several centuries, up until late in the last one, the form "Jehovah"
    was very popular in the English language, and is probably still the
    most recognizable form of the Name (in English).
    
    								-mark.
    
    p.s. If anyone has thoughts on this that they'd rather not post in
    NOTES, I'd welcome private e-mail.