# Talk:Biblical Hebrew

There really ought to be a note about how many words Biblical Hebrew had, which IIRC is on the order of 2,000 roots forming some 8,000 words.  I'm not sure where in the article that should go, nor do I have a source at the moment; I would appreciate it if someone better at this could make the addition. Dismalscholar (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

That's the vocabulary of Hebrew in the Bible, not necessarily the same thing as the vocabulary of the speakers of the language recorded in the Bible.  When a book is divergent in genre and subject matter from most other books (e.g. the Song of Songs), there are many hapax legomena in that book, a sign that there were probably words of the spoken language which didn't make it into the Bible... AnonMoos (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
P.S. A number of the non-loanwords which show up in Mishnaic Hebrew, and have appropriate Semitic sound correspondences, would have also existed during the Biblical period, but didn't happen to show up in the Bible. AnonMoos (talk) 13:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, everyone! 
I am unsure if I am showing proper etiquette as of now as this is the first time I've ever written one of these, but does anyone know as to any possible research in regards to the phoneme ʋ possibly being a phoneme in Biblical Hebrew? A friend of I have not encountered upon any research in regards to this specific matter, but I'm unsure if I should edit it out or of I should fist sort eveything here before to see if there is anything. I decided to be safe and bring it up here for the time being.
If anyone can inform me on this matter, I would be most glad :). Best regards and thanks in advance Yippur (talk) 10:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

It's already in the article in 3 different tables Emdosis (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Presumably for the fricative allophone of "b", which could be transcribed [β] or [v].  Not sure why [ʋ]... AnonMoos (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

As you can see here and here, these sounds existed in proto-semitic times and it's very possible they were still around in biblical times.
Also proposing to add [d͡z] for ז Emdosis (talk) 11:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
All of the sounds mentioned exist in Arabic today as well. Emdosis (talk) 11:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Only if you have sources. Remsense诉 11:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't. (Unless you count Wikipedia as a source, then maybe.) Emdosis (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Very explicitly not, as that would be WP:circular. Remsense诉 12:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Also worth mentioning that ⟨d̪⟩ exists in modern day Sepharadi Hebrew. Emdosis (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, not sure why these emphatics are reconstructed as voiced.  Most indications during early periods are of voicelessness, as well as the symbols listed on Ejective consonant.  Arabic kept to the older Semitic pattern of voiceless-emphatic-voiced trios until well into the medieval period (maybe roughly ca. 800 A.D.), and voiced/voiceless contrasts between emphatic sounds only occur after that.  The pharyngealized/velarized [z] pronunciation of Ẓāʾ ظ is semi-artificial, due to a need to keep ظ and ض distinct in formal tajwid (in Arabic colloquial dialects, they've generally merged)... AnonMoos (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't know man, but in practise I don't know if there's much of a difference between ⟨ʼ⟩ and ⟨ˤ⟩. I used ⟨ˤ⟩ to keep in concordance with the trend on Wikipedia... Emdosis (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
We have an article on Emphatic consonant.  Many linguists reconstruct them as ejective consonants (linked above) in early Semitic, including Richard C. Steiner in his book "Affricated Ṣade in the Semitic Languages".  In any case, contrasts between voiced and voiceless emphatic sounds seem to be innovative to post-800-AD (roughly) Arabic... AnonMoos (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
If I've read this article correctly, it seems to be indicated that [sˤ] existed early on in the Secunda, so like 200 AD?... Does that sound plausible to you? Emdosis (talk) 04:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure what that means.  The letter צ is reconstructed for Biblical Hebrew more often as sʼ (ejective) than sˤ (pharyngealized) -- and since across languages ejective fricatives are often affricated, that likely means tsʼ (Alveolar ejective affricate) as is discussed at length by Richard C. Steiner in his book "Affricated Ṣade in the Semitic Languages".  The letters צ and ס remain distinct in most pronunciation traditions down to the present day (except some versions of Sephardi Hebrew). -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


### Blau on Biblical Hebrew polyphony
For a discussion by a very reputable scholar, see "On Polyphony in Biblical Hebrew" by Joshua Blau (PDF here).  He agrees with the standard polyphony of ש (of course), and argues in great detail for the polyphony of ח and ע (each representing both a pharyngeal consonant and a velar fricative) in "literary" or formal Biblical recitation Hebrew down to the late centuries B.C.  However, he does not support other polyphony. AnonMoos (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

However, he does not support other polyphony.
Does not support? Or does not mention to begin with? Emdosis (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
He discusses and rejects possible polyphony of צ corresponding to Arabic ض vs. צ not so corresponding, as you can see for yourself. AnonMoos (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
So just צ? What about all the other polyphones (ת ,פ ,כ ,ו ,ד ,ג ,ב)?
Also nobody argues that צ was ever officially polyphonic with [sʼ] and [ɬʼ] (where one would be used for example for initial syllable and the other for closed syllable). Just that the sound ṣ́ ([ɬʼ] or [tɬʼ]) evolved to ṣ [sʼ] over time (i.e. over 1000+ years) while some regions may still have clung to the original ṣ́ for another while (before those Israelites too, as a result of centuries of exile, started to pronounce it like the modern day ⟨t͡s⟩) Emdosis (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
I really don't know what the heck the non-emphatic stops are supposed to be polyphonous with (they do not have multiple sources in terms of the conventional reconstructions of proto-Semitic with 29 distinct consonants).  Earlier non-sibilant fricatives in Semitic merged with sibilant fricatives.  Also, [w] became [y] initially before attested Bible Hebrew, but what became [w]? AnonMoos (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

