3. Biblical Hebrew as reflected in the orthography of biblical Dead Sea Scrolls (BH_Qum) - to the extent that relevant evidence is available.

4. Biblical Hebrew pointed with Palestinian Vocalization (BH_Pal)[3] - to the extent that relevant evidence is available.

5. Biblical Hebrew pointed with Babylonian Vocalization (BH_Bab)[4] - to the extent that relevant evidence is available.

6. Biblical Hebrew as pronounced by the modern Samaritans (BH_SAM)

7. The range of modern Jewish pronunciations.

However, in practice, given:

· most of the areas of dispute relate to the vowel system of BH;

· the superbly crafted and comprehensive nature of the Tiberian masoretic system which, in many cases preserves evidence of early pronunciations lost in the various non-Tiberian traditions;

· the fragmentary nature of the vocalization that can be deduced from the vowel letters of the biblical Dead Sea Scrolls;

· the difficulties of interpreting the Greek evidence[5];

· the pervasive influence of Aramaic on post-exilic Hebrew in general and the highly Aramaized nature evidenced by BH_Pal, BH_Bab, and BH_SAM[6] and in the Hebrew traditions underlying BH_Gk-Lat[7];

· the rather obvious fact that BH_Qum is highly Aramaized[8] and is overlaid by a pronunciation tradition that is probably descended not from BH but from one or more contemporaneous dialects; and,

· the high degree of overall similarity between TH and BH_Pal, BH_Bab[9] and Jerome's Latin transliterations[10].

it seems most practical that derivations should be traced -

i) from *Proto-Semitic (PS) to *Proto-Northwest Semitic (PNWS) to *Proto-Hebrew (PH) to Classical Biblical Hebrew (CBH, */EBHP/⁺),Post-Classical Biblical Hebrew (PCBH, */LBHP/ evidenced in the vowel letters of the Proto-Masoretic Text (PMT)); and then,

⁺) bringing in evidence for parallel lines of pronunciation tradition from (in order of importance) - Biblical Hebrew as reflected in the orthography of biblical Dead Sea Scrolls (BH_Qum); Biblical Hebrew as reflected in Greek and Latin transcriptions (BH_Gk-Lat); Biblical Hebrew pointed with Palestinian Vocalization (BH_Pal); Biblical Hebrew pointed with Babylonian Vocalization (BH_Bab); and, the range of modern pronunciations. A superb example of how this is done by a master is seen in Ben-Ḥayyim 1954. A good schematic outline of the vowel systems of Proto-Hebrew, Secunda Hebrew, Tiberian, Babylonian, and Palestinian Hebrew and Samaritan Hebrew is provided in the Wikipedia article Biblical Hebrew Phonology which also gives a condensed outline of the changes in the vowel system over the history of the Hebrew language.

2. What We Can Learn From the Greek and Latin Transliterations

i) historic distinctions of consonant and vowel length were still maintained in the Hebrew underlying the Secunda. The MT only preserves the historic distinctions of consonant length;

ii) The sound shifts ḫ >ḥ and ġ >^c (see Polyphonic Letters ח ע ) had not occurred in the Hebrew underlying the Septuagint Torah ( c. early third c. BCE) but had occurred in the Hebrew underlying the Secunda. These mergers had occurred in the Tiberian Masoretic tradition at some time before the fixing of the MT.

Aside form occasional mention of Israelite names transliterated into Akkadian, the Septuagint (Torah early third c. BCE) provides the earliest transliteration of vocalized BH names while the Secunda (second-third c. CE) provides the transliteration of vocalized continuous text. Jerome

a. What is a Phoneme?

Box 9

Phones and Phonemes

“Modern linguistics insists on an important distinction between phone and phoneme. A phone is a sound heard or articulated in actual speech, and as such it is a physical entity which can be measured and recorded by mechanical devices. A classification of consonants as labial, dental, etc. and of vowels as front, back, mid, high, etc. accords with such an approach. By contrast, a phoneme is what is perceived to be a particular phonetic entity, and thus by definition it is an abstraction, something like the common denominator of countless phones, namely actual sounds which share certain essential features. Even one and the same speaker—and of course, different speakers of a given language —pronounces a given phoneme in numerous variations, which however are normally perceived as one phoneme, without creating any serious problem of communication.”

Quoted from Joϋon-Muraoka 1991 § 5

A phoneme is -

Ø A contrastive unit in the sound system of a particular language.

Ø A minimal unit that serves to distinguish between meanings of words.

Ø Pronounced in one or more ways, depending on the number of allophones.

Ø Represented between slashes by convention.

Example:

/b/, /j/, /o/

nb. I have not used slashes in the following tables. For convenience, the transcription is a compromise between phonemic and phonetic

b. Vowel and Consonant Length

Box 10

The Nature of Consonant and Vowel Length

In pre-medieval Hebrew, vowel[11] and consonant length probably resembled their manifestation in spoken Arabic. The following is a quote from Raja Tewfik Nasr's An English-colloquial Arabic Dictionary[12], (p. xvi)

Variations in the length of both consonants and vowels produce variations in meaning.... The difference between the short and long sounds is that the long sounds take a relatively longer time to be completely produced than the short ones. In the case of a stop, the explosion occurs after a longer withholding; in the case of a vowel, lateral, or fricative, it is continued longer; in the case of a flap, the flaps are repeated (hence the trills); and in the case of a nasal, the vibration of the vocal cords and the flow of breath through the nasal passage last longer.

As with spoken Arabic "The relative length of consonants and vowels contributes greatly to the rhythmic patterns of speech...."[13] and hence is vital to appreciating the meter of biblical poetry.

Box 11 - Were Vowel Quantity and Consonant Quantity Phonemic in BH?
“Proto-Semitic /i:/ and /u:/ were retained unchanged throughout the history of Hebrew, but /a:/ became raised and rounded by the fourteenth century BCE in all or most environments. The evidence of the Tiberian reading tradition … suggests that there were two raised and rounded allophones of /a:/ which in one instance yielded doublets ḳan:o’ = ḳan:å’ ‘zealous’. "Eventually, the inherited short vowels also developed allophones as did the up-gliding diphthongs: [å:] and [ä] from /a/; and [o:], [o] and [å] from /u/; [e:], [e], and [ä] from /i/; [o:] from /aw/; [e:] and [ä:] from /ay/. The merger of some of these allophones resulted in a completely reorganized system in which the number of contrastive qualities was doubled and the role of quantity was greatly reduced. "Long [i:] and [u:] are in complementary distribution with [y] and [w], respectively, and alternate with them, e.g. [ˈkäli:] ‘vessel’ ~ [kälyәˈkå] ‘your vessel’, [ˈpi:hu:] ~ [ˈpi:w] ‘his mouth’, [ˈśäku:] ‘lookout point’~ [śäkˈwi:] ‘rooster’, [yištaḥăˈwä:] ‘he will prostrate himself’ ~ [way:išˈtaḥu:] ‘and he prostrated himself’. It is thus possible that the semivowels should be viewed as allophones of vowels rather than consonantal phonemes…." "Outside of closed unstressed syllables, which excluded long vowels, Ancient Hebrew had a contrast between long and short vowels. However, between the tannaitic period and the time of the Masoretes, short vowels in stressed syllables lengthened, erasing the contrast in those syllables. Thus, while Hebrew was still a spoken language, the o of infinitival yåˈko(^w)l ‘be able’ was long, while the o of sg. 3m. perfect yåˈkol ‘he was able’ was short, like the ancestor of å in yәkålˈtäm. In the Pre-Tiberian reading tradition, the o of sg. 3m. perfect yåˈkol lengthened, splitting off from the ancestor of å in yәkålˈtäm and merging with the long o of infinitival yåˈko^wl[14]. "As a result of this change, length became to a large extent conditioned by stress[15]. Outside of opened unstressed syllables (where a length contrast survived), there was a simple rule: stressed vowels are long and unstressed vowels are short. Non-systematic representation of vowel length through the use of matres lectionis … developed in Standard Biblical Hebrew. These vowel letters are used to mark not only etymologically long vowels but also stressed vowels in pre-pausal[16] position. In the Tiberian reading tradition, such vowels were probably no longer than other stressed vowels, but morphophonemic alterations show that a length difference had once existed, e.g. tiškab ~ tiškåb < *tiškab ~ *tiškāb, yәšal:aḥ ~ yәšal:eaḥ < *yišal:eḥ ~ *yišal:ēḥ. "Consonant length (like vowel length) was phonemic in Proto-Hebrew, but it was not represented in the biblical period, even in an unsystematic way. Thus, the spelling ^crwmym was used for both members of the minimal pair Job 5:12 [^căru:mi:m עֲרוּמִים]not =Job 22:6 [^cărum:i:m עֲרוּמִּים]‘crafty (pl. m.) not =naked(pl. m.)’. And the spelling ntnw was used for both [nåtan:u:]‘we gave’ and [nåtănu:]‘they gave’. It is only in Mishnaic Hebrew that representation of consonant length began to appear…. "Most of the Proto-Hebrew minimal pairs are no longer valid for the Tiberian system…. The fact remains, however, that the Masoretes considered consonant length important enough to create a sign for it (“strong” dagesh). Two minimal pairs noted by the Masoretes themselves are Job 5:12 ^căru^wmi^ym (עֲרוּמִים)not =Job 22:6 ^căru^wm:i^ym (עֲרוּמִּים) (see above)and Lev. 7:30 tәbi^y’ä^ynå^h (תְּבִיאֶינָה) not =Lev. 6:14 tәbi^y’än:å^h (תְּבִיאֶנָּה) ‘ they (f.) shall bring not = you/she shall bring it’. Although Arabic transcriptions suggest that, in the first pair, the vowel preceding the lengthened consonant was shorter than the vowel preceding its unlengthened counterpart, the Masoretes clearly considered this difference to be secondary, unworthy of being represented.”[17] "In the tradition of Hebrew that was adopted by the Tiberian Masoretes, the following vowel quality shifts took place some time before the Masoretic period: *e:ē >* **ɛ:ē, a:ā > a:ɔ̄. The result was the emergence of four vowel qualities (ɛ, e, a, ɔ) from an original two (e, a). The signs ṣere and qameṣ in Tiberian Hebrew represent vowels that were long e and a respectively before the operation of the quality shifts. The signs segol and pataḥ in Tiberian Hebrew represent vowels that were short e and a respectively before the operation of the quality shifts. "At some stage after these quality shifts had taken place, vowel length became totally dependent on stress and syllabic structure[18]. All stressed vowels and all vowels in an unstressed open syllable were pronounced long[19]. As a result not only qameṣ and ṣere but also pataḥ and segol were pronounced long when stressed or when in an open syllable.** "At some stage after vowel length became dependent on stress and syllable structure, long and short o developed into two distinct qualities: o:ō > ɔ:ō. For this reason long ō occurs only in stressed or unstressed open syllables whereas short ɔ occurs only in unstressed closed syllables."[20] [21]

Box 11 - Were Vowel Quantity and Consonant Quantity Phonemic in BH?

“Proto-Semitic /i:/ and /u:/ were retained unchanged throughout the history of Hebrew, but /a:/ became raised and rounded by the fourteenth century BCE in all or most environments. The evidence of the Tiberian reading tradition … suggests that there were two raised and rounded allophones of /a:/ which in one instance yielded doublets ḳan:o’ = ḳan:å’ ‘zealous’.

