3

Some Ashkenazim are medakdek to pronounce their Aramaic "correctly". And they know that there is a mapik heh in Amein Yehei ShemeiH Rabba. Thus,

יְהֵא שְׁמֵ*הּ* רַבָּא מְבָרַךְ לְעָלַם וּלְעָלְמֵי עָלְמַיָּא יִתְבָּרַךְ

But what they don't realize is that, probably due to the phonological features we are trained on, when they try to say Shmēh with a tzeirei (as in English 'hay') they actually say Shmeh with a segol (as in English 'egg'). Listen carefully the next time you or someone else tries it. If it were a different consonant at the end, e.g. a Resh or a Samech, there would be no problem pronouncing the tzeirei, but a difficult guttural like a Heh triggers a weakening into a segol. And it is quite difficult to overcome.

In which case, one is merely substituting one "error" in pronunciation for another. Except you get to sound all weird or precise (depending on one's perspective).

So, which is better? If you don't pronounce the Heh, you sound like other Jews, and one could argue that the meaning is perfectly clear while the standardization legitimizes the 'incorrect' pronunciation. Meanwhile, if you do pronounce the Heh, you are probably still getting it wrong, but just in a vowel, and while at least making an effort to get it right.

msh210
  • 73,729
  • 12
  • 120
  • 359
josh waxman
  • 20,700
  • 44
  • 86
  • 2
    First, what makes you think shortening the vowel in speech is incorrect? You're talking about a language that hasn't been spoken conversationally in a really long time. – Seth J Oct 06 '13 at 23:17
  • Second, if you are convinced it's incorrect, what's wrong with going against the grain (especially if it's such a subtle thing that, as you pointed out, most people probably don't even pick up on it)? – Seth J Oct 06 '13 at 23:19
  • @DoubleAA, I don't understand your q. Why should I? Are we talking past each other? A word ending in אהוי, the next word does not have a dagesh kal... – josh waxman Oct 06 '13 at 23:25
  • @SethJ, +1. that is going to part of my answer. But it is phonologically nearly impossible to go against the grain, I think. – josh waxman Oct 06 '13 at 23:35
  • 1
    @joshwaxman Unless the י is consonantal ("mappik"). If you are going to add a consonant to the sound, then it closes the syllable. – Double AA Oct 06 '13 at 23:40
  • ah. now i see what you are getting at. no, i don't agree that a consonantal yud would close the syllable. – josh waxman Oct 06 '13 at 23:45
  • @Josh, I'm not sure it's so impossible, since that's how (I think) I pronounce it. But if you think I'm wrong, who cares how you try to pronounce it? – Seth J Oct 06 '13 at 23:48
  • 1
    @joshwaxman In this weeks parsha we have ואעשך לגוי גדול with a dagesh kal in the gimmel of גדול because of the consonantal yod in לגוי. Similarly קלוי באש in Vayikra 2:14 and וחי בהם in Vayikra 18:5 (to give you examples of different vowels). Why would a mappik yud be different from a mappik hey לה or a mappik vav עבדיו? – Double AA Oct 07 '13 at 01:36
  • nice. but that doesn't mean that this is the case for every diphthong. so /aw/ as cholam above. iirc, there is no distinction among Masoretes between tzeirei malei and tzeirei chaser. they are both full vowels. and i am not saying any different. This diphthong is thoroughly integrated into the language, more so than something like patach yud. Are you saying that you DON'T pronounce tzeirei as a diphthong? – josh waxman Oct 07 '13 at 02:18
  • but yes, i then retract the line of discourse above, "ah..." – josh waxman Oct 07 '13 at 02:19
  • 1
    Also, we are not conjecturing a theoretic "correct" pronunciation, to the exclusion of all others. Given this standard pronunciation, and positing "correctness" as remaining consistent within a tradition, which is the right way to go? Are people really gaining, as they think they are? – josh waxman Oct 07 '13 at 02:22
  • are they also pronouncing ע pharyngeally? is their ת a "th" sound? if not, it seems strange to single out the ה as an "improperly pronounced" letter. – rotten Oct 08 '13 at 09:48
  • Who are they in your question? – josh waxman Oct 08 '13 at 22:18
  • I think that the most important thing to note here is that shortening the tzeire doesn't change the meaning of the word, but not pronouncing the heh does. – Shimon bM Nov 18 '13 at 11:37
  • related http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/9843/759 – Double AA Nov 24 '13 at 02:53

2 Answers2

2

1

Indeed, it is phonologically difficult to have a tzeirei leading into a guttural in a closed syllable, such as is found at the end of a word. That is why, in Hebrew, we see a patach ganuv, a sort of hurried patach, leading into such gutturals.

