Talk:Modern Hebrew phonology

Velar Fricative

I'm pretty sure khet and khaf are voiceless uvular fricatives, not velar (at least in modern Hebrew). --Mo-Al 05:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You are right, velar fricative is e.g. the corresponding sound in Russian (the 'hard' variant, the 'soft' being palatal). The harsh sound of the Hebrew fricative is due to vibration of the uvula on top of the rear part of the tongue body. Uvular fricative was the description in Asher Laufer's article on Hebrew in the 'Handbook of the International Phonetic Association' (1999). The fricative is not at the same place of articulation as the stops, which are velar, but more retracted than them. It should be noted, however, that both this fricative and the rhotic are higher (more 'advanced') than the corresponding sounds in German and French.Beckeroy (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

First sentence

"Modern Hebrew is phonetically simpler than Biblical Hebrew and has fewer phonemes, but it is phonologically more complex."

And you've lost me there at the the first sentence. Yes, I'm vaguely aware that phonetics are not the same as phonology, but it's not a distinction that I carry around easily available in my head, not being a student of linguistics. This Wiki article appeared in a search engine's results for "pronunciation stress in modern Hebrew"

Hundovir (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you, that the first sentence is problematic for the following reasons: 1. It compares apples to oranges--Modern Hebrew is a living language, where you can study the phonology from living speakers, compared to an ancient language for which the phonology is reconstructed and inferred from historical sources. If you're going to make the statement, I feel like you really need to back it up with sources and evidence. 2. The comparison with Biblical Hebrew is not the topic of the article, and is hardly expanded upon in the rest of the article, so making this comparison doesn't belong in the first sentence. 3. The sentence is meaningless to people without a linguistics background and understand the difference between phonology and phonetics. I am not a linguist, and from reading the phonetics and phonology Wikipedia articles, I'm still not exactly sure what the first sentence means.

Brian louis ross (talk) 07:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The lead should definitely not start with that observation, and should probably not contain it. Imagine if the first sentence of United States read "The United States is much larger in both area and population than it was when it was founded." It wouldn't be wrong to have a section in which the comparison is made and the factors that made the phonology what it is today are discussed, but that's not what the lead is for. Largoplazo (talk) 11:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Consonants, Illustrative words

The grouping of צ׳, תשׁ‎ is confusing While /tʃ/ seems to be the best option for both, they aren't pronounced the same in practice. (the difference between ts, tsh, and ch is very rarely lost on Hebrew native speakers)

the grouping is especially confusing when paired with the example word תְּשׁוּקָה‎ (simply pronounced 'tshuka'), which won't be pronounced by (the majority) natives with צ׳ (as 'chuka'). Dar Chiffon (talk) 10:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Footnote "Phoneme is not present in English phonology"

In the consonant section, why is there a footnote noting phonemes that are not present in English? This is completely irrelevant for an article about the phonology of Modern Hebrew and should be removed promptly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hantanfjantan (talk • contribs) 15:23, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

There are no such phonemes as /f/ and /v/

In the book 'In the Beginning there Was a Language', Ornan proves that some phonemes have the same sound, for example, the phoneme /enwiki/w/ (which is represented by the letter Vav) is pronunced as [v], which is the same sound of one of the allophones of the letter Bet. The theory is based on theoretical Mikhpal (Dagesh H̱azak), and you can read his whole theory in the book and in other texts. מושא עקיף (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

For anyone looking for this book, it took some effort to find out that its title, ברשית היה השפה, is translated by the publisher as In the Beginning was the Language. (By Uzzi Ornan, for those who want to know. And I just added this book to the list in that article.) Anyway, lots of people have a theory. The question for purposes of this article is, what level of acceptance has it attained? Largoplazo (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Largoplazo One of his examples was that little children say [pal] instead of [nafal]. Besides, there wouldn't be a difference if you say [napal] instead of [nafal].

I couldn't continue reading his whole theory (it was too much to handle), but I've just finished reading another article about the perfect Romanisation rules of Hebrew. There he shows phonemic rules. I can send the article if you want, but it's in Hebrew, and you need a JSTOR account to read it.

In Hebrew, the letter <ב> is pronounced as [b] and as [v], so I think there's no reason to have two phonemes for one letter, expecially when there's no difference. For example [bayit] and [vayit]. The second would be really weird, but it doesn't create a new word.

Besides, we do have rules when it's [b] and when it's [v]. but that's another story.

I think we should stick to the ISO 259-3. I think that those are genious rules for phonemic transcription. מושא עקיף (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't read Hebrew (beyond words and phrases) and I'm not prepared to read a scholarly analysis, just the broad strokes. But aren't שבת [ʃaˈbat] 'Shabbat' and שבת [ʃaˈvat] 'he rested' a minimal pair that rips that theory apart?

Is it normal to describe the phonology of a language in terms of the mistakes children make while they're still mastering it? I'd hate to think that English would be described has having one phoneme with realizations [spə] and [pʌs] because my sister originally pronounced spaghetti "pusghetti". Largoplazo (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@Largoplazo, when you respond to me, please tag me.

To your first question:

Firstly, the Mishkalim (structures) of those words is different. However, Ornan uses phonology and not morphology. (I'm exactly in this part of the book.)

The word <שַׁבָּת> is a noun in the Mishkal קַטָּל. And it's a noun. According to his rules it's be transcribed as /šabbat/ – double b because of the Dagesh H̱azak.

The word <שָׁבַת> is a verb from the Binyan (structures for verbs) קַל (פָּעַל). This is transcribed as /šabat/.

I think you can use children to describe something. I'm not a linsguist yet, but I think children's mistakes do prove something.

The mistake you're talking about is a bit different, isn't it? מושא עקיף (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Little children, of course, know nothing of dagashes, and Hebrew pronunciation lacks doubling (gemination) of consonants so his treatment of dagesh as an indication of gemination can't correspond to anything in children's speech. But that's a digression. The main point is that the article isn't going to remove references to phonemes that other linguists commonly consider to exist because one linguist has a different view. Largoplazo (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

@Largoplazo who says that only one linguist holds this view?

In his book, he's talking about a theoretical Dagesh, which is pronounced like one consonant without doubling. מושא עקיף (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@מושא עקיף I'm just going by what you wrote. You created a discussion titled "There are no such phonemes as /f/ and /v/", implying (because that's what Talk pages are for, to discuss changes to make to the article) that the article should be revised accordingly, and you provided exactly one reason to do so: because Ornan says so.

The representation /bb/ means doubled. If you aren't implying a doubling, you don't write /bb/. Largoplazo (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

According to his theory, it's a theoretical Mikhpal. It exists, but isn't heard. In English it also exists, like in the word <illegal>, but you don't hear double l. Theoretically, it exists there.

I did explain his theory, didn't I?

Another good reason for changing what's written is that it simplifies Hebrew phonemic transcription. How can you explain that there's a connection between /pataħ/ and /liftoħ/ [liftoaħ]? You can use morphology to explain this, but it involves more elaboration (and not only in phonology).

We should at least add this theory.

Besides, this theory is newer (the book was published in 2013, but the theory might be a bit older), whereas the theory of six phonemes is way older (most sources were from the 50's and the 60's, if I remember correctly). The main problem is that I cannot find other linguists who support his theory. Neither can I find linguists who at least say something about it. מושא עקיף (talk) 00:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@מושא עקיף Pinging because I forgot above. But for talk page discussions you're already involved in, that's what your WP:Watchlist is for. Largoplazo (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)