"Eventually, the inherited short vowels also developed allophones as did the up-gliding diphthongs: [å:] and [ä] from /a/; and [o:], [o] and [å] from /u/; [e:], [e], and [ä] from /i/; [o:] from /aw/; [e:] and [ä:] from /ay/. The merger of some of these allophones resulted in a completely reorganized system in which the number of contrastive qualities was doubled and the role of quantity was greatly reduced.

"Long [i:] and [u:] are in complementary distribution with [y] and [w], respectively, and alternate with them, e.g.
[ˈkäli:] ‘vessel’ ~ [kälyәˈkå] ‘your vessel’, [ˈpi:hu:] ~ [ˈpi:w] ‘his mouth’, [ˈśäku:] ‘lookout point’~ [śäkˈwi:] ‘rooster’, [yištaḥăˈwä:] ‘he will prostrate himself’ ~ [way:išˈtaḥu:] ‘and he prostrated himself’. It is thus possible that the semivowels should be viewed as allophones of vowels rather than consonantal phonemes…."

"Outside of closed unstressed syllables, which excluded long vowels, Ancient Hebrew had a contrast between long and short vowels. However, between the tannaitic period and the time of the Masoretes, short vowels in stressed syllables lengthened, erasing the contrast in those syllables. Thus, while Hebrew was still a spoken language, the o of infinitival yåˈko(^w)l ‘be able’ was long, while the o of sg. 3m. perfect yåˈkol ‘he was able’ was short, like the ancestor of å in yәkålˈtäm. In the Pre-Tiberian reading tradition, the o of sg. 3m. perfect
yåˈkol lengthened, splitting off from the ancestor of å in yәkålˈtäm and merging with the long o of infinitival
yåˈko^wl[14].

"As a result of this change, length became to a large extent conditioned by stress[15]. Outside of opened unstressed syllables (where a length contrast survived), there was a simple rule: stressed vowels are long and unstressed vowels are short.

Non-systematic representation of vowel length through the use of matres lectionis … developed in Standard Biblical Hebrew. These vowel letters are used to mark not only etymologically long vowels but also stressed vowels in pre-pausal[16] position. In the Tiberian reading tradition, such vowels were probably no longer than other stressed vowels, but morphophonemic alterations show that a length difference had once existed, e.g. tiškab ~ tiškåb < *tiškab ~ *tiškāb, yәšal:aḥ ~ yәšal:eaḥ < *yišal:eḥ ~ *yišal:ēḥ.

"Consonant length (like vowel length) was phonemic in Proto-Hebrew, but it was not represented in the biblical period, even in an unsystematic way. Thus, the spelling ^crwmym was used for both members of the minimal pair Job 5:12 [^căru:mi:m עֲרוּמִים]not =Job 22:6 [^cărum:i:m עֲרוּמִּים]‘crafty (pl. m.) not =naked(pl. m.)’. And the spelling ntnw was used for both [nåtan:u:]‘we gave’ and [nåtănu:]‘they gave’. It is only in Mishnaic Hebrew that representation of consonant length began to appear….

"Most of the Proto-Hebrew minimal pairs are no longer valid for the Tiberian system…. The fact remains, however, that the Masoretes considered consonant length important enough to create a sign for it (“strong” dagesh). Two minimal pairs noted by the Masoretes themselves are Job 5:12 ^căru^wmi^ym (עֲרוּמִים)not =Job 22:6 ^căru^wm:i^ym (עֲרוּמִּים) (see above)and Lev. 7:30 tәbi^y’ä^ynå^h (תְּבִיאֶינָה) not =Lev. 6:14
tәbi^y’än:å^h (תְּבִיאֶנָּה) ‘ they (f.) shall bring not = you/she shall bring it’. Although Arabic transcriptions suggest that, in the first pair, the vowel preceding the lengthened consonant was shorter than the vowel preceding its unlengthened counterpart, the Masoretes clearly considered this difference to be secondary, unworthy of being represented.”[17]

"In the tradition of Hebrew that was adopted by the Tiberian Masoretes, the following vowel quality shifts took place some time before the Masoretic period: e:ē > ɛ:ē, a:ā > a:ɔ̄. The result was the emergence of four vowel qualities (ɛ, e, a, ɔ) from an original two (e, a). The signs ṣere and qameṣ in Tiberian Hebrew represent vowels that were long e and a respectively before the operation of the quality shifts. The signs segol and pataḥ in Tiberian Hebrew represent vowels that were short e and a respectively before the operation of the quality shifts.

"At some stage after these quality shifts had taken place, vowel length became totally dependent on stress and syllabic structure[18]. All stressed vowels and all vowels in an unstressed open syllable were pronounced long[19]. As a result not only qameṣ and ṣere but also pataḥ and segol were pronounced long when stressed or when in an open syllable.

"At some stage after vowel length became dependent on stress and syllable structure, long and short o developed into two distinct qualities: o:ō > ɔ:ō. For this reason long ō occurs only in stressed or unstressed open syllables whereas short ɔ occurs only in unstressed closed syllables."[20] [21]

Box 12

Trade-off Between Vowel and Consonant Length

In both Hebrew and Arabic, in the words of Blau, "...rhythmically long vowel + simple consonant are more or less identical to short vowel + double consonant...."[22]

Thus pretonic gemination at times substitutes for pretonic lengthening[23].

See also

Simplification of diphthongs

Elision of word-final aleph with compensaatory lengthening of the preceeding vowel.

Interrogative Pronoun מָה

Box 13

Pausal Forms

Pausal forms in TH are probably closely related to the rhythm of formal reading of scripture[24]. In many instances they reveal pre-Tiberian stress patterns and the quality of vowels reduced to vocal šwas in contextual forms. Where appropriate I include pausal, as well as contextual forms, in tables.

Table 6 - Distinctive Vowel Length and Syllable Type in EBHP and their Reflex in TH
*Open stressed syllable*	Long /ˈhû/ (</ˈhuʾa/) "he"	Long in [TH] /ˈhu/ *[ˈhuː] "he"
*Closed stressed syllable*	Long in nouns, short in verbs /naˈtan/ "he gave": /naˈtaːn/ "Nathan"	Long in [TH] /nåˈtan/ [nɔːˈθɐːn] "he gave": /nåˈtån/ [nɔːˈθɔːn] "Nathan"
	/gaˈmal/ "he weaned": /gaˈmaːl/ "camel"	/gåˈmal/ *[gɔːˈmɐːl] "he weaned"
*Stressed syllable doubly closed in EBHP* *N.b. in TH doubly closed syllables rarely remain because of reduction of geminated final consonant and insertion of* anaptyctic vowels breaking up other consonantal clusters**	Short /ˈḥuqq/ "law" /šōˈmart/ (</šōˈmirt/) qal* a.p. fs. "guard, guarding"	Long in [TH] /ˈḥoq/ [ˈħoːq] "law" /šoˈmɛrɛt/ [ʃoːˈmɛːrɛθ] "guard, guarding"
*Open unstressed syllable*	Long/Short /sūˈgar/ "cage” /suˈgar/ qal passive PC 3ms. "it was closed”	Long in [TH] /suˈgar/ [suːˈɣɐːr] "cage” /sugˈgar/ [sugˈgɐːr] "it was closed” (syllable closed by gemination resulting in form identical to pual)][26]
*Closed unstressed syllable*	Short/Long /min-/ “from” /ˌmīn/ “variety of..”	Short in [TH] /min-/ “from” /ˌmin/ *[ˌmiːn] “variety of..”
*Unstressed syllable doubly closed in EBHP*	Short /ˌḥuqq/ "law of" /šōˌmart/ (</šōˌmirt/) qal* a.p. fs. constr. "guard of"	Long in [TH] /ˌḥoq/ [ˌħoːq] "law of" /šoˌmɛrɛt/ [ʃoːˌmɛːrɛθ] "guard of"

Table 6 - Distinctive Vowel Length and Syllable Type in EBHP and their Reflex in TH

EBHP

*/EBHP/⁺^{^[25]}

(c. 850-550 BCE)

/TH/⁺ *[TH]

(c. 850 CE)

Open stressed syllable

Long

*/ˈhû/ (<*/ˈhuʾa/) "he"

Long in [TH]

/ˈhu/ *[ˈhuː] "he"

Closed stressed syllable

Long in nouns, short in verbs

*/naˈtan/ "he gave": */naˈtaːn/ "Nathan"

Long in [TH]

/nåˈtan/ *[nɔːˈθɐːn] "he gave": /nåˈtån/ *[nɔːˈθɔːn] "Nathan"

*/gaˈmal/ "he weaned":

*/gaˈmaːl/ "camel"

/gåˈmal/ *[gɔːˈmɐːl]

"he weaned"

Stressed syllable doubly closed in EBHP

N.b. in TH doubly closed syllables rarely remain because of reduction of geminated final consonant and insertion of anaptyctic vowels breaking up other consonantal clusters

Short

*/ˈḥuqq/ "law"

*/šōˈmart/ (<*/šōˈmirt/) qal a.p. fs. "guard, guarding"

Long in [TH]

/ˈḥoq/ *[ˈħoːq] "law"

/šoˈmɛrɛt/ *[ʃoːˈmɛːrɛθ] "guard, guarding"

Open unstressed syllable

Long/Short

*/sūˈgar/ "cage”

*/suˈgar/ qal passive PC 3ms.

"it was closed”

Long in [TH]

/suˈgar/ *[suːˈɣɐːr] "cage”

/sugˈgar/ *[sugˈgɐːr] "it was closed”

(syllable closed by gemination resulting in form identical to pual)][26]

Closed unstressed syllable

Short/Long

*/min-/ “from”

*/ˌmīn/ “variety of..”

Short in [TH]

/min-/ “from”

/ˌmin/ *[ˌmiːn] “variety of..”

Unstressed syllable doubly closed in EBHP

Short

*/ˌḥuqq/ "law of"

*/šōˌmart/ (<*/šōˌmirt/) qal a.p. fs. constr. "guard of"

Long in [TH]

/ˌḥoq/ *[ˌħoːq] "law of"

/šoˌmɛrɛt/ *[ʃoːˌmɛːrɛθ]
"guard of"

Table 7 - Phonemic Status of Vowel and Consonant Length and Quality and of Word Stress over the History of the Hebrew Language
*Phase*	*Date*	*Examples* *(phonemically presented)*
*BHA phase 1* (PNWS)	c. 2000 - c. 1200 BCE	/ˈ^cālamu/ > /ˈ^cōlamu/ /šaˈlāmu/ > /šaˈlōmu/ /ˈqāṭilu/ > /ˈqōṭilu/ (ms. a.p. qal) /ˈqāṭiltu/ > /ˈqōṭiltu/ (fs. a.p. qal) /paˈqīdu/ /ˈ’amara/ (“he said”) /ˈ’amarū/ (“they said”)
*BHA phase 2* (*PH)*	c. 1200 - c. 1000 BCE	/^cōˈlamu/ /šaˈlōmu/ /qōˈṭilu/ (ms. a.p. qal) /qōˈṭiltu/ (fs. a.p. qal) /paˈqīdu/ /’aˈmara/ /’aˈmarū/
*BHA phase 3* (*/EBHP/⁺) (note non-spirantization of the bgdkpt* consonants)	c. 1000 - c. 500 BCE	/^cōˈlaːm/ /šaˈlōm/ /qōˈṭeːl/ (ms. a.p. qal) /qōˈṭilt/ (f.s. a.p. qal) /paˈqīd/ /’aˈmar/ /’aˈmarū/
BHA phase 4 (/LBHP/)	c. 500 BCE – c. 200 CE	/^cōˈlaːm/ /šaˈlōm/ /qōˈṭẹːl/ (ms. a.p. qal) /qōˈṭɛlt/ (fs. a.p. qal) /paˈqīd/ /’aˈmar/ /’aˈmarū/
*BHA phase 6* **(/TH/⁺* [TH]***)	c. 850 CE	/^coˈlåm/ [^coːˈlɔːm] /šåˈlom/ [ʃɔːˈloːm] /qoˈṭẹl/ [qoːˈṭẹːl] (ms. a.p. Part. qal) /qoˈṭɛlɛt/ [qoːˈṭɛːlɛθ] (fs. a.p. qal) /påˈqid/ [pɔːˈqiːð] /ʾåˈmar/ [ʔɔːˈmɐːr] /ʾåmәˈru/ [ʔɔːmәˈruː]
No Phonetic distinction in length of vowels *(IH*)	Current Israeli Hebrew	/oˈlam/ /šaˈlom/ /koˈtɛl/ (ms. a.p. qal) /koˈtɛlɛt/ (fs. a.p. qal) /paˈqid/ /aˈmar/ /amˈru/

Table 8 Phonemic Status and Phonetic Realization of Vowel and Consonant Length in EBHP , TH and BH_IH
PH (c. 1200 BCE)*	*EBHP* /EBHP/^{^[27]}[28]* [EBHP]^{^[29]}* *(c. 850-550 BCE)*	TH /TH/⁺ **[TH]* *(c. 850 CE)*	BH_IH [BH_IH] = [IH] (present)	*Phonemic distinction based on and comments*
/min/	/min/ [mɪn] “from”	מִן־ /min/ [min]	[min]	PH – vowel length EBHP - vowel length, stress TH – spelling, stress and context IH – spelling and context
/mīn/	/ˌmīn/ [ˌmiːn] “variety of..”	מִין /ˌmin/ [ˌmiːn]	[min]
/ˈšitu/ √ŠYT	/ˈšeːt/ [ˈʃẹːt] “base”	שֵׁת /ˈšẹt/ *[ˈʃẹːθ]	[ˈʃɛt]	PH – vowel length EBHP - vowel quality TH and IH –spelling and vowel quality
/ˈšītu/ √ŠYT	/ˈšīt/ [ˈʃiːt] (qal inf. constr.) “putting”	שִׁית /ˈšit/ *[ˈʃiːθ]	[ˈʃit]
	/ʾitt/ [ʔɪtt] "with"	אֵת /ʾẹt/ *[ʔẹːθ]	[ɛt]	EBHP - consonant length (gemination) and, possibly, vowel quality. TH and IH - context
	/ˌ’at/? /ˌ’it/? [ˌʔɐt]?, [ˌʔɪt]? [ˌʔɛt]? (particle indicating direct object)	אֵת /ˌʾẹt/ *[ˌʔẹːθ]	[ɛt]
		אֶת־ /ʾɛt/ *[ʔɛːθ]	[ɛt]
/ˈ^cabdu/	/ˈ^cabd/ [ˈ^cɐbd]? [ˈ^cɐbәd]? “slave”	עֶבֶד /ˈ^cɛbɛd/ [ˈ^cɛːvɛð]	[ˈɛvɛd]	PH – vowel distribution and length. EBHP – vowel quality and distribution; spelling TH and IH – vowel quality and distribution; spelling
/ˈ^cabadū/ > /^caˈbadū/	/^caˈbạdū/ [^cɐˈbɐduˑ] “they served”	עָבְדוּ /^cåbәˈdu/ [^cɔːvәˈðuː]	[ɐvˈdu]
/yaˈqūmu/	/yaˈqūm/ [yɐˈquːm] “he will stand” (qal indicative)	יָקוּם /yåˈqum/ [yɔːˈquːm]	[yɐˈkum]	PH – vowel length, final short vowel and stress distinguish indicative from preterite/jussive EBHP - vowel length and stress distinguish indicative from jussive. Preterite distinguished from jussive by waC -, in this instance way, prefix. TH - vowel quality and stress for wayyåqåm IH vayaˈkam frequent but considered incorrect.
/ˈyaqum/	/ˈyaqum/[30] [ˈyɐqʊm]? [ˈyɐqo̞m]? “let him stand” (qal jussive)	יָקֹם /yåˈqom/ yɔːˈqoːm]	[yɐˈkom]
/ˈyaqum/	/wayˈyaqum/ [wɐyˈyɐqʊm]? [wɐyˈyɐqo̞m]? “he stood” (qal preterite)	וַיָּקָם /wayˈyåqǫm/ [wɐyˈyɔːqɔm]	[vɐyɐˈkɐm]
	/ˈhašmid/ [ˈhɐʃmɪd]? [ˈhɐʃmɛd]? (hiphil imp.) “destroy!”	הַשְמֵד /hašˈmẹd/ [hɐʃˈmẹːð]	[hɐʃˈmɛd]	EBHP – vowel length and stress. TH and IH - vowel quality
	/hašˈmīd/ [hɐʃˈmiːd] (hiphil inf. constr.) “destroying”	הַשְׁמִיד /hašˈmid/ [hɐʃˈmiːð]	[hɐʃˈmid]	EBHP – vowel length and stress. TH and IH - vowel quality
/ˈṭabbaḫu/ > /ṭabˈbaḫu/	/ṭabˈbaːḫ/ [ṭɐbˈbaːx] “butcher”	טַבָּח /ṭabˈbåḥ/ [ṭɐbˈbɔːħ]	[tɐˈbɐx]	PH – vowel length and quality and consonant length. EBHP –vowel quality and consonant length TH - vowel quality, stress, number of syllables and residually consonant length IH - vowel quality, stress, number of syllables and consonant quality
/ṭaˈbāḫu/ > /ṭaˈbōḫu/	/ṭaˈbōḫ/ [ṭɐˈboːx] (qal inf. abs.) “slaughtering”	טָבוֹחַ /ṭåˈboːaḥ/ [ṭɔːˈvoːɐħ]	[tɐˈvo.ɐx]
/ˈḫātamu/ > /ˈḫōtamu/ > /ḫōˈtamu/	/ḫōˈtaːm/ [xoːˈtaːm] “seal”	חוֹתָם /ḥoˈtåm/ [ħoːˈθɔːm]	[xoˈtɐm]	PH – vowel length EBHP - vowel quality and length TH and IH - vowel quality
/ḫaˈtāmu/ > /ḫaˈtōmu/	/ḫaˈtōm/ [xɐˈtoːm] (qal inf. abs.) “sealing”	חָתוֹם /ḥåˈtom/ [ħɔːˈθoːm]	[xɐˈtom]
/šaˈlāmu/ > /šaˈlōmu/	/šaˈlōm/ [ʃɐˈloːm] “peace”	שָׁלוֹם /šåˈlom/ [ʃɔːˈloːm]	[ʃɐˈlom]	PH – vowel quality and length EBHP –vowel length and vowel quality; suffix ū TH - vowel quality; suffix u IH - vowel quality; suffix u
/ˈšalamū/ > /šaˈlamū/	/šaˈlạmū/ [ʃɐˈlɐ̣muˑ] “they became complete etc.”	שָׁלְמוּ /šålˈmu/ [ʃɔːlәˈmuː]	[ʃɐlˈmu]
/maˈrādu/ > /maˈrōdu/ √RWD	*/maˈrōd/ [mɐˈɾoːd] “homelessness”	מָרוֹד /måˈrod/ [mɔːˈɾoːð]	[mɐˈʁ̞od]	Note the regular noun formation /maˈqālu/ from √QWL. מָקוֹם √QWM] “place”; מָלוֹן √LWN “inn” All periods context only
/maˈrādu/> /maˈrōdu/ √RWD	/maˈrōd/ [mɐˈroːd] (qal inf. abs.) “rebelling”	/måˈrod/ [mɔːˈroːð]	[maˈʁ̞od]
/ˈðakaru/ → /zaˈkaru/	/zaˈkaːr/ [zɐˈkaːɾ] “male”	זָכָר /zåˈkår/ [zɔːˈxɔːɾ]	[zaˈxaʁ̞]	PH – vowel length (u - ū) EBHP – suffix ū TH - vowel quality and suffix u IH - vowel distribution and quality and suffix u
/ˈðakarū/ → /zaˈkarū/	/zaˈkạrū/ [zɐˈkɐ̣ɾuˑ] (qal SC 3ms.) “they remembered”	זָכְרוּ /zåkˈru/ [zɔːxәˈɾuː]	[zaxˈʁ̞u]
	/kaˈbid/ [kɐˈbɪd] “he was heavy” (qal. 3ms. SC)	כָּבֵד /kåˈbẹd/ [kɔːˈvẹːð]	[kaˈvɛd]	EBHP – vowel and consonant length TH - vowel quality and residually consonant length IH - consonant quality and context
	/kaˈbeːd/ [kɐˈbẹːd] “heavy” (adj. = ms. part. qal.)	כָּבֵד /kåˈbẹd/ [kɔːˈvẹːð]	[kaˈvɛd]
	/kabˈbid/ [kabˈbid] “honour!” (piel. m. s. imp.)	כַּבֵּד /kabˈbẹd/ [kɐbˈbẹːð]	[kaˈbɛd]
	/ˈḥagg/ [ˈħɐgg] “festival” [HGG]	חַג /ˈḥag/ [ˈħɐːɣ] OR חָג /ˈḥåg/ [ˈħɔːɣ]	[ˈxag]	EBHP – vowel length and consonant length TH - vowel quality (where “festival” vocalized ḥag) or none (where “festival” vocalized ḥåg) IH - context
	/ˈḥâg/ [ˈħagg] “he described a circle [HWG]	חָג /ˈḥåg/ [ˈħɔːɣ]	[ˈxag]
/ˈ’āsiru/ > /ˈ’ōsiru/ > /’ōˈsiru/	/’ōˈseːr/ [’oːˈsẹːɾ] (qal a.p.) “one who ties”	אֹסֵר /’oˈsẹr/ [’oːˈsẹːɾ]	[oˈsɛʁ̞]	PH – vowel length EBHP –vowel length and vowel quality TH and IH - vowel quality
/’aˈsīru/	/’aˈsīr/ [’ɐˈsiːɾ] “prisoner”	אָסִיר /’åˈsir/ [’ɔːˈsiːɾ]	[aˈsiʁ̞]
/ˈqabbiru/ > /qabˈbir/	/qabˈbeːr/ [qɐbˈbẹːɾ] (piel inf. constr.) “burying” (more than one body)	קַבֵּר /qabˈbẹr/ [qabˈbẹːɾ]	[kaˈbɛʁ̞]	PH –vowel length, vowel distribution and consonant length EBHP – vowel length, vowel quality, vowel distribution and consonant length TH - vowel quality, vowel distribution, stress and residually consonant length IH - vowel and consonant quality.
/ˈqābiru/ > /qōˈbiru/	/qōˈbeːr/ [qoːˈbẹːɾ] (qal ms. act. part.) “burier”	קוֹבֵר /qoˈbẹr/ [qoːˈvẹːɾ]	[koˈvɛʁ̞]
/ˈqabru/	/ˈqabr/ [ˈqɐbɾ]? [ˈqɐbәɾ]? “tomb”	קֶבֶר /ˈqɛbɛr/ [ˈqɛːvɛɾ]	[ˈkɛvɛʁ̞]
/ˈsūgaru/ > /sūˈgaru/	/sūˈgar/ [suːˈgɐr] “cage”	סוּגַר /suˈgar/ [suːˈɣaːr]	[suˈgaʁ̞]	PH – vowel quality and length EBHP - vowel quality and length TH and IH - vowel quality
/ˈsagūru/ > /saˈgūru/	/saˈgūr/ [sɐˈguːɾ] (qal p.p.) “closed”	סָגוּר /såˈgur/ [sɔːˈɣuːɾ]	[saˈguʁ̞]
/ˈsūgaru/ > /sūˈgaru/	/sūˈgar/ [suːˈgɐɾ] “cage”	סוּגַר /suˈgar/ [suːˈɣaːɾ]	[suˈgaʁ̞]	PH – vowel length, consonant length and vowel quality of suffix. EBHP –vowel length and consonant length TH - Consonant length IH - context
/ˈsuggara/ > /sugˈgara/	/sugˈgar/ [sʊgˈgɐɾ] (pual 3rd ms. SC) “it was closed”	סֻגַּר /sugˈgar/ [sugˈgɐːɾ]	[suˈgaʁ̞]
/gaˈdālu/ > /gaˈdōlu/	/gaˈdōl/ [gɐˈdoːl] (qal inf. abs..) “becoming big”	גָּדוֹל /gåˈdol/ [gɔːˈðoːl][31]	[gaˈdol]	PH – vowel quality and length EBHP – vowel quality and length TH and IH - none
/ˈgadulu/ > /gaˈdulu/	/gaˈdoːl/ [gɐˈdoːl] (adj.) “big”	גָּדוֹל /gåˈdol/ [gɔːˈðoːl]	[gaˈdol]
/ˈgudlu/	/ˈgudl/ [ˈgʊdl]? [ˈgʊdәl]? [ˈgo̞dәl]? “greatness”	גֹדֶל /ˈgodɛl/ [ˈgoːðɛl]	[ˈgodɛl]	PH – vowel length and pattern and consonant length EBHP – vowel length and pattern and consonant length TH - vowel quality and residually consonant length IH - vowel quality and pattern
/ˈguddalū/ /gudˈdalū/	/gudˈdạlū/ [gʊdˈdɐ̣luˑ] “they were magnified”	גֻּדְּלוּ /guddәˈlu/ [guddәˈluː]	[gudˈlu]
/ˈsipru/	/ˈsipr/ [ˈsɪpɾ]? [ˈsɪpәɾ]? “book”	סֵפֶר /ˈsẹpɛr/ [ˈsẹːfɛɾ]	[ˈsɛfɛr]	PH – vowel quality, length and pattern and consonant length EBHP – vowel quality, length and pattern, stress and consonant length TH - vowel quality and pattern; stress; residually consonant length IH - vowel quality and pattern; stress; consonant quality.
/ˈsapparū/ → /sipˈpirū/	/sipˈpịrū/ [sɪpˈpɪ̣ɾuˑ] “they recounted” (piel 3rd pl. SC)	סִפְּרוּ /sippˈru/ [sippәˈɾuː]	[sipˈʁ̞u]
/ˈsupurū/ > /suˈpurū/	/suˈpurū/ [sʊˈpʊ̣ɾuˑ] > /sˈpurū/ [sŭˈpʊɾuˑ] “count” (qal ms. imp.)	סִפְרוּ /sipˈru/ [sifˈɾuː]	[sifˈʁ̞u]
/ˈraḥabu/ > /raˈḥabu/	/raˈḥaːb/ [rɐˈħaːb] “wide”	רָחָב /råˈḥåb/ [rɔːˈħɔːv]	[ʁ̞aˈxav]	PH – vowel length EBHP - vowel quality and length TH and IH - vowel quality
/raˈḥābu/ > /raˈḥōbu/	/raˈḥōb/ [ɾɐˈħoːb] (qal inf. abs.) “spreading”	רָחוֹב /råˈḥob/ [ɾɔːˈħoːv]	[ʁ̞aˈxov]
/ˈqaṣiru/ > /qaˈṣiru/	/qaˈṣeːr/ [qɐˈṣẹːɾ] “short”	קָצֵר /qåˈṣẹr/ [qɔːˈṣẹːɾ]	[kaˈtsɛʁ̞]	PH – vowel length EBHP - vowel length TH and IH - vowel quality
/qaˈṣīru/	/qaˈṣīr/ [qɐˈṣiːɾ] “harvest”	קָצִיר /qåˈṣir/ [qɔːˈṣiːɾ]	[kaˈtsiʁ̞]
/ˈšabū/? /ˈšābū/? √ŠWB	/ˈšâbū/ [ˈʃaːbuˑ] “they returned”	שָׁבוּ /ˈšåbu/ [ˈʃɔːvuː]	[ˈʃavu]	EBHP - vowel length and stress TH and IH – stress
/ˈšabayū/ > /šaˈbayū/ √ŠBY	/šaˈbū/ [ʃɐˈbuː] “they took prisoner”	שָׁבוּ /šåˈbu/ [ʃɔːˈvuː]	[ʃaˈvu]	EBHP - vowel length and stress TH and IH – stress
/ˈšab/? /ˈšāba/? √ŠWB	/ˈšâb/ [ˈʃaːb] “he returned”	שָׁב /ˈšåb/ [ˈʃɔːv]	[ˈʃav]	EBHP - vowel length, stress and suffix ā TH and IH – stress and suffix
/ˈšabat/? /ˈšābat/?	/ˈšābâ/ [ˈʃaːbɐˑ] “she returned”	שָׁבָה /ˈšåbå/ [ˈʃɔːvɔː]	שָב [ˈʃava]
/ˈšabaya/ > /šaˈbaya/ √ŠBY	/šaˈbâ/ [ʃɐˈbɐː] “he took prisoner”	שָׁבָה /šåˈbå/ [ʃɔːˈvɔː]	[ʃaˈva]
/ˈšaba/ √ŠWB	/ˈšâb/ [ˈʃaːb] “he returned”	שָׁב /ˈšåb/ [ʃɔːv]	[ˈʃav]	EBHP - vowel and consonant length TH - vowel quality IH - none
/ˈšabba/ √ŠBB	/ˈšabb/ [ˈʃɐbb] “he cut down”	שַׁב /ˈšab/ [ʃɐːv]	[ˈʃav]

