Talk:Tiberian vocalization

message: I suggest, regarding the title of this entry, that "Tiberian" not be called a "Hebrew language" at all, but rather a written system developed for the vocalisation of Biblical Hebrew.
:If so, then perhaps it should be merged with niqqudot.  Note that that article right now is very incomplete, as it constrains to the pronunciation of Standard Hebrew without mentioning the Tiberian system that was developed. - Gilgamesh 08:32, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnamed 

message: I just wanted to confirm the name niqqudot. I would have thought Nequdot, no? Am I mistaken? jnothman talk 13:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Niqqudot 

message: There is currently a single source for this pronunciation approach. It is not clear to an outside nonexpert reader (such as myself) if this is widely accepted among scholars or a single individual's opinion. It seems to present the individual's personal research. Has this article been published in a scholarly publication? If not, it's not clear it satifies WP:SOURCE policy. This subject is not my area, just want to make sure this article is appropriately sourced, and also that it appropriately assesses the viewpoint's notability and reliability as WP requires. I can't can't tell from the article. Additional sources, especially sources directed at a lay rather than a scholarly audience, as well as dissenting views if any, would be appreciated. --Shirahadasha 19:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The gist of the article is common knowledge to people in the field. There aren't even any points of dispute on the basic history. As time goes on I'm sure people will add basic refs. to some books or articles. Perhaps the most convenient link would be to the articles at the Aleppo Codex website. 06:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence 

message: Aldozamudio 20:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New information 

message: I propose moving this page to Tiberian Hebrew. It's not just a vocalization, it is (as the opening sentence says) a tradition of pronouncing Hebrew. It's not a separate language, though, so the original name of Tiberian Hebrew language is not good. Any thoughts/objections? —Angr 11:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a simple thing to define or entitle, because it is a system of written symbols that were designed to convey a very specific oral tradition of pronunciation, but which over time became read by all oral traditions of pronunciation for Hebrew, each of them interpreting the written signs in a way that made internal sense within their own oral system. Is that a tradition of pronouncing Hebrew? A vocalization? A language ("Tiberian Hebrew")? To be quite honest, I find the selection of a clear and accurate title for this to a rather complicated proposition... :-) Dovi 17:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's why I think Tiberian Hebrew is the best name for it: that name doesn't try to define it as anything more than what's obvious. It's Hebrew, and it's Tiberian in origin. —Angr 19:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Angr.  I would move it myself but I'm not quite sure how to do that when the link to Tiberian Hebrew is a redirect to Tiberian vocalization and I want to reverse the redirect direction until a new page discussing the actual vocalization itself is created (see comment in next section). Benwing (talk) 08:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The name 

message: The name of this page should be 'Tiberian Hebrew' or 'Tiberian Hebrew Dialect' or something like that.  This page is obviously describing a particular dialect, not a particular writing system.  'Tiberian vocalization' is the name of a writing system and includes its origin, its use in representing different pronunciation systems of Hebrew (Sephardic, Askhenazic, Yemenite, original Tiberian, etc.). Benwing (talk) 08:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  name should be Tiberian Hebrew 