A little while after I posted the above comment, I realized that you meant the fricative allophones of the stop sounds (the so-called Begadkefat letters).  The thing is, scholars like Blau and Steiner were not concerned with that at all when they investigated what they referred to as "polyphony".  It's a fairly safe bet that the Phoenician language contained just 22 distinct consonant sounds when the 22-letter Phoenician alphabet was formed just a little bit before 1000 BC.  However, it seems that in a number of cases, this 22-letter alphabet was then borrowed to write other languages or dialects where more than 22 of the 29 conventionally reconstructed Proto-Semitic consonants had remained distinct.  This is known for certain in some cases (such as shin vs. sin in Hebrew) and is strongly suspected in other cases.   That's what Blau was trying to do, to penetrate behind the 22 letters of the alphabet to try to determine if at some stages of Hebrew there were more than 22 distinct consonant phonemes derived from proto-Semitic.
By contrast, the "Begadkefat" fricative sounds were not originally phonemes at all, but mere allophones.  (By the time of Tiberian Hebrew, there might be a partial phonemic contrast between stops and fricatives, according to the traditional 1950s concept of the phoneme at least, caused by additional sound changes, but the functional load would be low.)  There's no archaism or proto-Semitic survivals involved, so it's just not the same thing as what Blau discusses. AnonMoos (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
This page is about biblical hebrew, not proto-semitic. According to the article itself, 'Biblical' implying even as late as the Secunda. If Blau's discussing proto-semitic polyphony (which from what I've seen, he seems to be talking about late Biblical Hebrew as well) then maybe his book should be renamed to 'On Proto-semitic polyphony'...Emdosis (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
What does polyphony even mean in linguistics? Do you mean 2 different sounds at once? I thought you were talking about allophones... :/ Emdosis (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Whatever -- he's talking about distinctions of sounds that were very likely preserved in some cases into the late centuries B.C., which is most definitely not the proto-Semitic period, but is highly Hebrew-specific.  Reconstructions of Proto-Semitic provide the basic original inventory of 29 phonemic consonants (in the standard reconstruction) but various of the consonants merged together at different times and in different ways in various of the daughter languages, and figuring out that some of these mergers occurred in the Biblical (or even post-Biblical) period is part of the historical study of Hebrew.  You need to brush up on basic facts and concepts, because it isn't really my job to keep explaining them to you... AnonMoos (talk) 04:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the use of transliterations on their own is the opposite of helpful. It makes taking in what is being said much more difficult. The transliterations should always be accompanied by forms in the Hebrew alphabet. Burraron (talk) Burraron (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Depends a tad on who you are. Generally, non-English text—transliterated or otherwise—should be minimized in English-language encyclopedia articles, and non-Latin script should always be accompanied by transliteration—I think in this case a combination of paring down unneeded examples (sounds odd for an article about another language, but still holds to some degree IMO) + always including both script and transliteration for ones that are used. Remsense诉 13:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
We have an article on Americanist phonetic notation, of which common Semitological transcription symbols are a sub-set... AnonMoos (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I know Ancient Hebrew could have been a pitch-accent language but should not such symbols be applied to vowels instead of consonants?
z̄ is wikilinked to Pitch-accent language but that article never explains its sound.
The articles for Proto-Canaanite alphabet and Paleo-Hebrew alphabet also say that its sound is /z/.
Every source I have checked assigns /z/ to Biblical Hebrew's zayin.
Can anyone check this, please?
This is the specific edition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biblical_Hebrew&oldid=1166168586 
George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

In a paragraph within the section on phonology detailing the /ɬ/ phoneme, "/ś/" is mentioned more than once, as [ɬ] the realization of /ś/. 
What is /ś/??? I highly doubt it would refer to pitch. My guess is that someone was referring to a romanization during that section and incorrectly included slashes to represent it. I'm pretty sure this is an error, but I want to post this to verify it is, as I'm not a linguist. My further guess would be that it is referring to the /ʃ/ phoneme, but this is already mentioned with the long s symbol in the same paragraph. SpaiceyWarrior (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Should certainly be made clearer in the article, but my guess is it corresponds to the notation at Proto-Semitic language § Consonants. I don't think using slashes is a problem exactly, given the notation is likewise phonemic in nature. Remsense 🌈 论 00:44, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't see that section, my apologies. My understanding is that slashes are exclusively reserved for phonemic IPA transcriptions,  while romanizations don't use them. In this case, it would maybe be more appropriate to use an asterisk to indicate it's a reconstructed phoneme, but regardless, it's not IPA, so I don't believe slashes should be used. SpaiceyWarrior (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
I think you're right, yeah. Remsense 🌈 论 15:17, 6 September 2025 (UTC)