c. Consonantal Phonemes

Table - Reflexes of Proto-Semitic sounds in daughter languages

Table 9 - Consonants in EBHP, TH, [BH_IH]and[TH_{CSP IS-ENG}][32]
*Hebrew Letter*	*EBHP* **/EBHP/* **[EBHP]* *(c. 850-550 BCE)*	TH /TH/⁺ [TH] (c. 850 CE)*	*BH_IH* [*BH_IH] = [IH]* (present)**	[TH_{CSP IS-ENG}]
א	/ʾ/ [ʔ][33]	/ʾ/ [ʔ, -] *Silent when word or syllable final.*	[Ø]	[Ø]
בּ	/b/ [b] bilabial, stop, voiced	/b/ 2 allophones in complementary distribution בּ = [b] and ב = b [v]	[b] [34]	[b]
ב	/b/ [b] bilabial, stop, voiced		[v]	[v]
גּ	/g/ [ɡ]	/g/ Two allophones in complementary distribution גּ = [ɡ] and ג = g, ġ [ʁ] or nearly identical [ɣ]^{^[35]} (I will use [ɣ] in [TH] transcriptions)	[ɡ]	[ɡ]
ג	/g/ [ɡ]		[ɡ]	[ɡ]
דּ	/d/ [d]	/d/ 2 allophones in complementary distribution דּ = [d] and ד = d [ð]	[d]	[d]
ד	/d/ [d]		[d]	[d]
ה	/h/ [h]	/h/ [h]	Rarely [h] frequently silent [Ø] or glottal stop [ʔ]	[h]
הּ	consonantal [h] at end of word	consonantal [h] at end of word	[Ø]	[Ø]
ו	/w/ [w]	/w/ [w] (possibly [v][36]) *(I will use [w] in* *[TH]* *transcriptions)*	[v]	[v] or [w]
ז	/z/ [z]	/z/ [z]	[z]	[z]
ח	a polyphonic letter in BH representing /ḥ/ [ħ] or /ḫ/ [x][37] depending on its PS origin.	/ḥ/ [ħ]	[x]	[x]
ט	/ṭ/ [t̪ˁ]	/ṭ/ [t̪ˁ] *(nb. I use [ṭ] in the case of the root* קטל *used conventionally for grammatical examples)*	[t] *(identical in pronunciation to* ת)	[t] *(identical in pronunciation to* ת)
י	/y/ [j] *(I will use [y] in [BH]* *transcriptions)*	/y/ [j] *(I will use [y] in [TH]* *transcriptions)*	[j][38] *(I will use [y] in [IH]* *and* [TH_{CSP IS-ENG}] *transcriptions)*	[j]
כּ	/k/ [k]	/k/ 2 allophones in complementary distribution כּ = k [k] or [kʰ] and כ = k [x]	[k]	[k]
כ	/k/ [k]		[x]	[x]
ל	/l/ [l]	/l/ [l]	[l]	[l]
מ	/m/ [m]	/m/ [m]	[m]	[m]
נ	/n/ [n]	/n/ [n]	[n]	[n]
ס	/s/ [s]	/s/ [s]	[s]	[s]
ע	a polyphonic letter in BH representing /^c/[ʕ][39] or /ġ/ [ɣ] depending on its PS origin. ([ɣ]is very close to [ʁ̞])	/^c/[ʕ]	[Ø]	[Ø]
פּ	/p/ [p]	/p/ 2 allophones in complementary distribution פּ = p [p] and פ = p [f]	[p]	[p]
פ	/p/ [p]		[f]	[f]
צ	/ṣ/ [sˁ] Less likely [ ʦ͡ ]	/ṣ/ [sˁ]	[ ʦ͡]	[ ʦ͡]
ק	/q/[40] [kˁ]	/q/ [kˁ]	[k]	[k]
ר	/r/ [ɾ][41]	/r/ [ɾ]	[ʁ̞][42]	[ɾ]
שׂ	/ś/ [ɬ][43]	/ś/ [s]	[s]	[s]
שׁ	/š/ [ʃ][44]	/š/ [ʃ]	[ʃ]	[ʃ]
תּ	/t/ [t]	/t/ 2 allophones in complementary distribution תּ = [t] and ת = t [θ]	[t]	[t]
ת	/t/ [t]		[t]	[t]
22	26 phonemes	24 phonemes