message: As a linguist, I'm somewhat skeptical that the actual Tiberian Hebrew dialect on which the vocalization system was based actually had such a complicated system for determining whether a shva was pronounced or silent as is described here.  In particular, the system described here is at least partly phonemic in that it depends in some cases on the presence of methegs, which were clearly not considered a basic, obligatory part of the system, unlike the niqqud themselves.  Native religious linguists of the sort who are interested in recording down the proper pronunciation of a liturgical language tend to be very exacting in describing down to the last detail all that isn't completely predictable (i.e. phonemic), and in other respects, the Masoretes seem to be equally exacting; hence it seems extremely puzzling to me that they would deliberately create a sign that was ambiguous as to two different phonemes (i.e. no vowel and a pronounced shwa), even if the occurrence or not of the pronounced variant was largely predictable -- compare the use of dagesh lene, which is largely predictable.
The only sensible conclusion I can make is that, despite the apparent historical evidence and the conclusions of the bulk of current writers, the actual Tiberian Hebrew dialect must have had a completely non-phonemic vocal shva, whose occurrence was due to an automatic process of epenthesis in certain well-defined scenarios (e.g. between two consonants at the beginning of a word; between the second and third of three consonants in the middle of a word, including when the first two were actually a geminate consonant; between two identical consonants when written as two letters with a shva between them).  Given the desired precision of the Tiberian Masoretes, it seems highly unlikely to me that they would allow rules such as "vocal after vowels /e/, /o/, /ɔ/ except in certain well-known closed syllables" (which indicates at least a questionably phonemic distinction) or even worse "in consonants that expect a dagesh forte but don't actually take one" (which definitely indicates a phonemic distinction and requires a good knowledge of complex hebrew morphology and all the many places where dagesh forte would be expected to occur based on the structure of the word).
I suspect that the historical evidence is pointing to a related but different, and presumably rather more common, as well as more conservative, dialect/pronunciation that did preserve, at least partly, the original etymological distinction of vocal shvas that were derived from short vowels in some unstressed, open syllables (as still preserved in e.g. Classical Arabic) and quiet shvas that were derived from original lack of vowel between consonants.  Presumably, in the particular local dialect that led to Tiberian Hebrew, the vocal shva phoneme disappeared as a phoneme and instead because an automatic process, similar to how in the same dialect the original distinction between long a ("kamatz gadol") and short o ("kamatz katan") merged into a single low-mid back vowel.  I also suspect that a number of the researchers working on reconstructing the Tiberian pronunciation are lacking in proper training in modern linguistic theory (esp. in phonology and historical linguistics) and/or are working from sources that were created before the requisite theory in phonology and historical linguistics was even developed (e.g. Gesenius's famous Hebrew Grammar), and are unaware of this fact.  This should not be as surprising as it sounds -- working in an area like this requires extensive knowledge of Ancient Hebrew and Jewish History and such, so it's more likely that researchers in this area have a solid background in Judaic Studies augmented by some basic linguistic background.  Also, I've seen a number of books about Ancient Hebrew and other old languages that make lots of elementary linguistic mistakes -- Joel Hoffman's In the Beginning: A Short History of the Hebrew Language is a particularly severe example, where his whole thesis that the Masoretes "didn't know what they were doing" is predicated on a number of elementary linguistics-based logical errors.
Comments?
Benwing (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your linguistics-based assumptions about Tiberian shva are essentially identical with the "belief" expressed in Joüon's classic Hebrew grammar as updated early this decade by Muraoka. Unfortunately, instead of providing instances of how this worked in practice, the grammar moves on to (falls back on?) Levita's traditional rules for identifying shva na`! חנינא (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In what way does the Joüon-Muraoka grammar constitute original research? חנינא (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Hanina for the lack of clarity, I was referring to Benwing, not you. Dan ☺ 09:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see, no prob, don't mention it.חנינא (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  mobile vs. quiet shwa 

message: Hi.  I'm glad finally some people had the time and were in the mood to criticize the article.  It has barely had any changes since I wrote it back by the end of 2006.  I know I have transgressed many of Wikipedia's norms, but I did so for many reasons (not that you should agree with me).  I'm an Industrial Designer by trade, and have been studying Hebrew for some 8-9 years.  And I was a bit disappointed when I saw the article was merely an explanation of the name in the title, rather than a  language oriented explanation. I wrote the article more or less as it is right now, in order to:
- Show people there is more to Tiberian Hebrew than regular grammars teach.
- Get some experts attention to see if anyone would be able to clear any non sense I wrote.
- Get my knowledge on the subject organized.
- Give people a clear (I know it isn't clear in this present version) idea on how the Hebrew Bible was pronounced by the Masoretes.
But I stopped making any modifications at this site.  I have been working on the article any time I have, understand or find anything new on the subject. That version is in my computer, awaiting completion and is much more readable. I am no linguist so I really don't fully understand what you mean, Benwing.  I once read on an article by Geoffrey Khan that if the sign for sheva had a dual realization, it most probably had just one function, and that it was a zero vowel, since it cannot form a syllable on its own. How can we incorporate that into the article? And how can we explain  (either by reconciling or contrasting) that Medieval treatises make explicit statements and take great pains on recording how a single sign was pronounced as zero or as a vowel?  It would be great to write on that too, but my lack of knowledge in that subject prevents me from venturing into writing anything on this section (codas, epenthesis, assimilation, etc. are too cumbersome for me at this moment).  I apologize for any misunderstanding, misinformation I have written in the article either by a lack of knowledge, understanding or a lack of reliable sources. Aldozamudio (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Aldozamudio, I for one enjoyed reading the article. The way I see it, Wikipedia tries to present a coherent account of what reliable sources have published on any given matter. It's not its task to filter out the "right" information from the "wrong": if different, even conflicting interpretations, theories and points of view were published by respectable sources, then they should all be represented here, with references to these sources. Dan ☺ 23:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the contents of the article 

message: "Palestinian vocalization" seems to be a well established term in the scholarly literature; see . "Eretz Yisrael vocalization", on the other hand, isn't. +Angr 10:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand corrected. Dan ☺ 23:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palestinian vocalization 

message: I like much of the rewrite. But I think that the introduction underemphasizes that what we have here is not just a kind of pronunciation but rather a detailed system of vocalization for the biblical text. Vocalization includes not just the vowels and their orthographic signs, but rather the entire oral tradition of reading/chanting the biblical text, which indeed includes vowels but also stresses (primary and secondary) and sytax (cantillation). All of these elements are interrelated and influence each other at times. The central aim of the masoretes was to commit an ancient oral tradition of how to vocalize the biblical text (every word of it) in writing. The system they created indeed contains within itself a tradition of how to pronounce Hebrew, and that is very important too, but it is certainly not the entire story. Dovi (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Vocalization