  • YehoshuA'
  • GavoAh
  • HoshiA'
  • NoAch
  • ReiAch
  • LehitmameiAh

(Thanks DoubleAA for the concrete tzeirei Mapik heh I was missing)

so, in Biblical Hebrew they solve the phonological difficulty with patach ganuv. Aramaic regularly solved this problem for other gutturals in a different way than patach ganuv, often by changing the preceding vowel to a patach.

In Aramaic, there certainly are plenty of examples of tzeirei mapik heh, so they pronounced it. Maybe they even had enough practice (and other phonological context and practice) that they even pronounced it as a full tzeirei. If this is so, then my question still stands, since the question is how and whether Ashkenazim can accurately produce these sounds within their consistent phonological system; whether we medakdekim are really accomplishing anything by our strange pronunciation; and whether a different course might then be in order.

2

But maybe pronunciation of identical nikkud marks in different phonological context is OK. Chassidim in my shteible pronounce segol in different ways: in the word melech, the first open stressed syllable as "a" in "hay" and the second as "e" as in "egg". So too kamatz, in an open syllable as "oo" in "food" and as "o" in "brother" in closed syllables. And listen to most Ashkenazim as they pronounce a chirik, whether officially malei or chaser. Certain phonological contexts trigger an "i" sound as in "trigger".

So, so what if in context of mapik heh, the tzeirei tends to become almost or exactly like a segol?

Indeed, this sort of organic natural development is what likely led to phenomena such as patach ganuv. People couldn't help but insert a little /a/ sound as they transitioned to the guttural. And the Masoretes captured the pronunciation, as it existed then.

3

Regardless, Rachmana Liba Ba'iy. That is why I wouldn't really sweat either the question or the resolution. Which leads me to my follow-up question to this: If you focus one getting your ShmeiHs right, are you able to simultaneously focus on the simple meaning of the words, or are you distracted by your phonological precision?

(See also the comments to my parallel blogpost, where some admit to grappling with this particular phonological difficulty.)

Community
  • 1
josh waxman
  • 20,700
  • 44
  • 86
  • 1
    להתמהמה​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ – Double AA Oct 07 '13 at 03:18
  • 1
    "Whether we are actually accomplishing anything" It seems obvious to me that not distinguishing between long and short varieties of the same vowel is not nearly as significant as dropping an entire consonant off of a word. – Double AA Oct 07 '13 at 03:22
  • 5
    @DoubleAA Although I might not go so far as calling it "obvious", I am strongly inclined to agree with you. And I still don't quite understand why it's supposedly hard to pronounce a tzeirei running into a mapik hei. I do it frequently. – Fred Oct 07 '13 at 03:42
  • @Frei Look what happens when I drop a final consonant to extend a segol to a tzeirei :) – Double AA Oct 07 '13 at 03:45
  • @DoubleAAh And look what happens when I add a mapik hei at the end of that tzeirei (assuming you pronounce the long A). – Fred Oct 07 '13 at 03:49
  • Thanks, doubleaa, yes, that is the perfect example. And we have the patch ganuv. Because not pronouncing Mapik heh is so common by the hamon am, it becomes perhaps justifiable within Ashkenazic pronunciation. Just as we don't pronounce the letter Ayin, especially at the end of a word, not even as any sort of glottal stop. Fred, I would say that this assumption that one is not reducing the Tzeirei is common, until pointed out. It is easier to spot in others, listening carefully. – josh waxman Oct 07 '13 at 09:48
0

http://www.piyut.org.il/tradition/english/2684.html?currPerformance=3487

this is the way teimonim pronounce the qadheesh. and this is audio evidence/proof of how to pronounce the hei in the word shmeih. although op was adressing ashkanazim, i think this should fit in here quite nice as i believe that this is the most proper way of pronouncing the word and how to pronounce loshon haqodhash as a whole. so not only does it answer the op in that it doesnt sound like a eh sound or any other sound he mentioned. it has its own distinct sound which i believe whole be adopted by the klal as it was pronounced in the days of old

MoriDowidhYa3aqov
  • 748
  • 1
  • 7
  • 12
  • It was very short, but it sounded to me like Shmih. Is that close? – Seth J Nov 19 '13 at 01:19
  • @SethJ no it is shamehh not shmih. it said twice in qadhish. so if you listen to the entire thing you can hear him say it twice that way. – MoriDowidhYa3aqov Nov 19 '13 at 06:11
  • The same sound appears in מלכותיה כרעותיה משיחיה פורקניה and עמיה. – Double AA Nov 19 '13 at 06:39
  • @DoubleAA are we talkingb out sounding of words of specific a specific word? – MoriDowidhYa3aqov Nov 19 '13 at 06:57
  • @Mori, your transliterations are nearly impossible to follow. Why would there be a Patah sound with the Shin? – Seth J Nov 19 '13 at 13:28
  • I assume there isn't, btw. I'm pointing out that your transliteration is so different from most of us, that it's not clear what you mean. – Seth J Nov 19 '13 at 13:30
  • @seth because teimonim pronounce the shawa as a pata7 n not an eh or ih. But if the first letter follows a yodh, sound follows the sound of the yodh. As in biyisroel. Instead of bayisroel it will be biyisroel. – MoriDowidhYa3aqov Nov 19 '13 at 14:00
  • Really. I did not realize that. I wonder why. – Seth J Nov 19 '13 at 21:45
  • @seth they don't have a segol either. It is pronounced as a pata7. This goes with the teimoni original nikudim which they had. Their nikudim were ontop of the letters and it took them a long time to get used to the new system of having it on the bottom. In the original system, they didn't have a segol. As I read somewhere that te segol was an invention of the masoretes. Beith ha madrash/ madrasa in Arabic not medrasa. Malach not melech and Malik in Arabic not Melik – MoriDowidhYa3aqov Nov 20 '13 at 04:17
  • Melech should be Malk. But I did not know (and now understand) that they had such heavy Arabic influence on their Hebrew. Cool thing to learn. – Seth J Nov 20 '13 at 04:29
  • 1
    arabic influence? yes arabic influence....has nothing to do with the fact that their masoroh on loshon haqodhosh is much better than the rest of the klal. and that is evident not only from the pronunciation of things. – MoriDowidhYa3aqov Nov 20 '13 at 05:11
  • @MoriDoweedhYa3gob Just because it's better doesn't mean it's perfect. – Double AA Nov 24 '13 at 02:55
  • @DoubleAA the minhogim and and such did not change. only their nikkudim changed from changed top of the word to bottom and some things changed in regards to prostration but that is all modern changes. when rabbeinu saa3dyo joon wrote that the jeem is wrong he didnt have in mind only teimonim(tahts if he even had in mind teimonim at all). he had in mnd all jews that said the jeem. so we see it was more widespread than only teimonim. to say that the jews were influenced by the arabs in regards to this is not so poshut because we see it was a more variety of jews than just a single group. – MoriDowidhYa3aqov Nov 24 '13 at 04:26
  • @DoubleAA therefore its hard to say that all of them were influenced by arabic and most likely have a source whch is older than rabbeinu saa3dyo joon. – MoriDowidhYa3aqov Nov 24 '13 at 04:26
  • 1
    @MoriDoweedhYa3gob You just said: their practices did not change; therefore, their practices did not change. Really convincing argument. – Double AA Nov 24 '13 at 04:36
  • @double lets say it did change. So what then? It's better than the rest of what the klal has to offer. – MoriDowidhYa3aqov Nov 24 '13 at 04:42
  • 2
    @MoriDoweedhYa3gob Maybe, but we're not discussing which is the best overall way of pronouncing things. – Double AA Nov 24 '13 at 05:03
  • @DoubleAA we are in ths comment section. the answer however addresses that that is how teimonim pronounce the shmeih and that it should be offically be accepted by all :) – MoriDowidhYa3aqov Nov 24 '13 at 05:24
  • I know this is a late comment, but R' Hamburger of Machon Moreshet Ashkenaz paskens that there is never a problem with being medakdek in one's pronunciation. He says that although the hey-mappik became less common in Germany before the war, and has become virtually nonexistent among B'nei Ashkenaz today, it should be pronounced by those who are makpid in their Hebrew. – Noach MiFrankfurt Jun 11 '15 at 01:14
  • @NoachmiFrankfurt thats good on him however there are those who would argue not to do so because that is how my mother and father pronounced. the common nonsense that ashkanazim tend to answer every allegation about them being backwards and have lost proper jewish traditions – MoriDowidhYa3aqov Jun 11 '15 at 01:28