Table 10 - EBHP Heterogeneous Diphthongs and their Development in LBHP, TH and BH_IH
	*EBHP* **/EBHP/* **[EBHP]* *(c. 850-550 BCE)*	TH /TH/⁺ [TH] (c. 850 CE)*	*BH_IH* [*BH_IH] = [IH]* (present)**
*Carrying primary stress*	/áy/ = [ɐ́y]	/áy/ = [ɐ́y]	[ɐ́y]
*Unstressed or carrying secondary stress*	/ay/ or /ày/ = [ɛy][45]	/ay/ or /ày/ = ê [ẹː]	[ɛ]
*Carrying primary stress*	/áw/ = [ɐ́w]	/áw/ = [ɐ́w]	[ɐ́w]
*Unstressed or carrying secondary stress*	/aw/ or /àw/ = [ɔ̝w]	/aw/ or /àw/ = ô [oː]	[o̞]

Box 14 - Consonantal Polyphony in Biblical Hebrew
Sibilants BH (Biblical Hebrew) had at its inception three sibilants שׁ /š/, שׂ /ś/ and ס /s/. We do not know for sure how the second phoneme was originally pronounced (today it is pronounced like ס = s). A few generations ago, scholars believed that /ś/ was only a kind of offshoot of the /š/ which had developed within Hebrew (and Aramaic). This view has been discarded for three reasons: 1) Hebrew /ś/ is always paralleled in Arabic by one consonant, while the equivalent of Hebrew /š/, is another consonant … 2) South Arabic, both that of the inscriptions and of the modern dialects has indeed preserved three different phonemes exactly paralleling the three Hebrew phonemes dealt with here. 3) Hebrew /š/ and /ś/ are never interchanged except in foreign loans שׂריון - שׁריון 'armor'. Therefore there is no reason to doubt that in Hebrew as in South Arabic there existed three different phonemes /š, ś, s/. represented by שׁ,שׂ, ס…. The alphabet was apparently invented by a people whose language possessed only two of these three phonemes. When it was adopted by other peoples such as the Jews and Arameans, whose language had all three phonemes, they simply employed one sign for two phonemes instead of adding a new sign. Apparently they chose the ש sign because the pronunciation of the /ś/ was close to that of the /š/... But the pronunciation of the /ś/ did not remain stable even during Biblical times. In the course of several centuries it came close to that of the /s/ and finally merged with it. We know when this process came to an end because especially in the later books of the Bible there appear several roots containing an original /ś/ spelled with a /s/ e.g., סֹכְרִים 'they hire’ (Ezra 4. 5: = שׂכְרִים). In MH most of the roots containing an original /ś/ are already spelled with samekh…. Gutturals The pharyngals /^c, ḥ/: Each of these pharyngals represents a merger of two PS (Proto-Semitic language ) phonemes. The phonemes that disappeared are /x/ (pronounced as in Bach, Scottish loch or Yiddish ich) and /ġ/ (pronounced like a fricative /g/). When did these phonemes disappear? At first glance it would seem that they disappeared before Hebrew was committed to writing, or else we should have expected to find in the Hebrew alphabet a special grapheme for their notation. But in the light of our discussion of the notation of /ś/ and /š/ by the same grapheme … this conclusion would he hasty because there is reason to believe that these phonemes did in fact exist during Biblical times, and that, as in the case of /ś/, it was only for lack of a grapheme of their own that the graphemes ח,ע respectively were used for them. In other words, we can assume that ח was used during Biblical times to indicate both the pharyngal /ḥ/ and the velar /x/ while the sign ע did service for both the pharyngal /^c/ and the velar /ġ/. It should be mentioned that Arabic, which possesses all four of these sounds does indeed use the graphemes ح = ḥ; خ = ḫ ; ع = ^c; غ = ġ for the two other sounds and distinguishes between the two pairs by means of a diacritical point (compare Hebrew שׂ,שׁ). ח (/ḥ/) and ע (/^c/) in Greek Transcriptions. §25. … This assumption is borne out by the transcriptions of the Septuagint from the third-second centuries B.C.E…. Here we find that while some ḥets do not seem to appear in certain names, e.g., Isaac = יִצְחָק , others are transliterated by the Greek ϰ (chi, henceforth written ch ) the pronunciation of which corresponds to the above mentioned German, Yiddish and Scottish /x/, e.g., Rachel = רָחֵל, Achiezer = אֲחִיעֵזֶר The same holds true for the ^cayin. While some 'ayins do not appear in the Greek transcription, e.g., in the name Iakob = יַעֲקֹב others do, e.g., Gaza = עַזָּה, (the Greeks, for lack of an adequate letter, use the Greek letter Γ = /g/ to denote the sound). Although more detailed research is required to clarify the picture, it can safely be stated on the basis of comparison with Arabic that the lxl is employed mainly where the parallel Arabic root has a /x/, while in words in which Hebrew ḥet parallels Arabic /ḥ/. Greek, for lack of an adequate grapheme, has no consonantal notation. The same applies to the ghayin in as in the case of the name of the city of עַזָּה which is transliterated in the Septuagint with a lgl - Gaza since the ^cayin in this word, exactly as in its modern Arabic form, was pronounced as a velar lġl. As is well known, the Arabic form, transliterated by Europeans as Gaza, is in use outside of Israel. These instances go a long way towards proving that during the third and second centuries each of the two signs ח,ע was pronounced in either of two ways in different words, and each pronunciation represented the PS pronunciation of the two different phonemes that survived in Arabic until today. The Merger of /x/ with /ḥ/and /ġ/ with /^c/…. However, during the course of the next few centuries, one of the pronunciations of the two signs disappeared. This is proved by the fact that the transcriptions of the Hexapla from the second to third centuries C.E. never employ the letter chi for the ḥet and gamma for the ^cayin (cf. §§245, 247). The Masoretes who vocalized the Hebrew text during the second half of the first millennium C.F. no longer distinguished between two kinds of ḥet and two kinds of ^cayin. This is not surprising since their vocalization of the Hebrew text aimed at transmitting the last stage of spoken Hebrew which, as we said, already lacked the above mentioned distinctions. Quoted from Kutscher 1982 pp. 13, 14, 17, 18. For more information see Blau 1982, Steiner 2006. See - A Lexicon of Unmarked Consonantal Phonemes in Biblical Hebrew: 1. /ḫ/ [x] 2. /ġ/ [ɣ]

Box 14 - Consonantal Polyphony in Biblical Hebrew

Sibilants

BH (Biblical Hebrew) had at its inception three sibilants שׁ /š/, שׂ /ś/ and ס /s/. We do not know for sure how the second phoneme was originally pronounced (today it is pronounced like ס = s). A few generations ago, scholars believed that /ś/ was only a kind of offshoot of the /š/ which had developed within Hebrew (and Aramaic). This view has been discarded for three reasons:

1) Hebrew /ś/ is always paralleled in Arabic by one consonant, while the equivalent of Hebrew /š/, is another consonant …

2) South Arabic, both that of the inscriptions and of the modern dialects has indeed preserved three different phonemes exactly paralleling the three Hebrew phonemes dealt with here.

3) Hebrew /š/ and /ś/ are never interchanged except in foreign loans שׂריון - שׁריון 'armor'. Therefore there is no reason to doubt that in Hebrew as in South Arabic there existed three different phonemes /š, ś, s/. represented by שׁ,שׂ, ס…. The alphabet was apparently invented by a people whose language possessed only two of these three phonemes. When it was adopted by other peoples such as the Jews and Arameans, whose language had all three phonemes, they simply employed one sign for two phonemes instead of adding a new sign. Apparently they chose the ש sign because the pronunciation of the /ś/ was close to that of the /š/...

But the pronunciation of the /ś/ did not remain stable even during Biblical times. In the course of several centuries it came close to that of the /s/ and finally merged with it. We know when this process came to an end because especially in the later books of the Bible there appear several roots containing an original /ś/ spelled with a /s/ e.g., סֹכְרִים 'they hire’ (Ezra 4. 5: = שׂכְרִים). In MH most of the roots containing an original /ś/ are already spelled with samekh….

Gutturals

The pharyngals /^c, ḥ/: Each of these pharyngals represents a merger of two PS (Proto-Semitic language ) phonemes. The phonemes that disappeared are /x/ (pronounced as in Bach, Scottish loch or Yiddish ich) and /ġ/ (pronounced like a fricative /g/). When did these phonemes disappear? At first glance it would seem that they disappeared before Hebrew was committed to writing, or else we should have expected to find in the Hebrew alphabet a special grapheme for their notation.

But in the light of our discussion of the notation of /ś/ and /š/ by the same grapheme … this conclusion would he hasty because there is reason to believe that these phonemes did in fact exist during Biblical times, and that, as in the case of /ś/, it was only for lack of a grapheme of their own that the graphemes ח,ע respectively were used for them. In other words, we can assume that ח was used during Biblical times to indicate both the pharyngal /ḥ/ and the velar /x/ while the sign ע did service for both the pharyngal /^c/ and the velar /ġ/. It should be mentioned that Arabic, which possesses all four of these sounds does indeed use the graphemes ح = ḥ; خ = ḫ ; ع = ^c; غ = ġ for the two other sounds and distinguishes between the two pairs by means of a diacritical point (compare Hebrew שׂ,שׁ).

ח (/ḥ/) and ע (/^c/) in Greek Transcriptions. §25. … This assumption is borne out by the transcriptions of the Septuagint from the third-second centuries B.C.E…. Here we find that while some ḥets do not seem to appear in certain names, e.g., Isaac = יִצְחָק , others are transliterated by the Greek ϰ (chi, henceforth written ch ) the pronunciation of which corresponds to the above mentioned German, Yiddish and Scottish /x/, e.g., Rachel = רָחֵל, Achiezer = אֲחִיעֵזֶר The same holds true for the ^cayin. While some 'ayins do not appear in the Greek transcription, e.g., in the name Iakob = יַעֲקֹב others do, e.g., Gaza = עַזָּה, (the Greeks, for lack of an adequate letter, use the Greek letter Γ = /g/ to denote the sound). Although more detailed research is required to clarify the picture, it can safely be stated on the basis of comparison with Arabic that the lxl is employed mainly where the parallel Arabic root has a /x/, while in words in which Hebrew ḥet parallels Arabic /ḥ/. Greek, for lack of an adequate grapheme, has no consonantal notation. The same applies to the ghayin in as in the case of the name of the city of עַזָּה which is transliterated in the Septuagint with a lgl - Gaza since the ^cayin in this word, exactly as in its modern Arabic form, was pronounced as a velar lġl. As is well known, the Arabic form, transliterated by Europeans as Gaza, is in use outside of Israel.

These instances go a long way towards proving that during the third and second centuries each of the two signs ח,ע was pronounced in either of two ways in different words, and each pronunciation represented the PS pronunciation of the two different phonemes that survived in Arabic until today.

The Merger of /x/ with /ḥ/and /ġ/ with /^c/…. However, during the course of the next few centuries, one of the pronunciations of the two signs disappeared. This is proved by the fact that the transcriptions of the Hexapla from the second to third centuries C.E. never employ the letter chi for the ḥet and gamma for the ^cayin (cf. §§245, 247). The Masoretes who vocalized the Hebrew text during the second half of the first millennium C.F. no longer distinguished between two kinds of ḥet and two kinds of ^cayin. This is not surprising since their vocalization of the Hebrew text aimed at transmitting the last stage of spoken Hebrew which, as we said, already lacked the above mentioned distinctions.

Quoted from Kutscher 1982 pp. 13, 14, 17, 18. For more information see Blau 1982, Steiner 2006.

See - A Lexicon of Unmarked Consonantal Phonemes in Biblical Hebrew:

1. /ḫ/ [x]

2. /ġ/ [ɣ]


Table 11[46] - Consonantal Minimal Pairs in *EBHP* No Longer Valid in Later Hebrew
*Consonantal* *Phonemes*	*EBHP* /EBHP/⁺ (c. 850-550 BCE)*	TH /TH/⁺ **[TH]* *(c. 850 CE)*	*BH_IH* [*BH_IH] = [IH]* (present)**
/t/:/ṭ/	נתעו (/nitˈta^cū/ "they have broken out" Jb. 4:10) : נטעו (/niṭˈṭa^cū/ "they were planted" Is. 40:24)	נִתָּעוּ /nitˈtå^cu/ [nitˈtɔː^cuː] : נִטָּעוּ /niṭˈṭå^cu/ [niṭˈṭɔː^cuː]	Both pronounced [niˈtu]
/t/:/ṭ/	שתו (/ˈšātū/ "they put"): שטו (/ˈšāṭū/ "they went back and forth")	ׄשָתוּ/ˈšåtu/ [ˈʃɔːtuː] : שָטוּ /ˈšåṭu/ [ˈʃɔːṭuː]	Both pronounced [ˈʃɐtu]
/ḥ/:/ḫ/	חפר (qal √ḪPR "to be shy") : חרף (qal √ḤPR "to dig")	Merged as √ḤPR	Both pronounced ḫpr
	חרף (qal √ḪRP "to spend the winter") : חרף (qal √ḤRP "to annoy, taunt")	Merged as √ḤRP	Both pronounced ḫrf
	חרם (/ˈḫirm/ = "a net") : חרם (/ˈḥirm/ = "devoted thing")	Both /ˈḥẹrɛm/ [ˈħẹː*ɾɛm]	Both pronounced [ˈxɛʁ̞ɛm]
	פתח (/pitˈtiḫ/ "he engraved") : פתח (/pitˈtiḥ/ "he opened")	Both פִּתַּח /pitˈtaḥ/* [pitˈtɐːħ]	Both pronounced [piˈtɛ.ɐx]
	חרם (hiphil √ḪRM "to divide, split") : חרם (hiphil √ḤRM "to place under the ban")	Merged as √ḤRM	Both pronounced [xrm]
/ḥ/:/k/	שחר (qal /šaˈḥar/ "it became black") : שכר (qal /šaˈkar/ "he became drunk")	ׁשָחַר /šåˈḥar/ : ׁשָכַר /šåˈkar/	Both pronounced [ʃɐˈxɐʁ̞]
^c/ʕ/:ġ/ɣ/	עשה (qal √^cŚH "to do, make"): עשה (qal √ĠŚH "to protect, cover, turn toward")	Merged as /^cåˈśå/	Both pronounced [ɐˈsɐ]
’/ʔ/:^c/ʕ/	אצר (/ʾaˈṣar/ qal* "he gathered up") : עצר (/^caˈṣar/ or /ġaˈṣar/ qal "he restrained")	/ʾåˈṣar/ : /^cåˈṣar/	Both pronounced [ɐtzˈɐʁ̞]
’/ʔ/:^c/ʕ/:ġ/ɣ/: /h/	אלם (√ʾLM "to be dumb") : עלם (√^cLM "to be concealed") : עלם (√ĠLM "to become dark") : הלם (√HLM "to strike") :	/’lm/ : /^clm/ : /hlm/	all pronounced with the first historic consonant (/’,^c, h/ ) silent [Ø].
/k/:/q/	יקרה (/yiqqaˈrê/ niphal* "he will encounter") : יכרה (/yikkaˈrê/ niphal "it will be dug")	יקרה /yiqqåˈrẹ/ [yiqqɔːˈɾẹː]: יכרה /yikkåˈrẹ/ [yikkɔːˈɾẹː]	Both pronounced [ikɐˈʁ̞ɛ]
/k/:/q/	תכהינה (/tikˈhêna(ː)/ "they (f. p.) grow dim") : תקהינה (/tiqˈhêna(ː)/ "they (f. p.) were/became blunt dim")	תִּכְהֶינָה /tikˈhɛnå/ : תִּקְהֶינָה /tiqˈhɛnå/	[tix'ɛna] : [tik'ɛna]
/s/:/ś/:/š/	שכר (/śaˈkar/ "he hired") : שכר (/šaˈkar/ "he became drunk:) : סכר (/saˈkar*/ "he closed")	ֺשָׁכַר (/šåˈkar/ "he became drunk:) : סכר "he closed") and שָֺכַר "he hired") both pronounced ([sɔːˈxɐːɾ])	שָׁכַר ([ʃɐˈxɐʁ̞] "he became drunk:) : סכר ([sɐˈxɐʁ̞] "he closed") and שָֺכַר ([sɐˈxɐʁ̞] "he hired")

Table 12

Voiced, Voiceless and Emphatic Consonants in *EBHP

Place of Articulation

בּ = /b/

(בעל */baˈ^cal/ "he married")

פּ = /p/

(פעל */paˈ^cal/ "he made")

non-existent

Dentals

ד = /d/

(דלל "to be thin, poor")

ת = /t/

(תלם "furrow")

(תלל "to mock")

ט = /t̪ˁ/

(טלם a place name and possibly also a noun meaning "black" or the like)

(טלל "to resonate")

Sibilants

ז = /z/

(פרז "to be isolated")

ס = /s/

(פרס "to split, break bread")

שׂ = /ś/

(פרש "to spread out, stretch over")

שׁ = /š/

(פרש "to give a clear decision")

צ = /sˁ/

(פרץ "to break through")

Palatals-velars

ג = /ɡ/

(גבל */gaˈbal/ "he marked a boundary")

כּ = /k/

(כבל "binding")

ק = /kˁ/

(קבל "receiving")

(פרק "to tear away")

Velar fricatives

ע =/ġ/

(עדר ġdr place name "pool")

(עלם "to be dark")

(עלם ġlm "young man")

ח = /ḫ/

(חדר ḫdr "to dwell")

(חרם ḫirm "a net")

non-existent

Pharyngals

ע = /^c/

(עלם "duration")

ח = /ḥ/ [ħ]

(חרם */ˈḥirm/ "devoted thing")

(חלם */ḥaˈlam/ "he dreamed")

non-existent

Laryngals or glottals

א = /’/

(אלם */ˈ’ilm/ "silence")

ה = /h/

(הלם */haˈlam/ "he struck")

non-existent

Table 13 - Proto-Semitic Phonemes (Consonants) Exhibiting Sound Shifts in Hebrew and their Equivalents in Aramaic and Classical Arabic
PS /PS/ (c. 3000 BCE)*	*Reconstructed Classical Arabic*	*Reconstructed Aramaic*	EBHP[49] (c. 850-550 BCE)*	IH */IH/ [IH]*[50] *(present)*	*Hebrew Letter*
/’/ = /ʔ/	/ʔ/	/ʔ/	/ʔ/	/’/ [Ø]	א
/h/	/h/	/h/	/h/	/h/ Rarely [h] frequently [Ø] or [ʔ]	ה
/w/	/w/	/w/	/w/	/w/ [v]	ו
/d/ = /δ/	/δ/	/d/	/z/[51]	/z/ [z]	ז
/ħ/	/ħ/	/ħ/	/ħ/	/ḥ/ [x]	ח
/x/ = /ḫ/	/ḫ/	/ḫ/	/ḫ/	/ḥ/ [x]	ח
/ṭ/ = /t̪ˁ/	/tˤ/	/tʼ/	/ṭ/ = /t̪ˁ/	/ṭ/ [t]	ט
/^c/ = /ʕ/	/ʕ/	/ʕ/ [Ø] in some later dialects	/ʔ/	/’/ [Ø]	ע
/ġ/ = /ɣ/	/ɣ/	/ɣ/ > /ʕ/ [Ø] in some later dialects	/ġ/	/’/ [Ø]	ע
/p/	/f/	/p/	/p/	/p/ [p]	פ
*/ṭ/ = /ṱ/**	/ðˁ/	/ṭ/	/ṣ/	/ṭ/ [ ʦ͡]	צ
/ṣ/ = /sʼ/	/sˁ/	/ṣ/
/ṣ́/	/ḍ/	/^c/
/q/ = /ḳ/	/q/	/q/	/q/	/q/ [k]	ק
/d/ = /θ/	/θ/	/t/	[š][52]	/š/ [ʃ]	שׁ
/ɬ/ = /ś/	/š/	/s/	/ś/	/ś/ [s]	שׂ

See העברית ׀הלשונות הקרבות לה מאת מאיר מדן in מקראה לתורת ההגה ed. Uzi Ornan Hebrew University 1977

* for Proto-Semitic phonemes see p 112 ff of Lipinski 1997

** this may be a recreation of an old pronunciation see sect.14.7 in Lipinski 1997

N.b. Sounds lost in earlier periods of the development of Hebrew sometimes reappear in later periods. Thus:

· In the Late Bronze or early Iron Age [θ] > [ʃ], thus merging with š=sh [ʃ]. This sound [θ] re-emerged with the spirantization of the bgdkpt consonants, which resulted in their dual realization as plosives or fricatives with [θ] being the fricative allophone of ת /t/;

· The case is similar with [δ] > [z] which thus merged with [z]. This sound re-emerged with the Spirantization of the bgdkpt consonants with [δ] being the fricative allophone of ד /d* /;

· Slightly different are the cases of /ġ/[ɣ] and /ḫ/[x]. Some time after 300 BCE /ġ/[ɣ] > /^c/ [ʕ] and /ḫ/[x] > /ḥ/ [ħ] thus merging with the original /^c/ and /ḥ/ respectively. Prior to this merger these sounds had, while still remaining as historical phonemes in all contexts, also appeared as the fricative allophones of ג /g/ and כ /k/ respectively. They remained as the fricative allophones of ג and כ even after they disappeared in other contexts. In Israeli Hebrew /r/ [ʁ] is closer to [ġ]/[ɣ] than it is to the ancient /r/ [ɾ].

Table 14

Biblical Hebrew Phonemes (Consonants) of Multiple Origin

their Equivalents in Proto-Semitic, Classical Arabic, Aramaic and Ugaritic

*Hebrew* *Letter*	*EBHP* /EBHP/ [EBHP] *(c. 850-550 BCE)*	*Hebrew* *Example*	PS /PS/ (c. 3000 BCE)*	*Reconstructed* *Classical Arabic*	*Reconstructed* *Aramaic*	*Reconstructed* *Ugaritic*
ז	/z/	זהב	/δ/	/δ/ ذ	/δ/ > /d/	/δ/ > /d/
ז	/z/	זון	/z/	/z/ ز	/z/	/z/
ח	/ḫ/	חרד	/ḫ/	/ḫ/ خ	/ḫ/	/ḫ/
ח	/ḥ/	חרב	/ḥ/	/ḥ/ ح	/ḥ/	/ḥ/
ע	/^c/ = /ʕ/	צעד	/^c/	/^c/ ع	/^c/	/^c/
ע	/ġ/ = /ɣ/	עזה	/ġ/	/ġ/ غ	/ġ/ > /^c/	/ġ/
צ	/ṣ/ = /sˁ/	קיץ	/ṱ/	/ẓ/ ظ	/ṱ/^>/ṭ/	/ṱ/ > /ġ/
צ		צער	/ṣ/	/ṣ/ ص	/ṣ/	/ṣ/
צ		ארץ	/ṣ/	/ḍ/ ض	/^c/	/ṱ/ > /ġ/

Nb.

1. The unpointed Hebrew of biblical times 3 letters (ח, ע, and ש) each stood for two phonemes. This lack of sufficient letters probably reflects the sound system of the dialect of the Phoenician scribes from whom the Judeans borrowed the writing system. See Blau 1982.

2. The final ה (not הּ) in tri-literal roots were originally final י orו hence another opportunity for the development of homonyms.

3. The initial י in tri-literal roots were originally either י or ו.

4. For a complete list of equivalences see Blau 1976/93 p. 6

Return to Table of Contents

[1] See Joϋon-Muraoka 1991 § 5-9.

[2] Jenssens1994, Knobloch 1995, Sáenz-Badillos pp. 80-86; Manuel 1995 pp. 130-167; Hoffman pp. 85-117; Ben-Ḥayyim 1954. As noted by Sáenz-Badillos (p. 80) - (n.b. bolding my own)

The numerous Greek and Latin transcriptions of Hebrew names and other expressions, which date from the third century BCE to the fourth century CE, undoubtedly provide first-hand information.... Because we know far more about the phonology and pronunciation of Greek and Latin than of the Semitic languages, these transcriptions represent an invaluable witness to the Hebrew of this period. On the other hand, it has to be recognized as well that there are considerable difficulties involved. In the first place, the phonology of Greek and Latin is very different from that of Hebrew, and these languages do not possess graphemes that can exactly represent the sounds of Hebrew. And although we do not know what judgements were actually made when transcribing so different a language, the authors of the transcriptions would certainly have approached Hebrew from the phonological perspective of their own language. The variation of place and time is also a problem, as we cannot simply accept that BH, which had already ceased to be a living language, underwent a unified development in places as diverse as Alexandria and Palestine. Neither do we know if the data afforded by the transcriptions correspond to the standard, more or less official, pronunciation of Hebrew in this period or to dialect or substandard forms. On top of all these difficulties is the fact that the transcriptions have to be studied in manuscripts that are frequently late and deffective, presenting many variants ard corruptions in names that the copyists found completely alien.

[3] See publications of Revell; Sáenz-Badillos pp. 86-94; Manuel 1995 pp. 168-198. In most features this tradition is fairly close to the Tiberian - see Ben-Ḥayyim 1954. In the words of Sáenz-Badillos (p. 90)

Revell ... argues that the Palestinian tradition represents a more developed and, therefore, later form of language than the Tiberian, although they share a common origin. In his view, the consistent (TH) use of different graphemes for the a and e vowels is a feature of an earlier period, which tended to disappear later on. Vowel changes within the Palestinian system, according to Revell, correspond to processes known from a less developed stage of the Tiberian tradition, and some times represent the endpoint of a process begun there. The Tiberian tradition has adopted a well-preserved, archaic, pronunciation, whereas the Palestinian is based on 'vulgar' biblical texts and expresses a less well-preserved form of the language that has been more affected by outside influences and colloquialisms. As a system of pointing, the Palestinian must have been created before, or in isolation from, the Tiberian.

I tend to agree with Revell on this. However, Sáenz-Badillos argues for the Palestinian pointing preceding the Tiberian Masoretic with presumably shared origins at some point in the past.

[4] See Yeivin; Sáenz-Badillos pp. 94-105; Manuel 1995 pp. 199-225. In most features this tradition is fairly close to the Tiberian - see Ben-Ḥayyim 1954. The pronunciation on which it is based must, of course, have originated in Palestine but have undergone a long period of semi-isolated development in southern Babylonia in a totally Eastern Aramaic speaking environment.

[5] Jenssens1994, Knobloch 1995, Sáenz-Badillos pp. 80-86; Manuel 1995 pp. 130-167 . As noted by Sáenz-Badillos (p. 80) - (n.b. bolding my own)

The numerous Greek and Latin transcriptions of Hebrew names and other expressions, which date from the third century BCE to the fourth century CE, undoubtedly provide first-hand information.... Because we know far more about the phonology and pronunciation of Greek and Latin than of the Semitic languages, these transcriptions represent an invaluable witness to the Hebrew of this period. On the other hand, it has to be recognized as well that there are considerable difficulties involved. In the first place, the phonology of Greek and Latin is very different from that of Hebrew, and these languages do not possess graphemes that can exactly represent the sounds of Hebrew. And although we do not know what judgements were actually made when transcribing so different a language, the authors of the transcriptions would certainly have approached Hebrew from the phonological perspective of their own language. The variation of place and time is also a problem, as we cannot simply accept that BH, which had already ceased to be a living language, underwent a unified development in places as diverse as Alexandria and Palestine. Neither do we know if the data afforded by the transcriptions correspond to the standard, more or less official, pronunciation of Hebrew in this period or to dialect or substandard forms. On top of all these difficulties is the fact that the transcriptions have to be studied in manuscripts that are frequently late and defective, presenting many variants ard corruptions in names that the copyists found completely alien.

[6] An obvious example is that the 2ms. pronominal suffix is k where the MT has kå - see Ben-Ḥayyim 1954 - see Tequ. (Note contrary views on this in Andersen 1999).

[7] Kutscher 1982 §246 -

As in the Septuagint, (in the Secunda) the short /i/ and /u/ of the Masoretic vocalization are transliterated by [e] and [o].... (T)his apparently parallels the situation in Mishnaic Hebrew. Therefore, it seems highly probable that this pronunciation represents the sub-standard, that is to say, the pronunciation that prevailed in the spoken Hebrew and Aramaic in Palestine at that time. But the original /i/ and /u/, as preserved for us by the Masoretes, survived in the standard pronunciation, i.e. in the reading of the bible text in synagogue. Although the vocalization of the Masoretes is known to us only from a period about 600 years later that that of the (Secunda) transliterations, it faithfully preserved older forms. This is proved by the fact that nearly all short [u]'s and a large number of the [i]'s in the Masoretic texts represent PS /u/'s and /i/'s. Therefore, of course they must reflect an earlier stage of the language..... (T)he Septuagint also sometimes reflects the substandard pronunciation rather than the standard.

Other Aramaizing features evidenced particularly from the Secunda:

- 2ms. pronominal suffix frequently k where the MT has kå - see Ben-Ḥayyim 1954 - see Tequ. (Note contrary views on this in Andersen 1999).

- 2ms. SC suffix frequently t where the MT has tå - see Ben-Ḥayyim 1954 - see Tequ. (Note contrary views on this in Andersen 1999).

- the reversion miqtal > maqtal under Aramaic influence.

[8] See Qimron 1986; Kutscher 1971, Kutscher 1979, Sáenz-Badillos pp. 86-94; Manuel 1995 pp. 130-146.

[9] See Ben-Ḥayyim 1954.

[10] Concerning Jerome's Latin transcriptions James Barr writes (Barr 1967 p. 2) -

Though Hexaplar Greek transcriptions are of great importance, this article is intended to clarify the position only of St Jerome. First, he is the most prolific single source of transcribed material. Secondly, he is a person about whose historical development a good deal is known, and this may be relevant to a study of the way in which he may have apprehended the phenomena of a language other than his own.* Thirdly, he provides not only transcriptions but also translations and commentaries which reveal the implications he drew from the Hebrew data as he perceived them, and he also makes express statements about the sounds of Hebrew and their relations to those of Latin and Greek.

After the sort of thorough and learned analysis we would expect from Barr, he concludes (pp. 35-36) -

If this study has shown that Jerome's material can be interpreted in a sense which keeps it closer to the Masoretic structure of Hebrew than has recently been supposed, it may be observed in general confirmation:

(a) In respect of date, Jerome is not so far removed from the beginnings of the Masoretic movement, in comparison with other sources for the early development of Hebrew.

(b) Some at least of his informants appear to have been authorities from the central Palestinian Jewish tradition (contrast the situations of special groups like the Samaritans or Egyptian Jewry).

(c) Jerome's translation, and at times his commentaries, often show striking agreements in general semantic effect with the Masoretic Text, in contrast with the LXX and even with the more highly regarded versions like Aquila.

The other chief question railing for a gumming up is that of the status of Jerome as a describer of the sounds of Hebrew in his time. Kahle writes that Jerome was in contact with learned Jews "and had carefully observed their methods of pronunciation". Now it is true that Jerome did listen to his teachers and that he knew the greater importance of sounded Hebrew over written Hebrew because only the former provided the full vowelling, which was semantically necessary to obtain the sense of the texts. He also was aware of a Jewish insistence on exact pronunciation. How far he himself succeeded in becoming acceptable in this regard we do not know. In any case we should not exaggerate the profundity of Jerome's analysis of Hebrew sounds. I cannot find much evidence that he had any intrinsic interest in phonological analysis. He may, of course, have known much more than he puts into his books. But the kind of information which Jerome actually furnishes about Hebrew sounds is very often obviously occasioned by endeavours on which he himself was engaged: the clarifying of groups of transcriptions of names, the combating of false etymologies, the explication of aspects of the text intelligible only on the basis of the Hebrew wording, and the justification of correct translations against erroneous traditional ones (particularly the LXX). Because these were his interests, it is not surprising that the phonetic information he provides is limited and rudimentary, and confined almost entirely to the aspects which caused a difficulty in transcription.

[11] Quoted frolmJoϋon-Muraoka 1991 p. 38.

“ [T]he transition from quantitative to qualitative distinction in the Hebrew vowels appears to have taken place relatively late. Transcription of Hebrew in the Septuagint and the second column of Origen's Hexapla as well as explicit statements by St Jerome (4^th cent.) all point to quantitative distinction.”

[12] Librairie du Liban, Beirut 1972.

[13] Mitchel 1993 p. 145.

[14] DS - In fact there was a distinction of both quality and quantity. Qal of √YKL

	*/EBHP/	*[EBHP]	/TH/⁺	**[TH]*	Distinction /EBHP/- /TH/⁺*
*Inf. abs.*	/ya ˈkoːl/	[yɐˈkoːl]	/yåˈkol/	[yɔːˈxoːl]	Vowel length and quality
*Inf. constr.*	/yuˈkult/ > /yˈkult/	[yәˈkʊlt] / [yŭˈkʊlt] / [yŏˈko̞lt]	/yәˈkolet/	[yәˈxoːleθ]	Vowel quality
*Suffix Conjugation* *3rd person m.s.*	/yaˈkul/	[yɐˈkʊl] or [yɐˈko̞l]	/yåˈkol/	[yɔːˈxoːl]	Vowel quality
*3rd person m.p.*	/yaˈkuluː/	[yɐˈkʊluˑ] or [yɐˈko̞luˑ]	/yåkˈlu/ (pausal /yɔˈkolu/)	[yɔːxәˈluː] (pausal [yɔːˈxoːluː]	Stress in contextual form. Vowel length and quality
*1st person*	/yaˈkultiː/	[yɐˈkʊltiˑ] or [yɐˈko̞ltiˑ]	/yåˈkolti/	[yɔːˈxoːltiː]	Stress in contextual form. Vowel length and quality

[15] One may note the very interesting parallels to present day Egyptian Arabic -

"The oldest stage of the Egyptian Arabic, which is no more Old Arabic, must have been a linguistic system where every word ended in a long vowel or in a consonant. Thus no word ended in a short vowel.Birkeland 1952 pp 12-13

"In Stage IV ... every word ended in one or two consonants or a short vowel. Long final vowels did not exist. Within the word every long unstressed vowel and every long vowel before two consonants was shortened." Birkeland 1952 p 28

" ... (early Arabic) quantity of vowels must have been of the greatest importance to a man who wished to be understood... (however, in modern Egyptian Arabic) nobody can be well understood in Egypt today without the accent used by the natives. As a matter of fact all long, unaccented vowels are shortened.... Reading the literary language of newspapers etc.... (Egyptians) often shorten unaccented long vowels, because the accent they are accustomed to is very marked. Also in reading the Koran they use a marked accent. But in that case it is reckoned as bad pronounciation if they shorten unaccented long vowels." Birkeland 1952 p 32

"Briefly the question is whether quantity is dependent on accent or accent on quantity. The only method of solving this problem consists in an examination of the cases where oppositions of short and long vowels are possible and of the cases where they are impossible. Where such oppositions are impossible vowel quantity is, of course, irrelevant. Thus in unstressed syllables only short vowels occur. In this position, therefore, vowel quantity is irrelevant. Only in stressed syllables both long and short vowels are possible. But stressed final vowels are out of question, too, because they are always long.... Similarly a stressed vowel before two consonants is always short.... Further: An opposition between long and short vowel in a final syllable is impossible... The result, therefore, is that only one position is left where an opposition between long and short vowel is possible. This position is an accented, open, non-final syllable...." Birkeland 1952 p. 36.

"In any case it cannot be doubted that two systems are struggling against one another in the present dialect, one system claiming dependence of quantity on accent and relevance of accent only, another quantity system claiming dependence of accent on quantity and relevance of quantity only. The dialectal tendency has conquered the territory to so great an extent that quantity is independent on accent only in stressed, open, non-final syllables.

Even in the syllables last mentioned the phonetic opposition of long and short vowels does not ... seem to be utilized semantically. ...

The insignificant role of vowel quantity is on the whole, as we know, revealed in the fact that long vowels are shortened as soon as they loose the accent. Take, e. g., the frequent word 'aal "he said". In fluent speech it almost always sounds ʾăl. Even if long vowels do not loose the accent, but appear before two consonants, they are shortened." Birkeland 1952 p 28

"Now we summarize: In the Egyptian Arabic dialect of to-day the opposition between long and short vowels does not seem to have any grammatical or semantic function. Even in stressed non-final, open syllables, the only position in which both long and short vowels may occur, the opposition between them does not appear to have any actual function, originally short vowels being occasionally lengthened and originally long vowels being occasionally shortened in this position. The accent, however, has a most important functional value. Diachronically this value has its basis in the marked accent which produced the numerous reductions and elisions of vowels in Stage IV. But the accent did not become relevant before Stage V. Then the elision of the suffix -h after long vowels created forms with an unstressed final vowel, so that the stress nosy signifies the meaning of the lost suffix.

"It is, as we know, beyond doubt that in stressed, open non-final syllables we have to distinguish phonetically, between long and short vowel, at least in the speech of the educated classes, especially in Cairo." Birkeland 1952 pp. 43-44.

[16] See Blau 2010 §3.5.13.

[17] Steiner 1997 pp. 147-150

[18] See also Blau 2010 §3.5.4.

[19] Note agreement of Blau - Blau 2010 §3.5.4.2, 3.5.4.3.

In the Journal of Semitic Studies 1989 (Khan 1989) he described this slightly differently "The rule which emerges is as follows: all vowels are long except for those in unstressed closed syllables and those which are represented byʃәwa or a ḥaṭap sign. Pataḥ and segol, therefore, were long if they were stressed or stood in an unstressed open syllable. These two signs marked vowels which were short during the period when the quality shifts a:ā > a:ɔ̄ and e:ē > ɛ:ē were operative. Vowels which were long in this period are marked in the Tiberian vocalization tradition by qameṣ and ṣere. It follows that the quality shifts had ceased operating before the end of the Masoretic period."

[20] Khan 1994 p. 134.

[21] "Stressed", in this context, refers to syllables carrying either a primary or secondary stress, i.e. any syllable marked with a Masoretic accent. As stated by Blau (Blau 2010 §3.5.7.1.5n.) -

In referring to greater stress on absolute over construct forms, I am referring to the language as it would have been spoken; in fact this is not the case according to the biblical cantillation marks, which reflect the solemn ceremonial reading of the Bible.

For stress in TH construct see Blau 2010 §4.4.3.1n.

[22] Blau 2010 §4.2.5.2 and 4.3.8.7.4.4.

[23] Blau 2010 §3.5.7.4.6.

[24] See Blau 2010 §3.5.11.2, 3.5.13 and 4.3.8.3.2n.

^{^[25]} See Phones and Phonemes - http://www.houseofdavid.ca/anc_heb_6.htm#phone_phonym..

[26] Joϋon-Muraoka 1991 §58a.

^{^[27]} See Phones and Phonemes - http://www.houseofdavid.ca/anc_heb_6.htm#phone_phonym..

[28] IN EBHP and LBHP THE JUSSIVE (PC_jus), COHORTATIVE (PC_coh), IMPERFECT (PC_imp) AND PRETERITE (PC_{pret_sim}/PC_pretWC) are, in some forms, distinguished by the placement of syllabic stress when not carrying object suffixes. See -
- http://www.adath-shalom.ca/history_of_hebrew3a.htm#indic_jus AND
- http://www.adath-shalom.ca/history_of_hebrew3a.htm#Prefix_Conjugation

^{^[29]} Note, in reconstructed [EBHP] transliterations and sound files -

1.there is no spirantization of the bgdkpt consonants - http://www.houseofdavid.ca/anc_heb_tequ.htm#bgdpt;

2. vowel qualities are outlined here - http://www.houseofdavid.ca/anc_heb_6.htm#ebhp_vow_qual;

3. I use the most probable form. Where no one form stands out as most probable, I select the one closest to the MT vocalization.

4. when multiple forms are possible, the form used is underlined.

[30] Blau 1998 p. 32

[31] E.g. 2 Samuel 5:10.

[32] In transliterating consonantal phonemes I use the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) Academic Translation Style (TH_S_BL). I generally to use the IPA system to transliterate consonantal phones.

[33] For convenience, I sometimes use [’] in [EBHP] etc. transcriptions.

[34] In ordinary speech the treatment of the spiratization /b/ [b]/[v]; /k/ [k]/[x] and /p/ [p]/[f] in IH is complicated (See Bolozky 1997 sect. 17.5.4.). In reading the biblical text these allophonic distinctions are maintained as marked in the MT.

[35] “(T)he not strictly phonetic conditioning of sound change may be, it seems, demonstrated …. According to the view of the strict conditioning of phonetic changes, a phonetic change affects the sound concerned in all the positions in which it is operating. Let us assume that in a certain language the allophones A₁ and A₂ exist. Later (stage II), another sound (B) shifts to A₁: B>A₁. Now (stage III) another sound change affects A₁, let us say: A₁>C. According to the view that sound changes only require reference to phonetic information, A₁ has to shift to C in all its occurrences, both in environments in which it alternated with A₂ and in those in which it developed from B. Yet I would like to submit that this is not the only possibility. The other is that the sound shift A₁>C affects only the phoneme A₁that arose from B, without changing A₁ that is the allophone of A₂. In this case, the speaker differentiates between the phoneme A₁ which is not restricted to a special environment, and the allophone A₁, which he recognizes by its restriction to special environments and its alternation with A2 in other environments. Synchronically, therefore, I am inclined to posit for stage II a phoneme A₁ (the historical continuation of B) and the allophones A₁ and A₂.

It seems that (late) Biblical Hebrew reflects such a case of identical phonemes and allophones with only the phonemes being affected by a sound change. It can be proved that, at least at the time of the Septuagint translation of the Pentateuch, Biblical Hebrew still possessed ǵ and ḫ (which later shifted to ^c and ḥ respectively). We do not, to be sure, know the exact date of the spirantization of (b), g, (d), k, (p.t). It stands to reason, however, that it had already taken place at the time of the translation of the Septuagint. Accordingly, one has to posit that besides the phonemes /ǵ/ and /ḫ/, the allophones [ǵ] and [k] (of /g/ and /k/) also already existed, although the latter were practically identical to the former. Later, when the phonemes ǵ and ḫ shifted to ^c and ḥ, the phonetically identical allophones were not affected.

This interpretation of the facts may be buttressed by Eastern Syriac and Modern Hebrew. In Eastern Syriac, ḥ has shifted to ḫ, and, as is usual, post-vocalic b. g, d, k,, p, t have been spirantized. Yet the coexistence of ḫ and spirantized k has not led to any significant confusion between the two. Similarly, in literary and colloquial standards of Modern Hebrew as used by Ashkenazim w has shifted to v and ḥ to x, alongside v/x which are the allophones of b/k, respectively. Nevertheless, this has not led to any significant amount of confusion between the phonemes v/x and the phonetically identical allophones.”

Non-Phonetic conditioning of Sound Change and Biblical Hebrew in Blau 1998 pp. 10-12

[36] See Khan 1997a.

[37] [x] is also transliterated as kh or k.

[38] From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_phonology#Dropped_consonants

In normal speech, /ʔ/ is dropped when occurring between vowels, and /j/ is dropped when occurring between vowels where the first is a front vowel (/e/ or /i/) or the second is /i/. /h/ between vowels may also be dropped, especially in fast speech. Hence, /ma ha-ʃaˈʔa/ "what's the time?" becomes [mahaʃaˈa] or [maaʃaˈa].

Thus /y/ is no longer pronounced if at beginning of word followed by [i] e.g. ישמור pronounced [iʃˈmor]

[39] For convenience, I sometimes use [^c] in [EBHP] etc. transcriptions.

[40] also transliterated as ḳ

[41] For convenience, I sometimes use [r] in [EBHP] etc. transcriptions.

[42] this is very close to ġ [ɣ].

[43] For convenience, I sometimes use [ś] in [EBHP] etc. transcriptions.

[44] For convenience, I sometimes use [ʃ] in [EBHP] etc. transcriptions.

[45] As I find [ɛy] quite difficult to pronounce, I often end up with its most frequent equivalent in TH [ẹː] which is the same as [ɛy] in terms of syllable length.

[46] For the impact of the merging of phonemes on the vocabulary of Israeli Hebrew see Encyclopedia Judaica vol. 16 para. 1645-1646.

[47] With voiced consonants the vocal chords are vibrated, which can be felt in the throat. All vowels are voiced.

[48] With voiceless or unvoiced consonants the vocal chords are not vibrated, so there is no vibration in the throat.

[49] Note non-spirantization of the bgdkpt consonants

[50] Nb. ref. on [TH_CST].

[51] See Harris p. 36.

[52] See Harris pp. 40-41.