message: Was waw [w] or [v] in Tiberian vocalization? And, was resh [r] or [ʀ]? I noticed that in this article they are [v] and [ʀ].  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phyong (talk • contribs) 06:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, in fact, at least in Tiberian Hebrew, waw was pronounced both ways.  In an article by Geoffrey Khan (and based on some grammatical treatises as Mishael Ben Uzziel's Kitab al-Khilaf, the Book of Differences between Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali), he states that the regular pronunciation for waw was [v], but near some vowels such as [u] (and [o]), it was pronounced [w].  As for resh, experts agree that it was a "velarized, uvularized or emphatic" consonant, but they do not agree as to how it was articulated exactly.  Khan, again, states that it was regularly pronounced as [ʀ], and near [d], [t], etc... as an emphatic [r] (that is, as a rolling r in Spanish, Italian, Scottish English, but, with the back part of the tongue nearer to the palate).  Ilan Eldar, on the other hand, states that it was pronounced always as [ʀ], but with different durations.Aldozamudio (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The phonetic value of waw and resh 

message: "The explicit statements found in books of grammar near the 10th and 11th Centuries C.E., such as: The Sefer haQoloth of Moshe ben Asher (published by N. Allony), Diqduqé hata'amim of Aaron ben Moses ben Asher; the anonymous works entitled Horayath haQoré (G. Khan and Ilan Eldar attribute it to the Karaite Abu Alfaraj Harun), the Treatise on the Schwa (published by Kurt Levy from a Genizah fragment in 1936), and Ma'amar haschewa (published from Genizah material by Allony); the works of medieval Sephardi grammarians, such as Abraham Ibn Ezra, Judah ben David Hayyuj."
:The main predicate/verb of this word string is unclear.  This word string needs to be clarified; perhaps broken into smaller sentences. Is this basically what was meant?
::"The statements found in books of grammar (such as the Sefer haQoloth) AND the anonymous works entitled Horayath ATTRIBUTE it to the Karaite Abu."?
I will suggest the start of a revision, if this is what was meant:
::There are explicit statements atributing the Tiberian vocalization to the Karaite Abu Harun.  These explicit statements are found in four types of literature: 1) medieval books of gramma , 2) the Horayhath haQoré, 3) a Genizah fragment, and 4) medieval Sephardi grmmarians.  The medieval books of grammar were written in the 10th and 11th centuries A.D, such as The Sefer haQoloth of Moshe ben Asher (published by N. Allony.  I leave it to the original author to clarify the rest of this Byzantine convoluted word string.EnochBethany (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Obtuse String of Words

message: I am going to split this article. It isn't right to have a discussion of Tiberian Hebrew consonant values in an article with "vocalization" in its title. It makes more sense for this article to discuss the orthographic system that Tiberian Hebrew used, and have a separate Tiberian Hebrew article to discuss the phonology. (I recognize that there is some overlap but this still seems more sane.) Mo-Al (talk) 16:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting 

message: Giving the examples with alef in Tiberian_vocalization#Vowel_diacritics is not such a good idea since alef cannot carry a shva. So the example alef with shva given in the 2nd table is actually impossible. This precise (impossible) example may or may not be traditional, so it may be a "mistake" or at least a poor decision of the editor who contributed it, or it may be something they just picked up from a traditional grammar, I don't know, they would have to say. But certainly, in general, traditional Hebrew grammar has not been averse to giving impossible examples: for example the decision to give the verbal paradigms on the root pa'al (slavisly imitated from Arabic grammar) was an extremely poor decision for Hebrew since the medial ayin of that root is a letter that is problematic in Hebrew, e.g. it cannot take dagesh hazaq, so actually the paradigm pi'el with dagesh hazaq on the ayin (!) is grammatical nonsense that traditional Hebrew grammar has been happy with for centuries. A real pi'el form formed from the pa'al root would be pe'el with no dagesh hazaq. In the last fifty years or so (some) grammars have started giving those examples on the root qatal which is clearly a much better idea. But the traditional names have remained the commonly used terminology and Hebrew speakers will continue to call the second binyan (paradigm) pi'el forever. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 01:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples in [[Tiberian_vocalization#Vowel_diacritics]] 

message: Is the value /a/ (and not /e/) for tzere here a mistake (as it apparently disagrees with the presentation of the vowel qualities above), or is it correct? If it is correct, I believe it would be helpful to add an explanation. Wareh (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  תְדֵמְּיוּ֫נִי /θăðammĭjuni/ 

message: I propose merging Ktiv menuqad into Tiberian vocalization. Ktiv menuqad is, as I understand it, the practice of writing using the Tiberian vocalization system, and the three sentences there would comfortably fit into the main article.— Moriwen (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be more "writing with niqqud" including modern iterations. But honestly it should probably be deleted, it doesn't say anything that the line "text written with niqqud is called ktiv menuqad" on the niqqud page doesn't already tell you. GordonGlottal (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal