Temani Hebrew, reading rules

A rule of Shva which modern Israeli Hebrew speakers [forget about Bible Belt Trinitarians] have forgotten is the following:

However, if it is joined with one of four [guttural] letters, א ח ה ע, its manner [of pronunciation] will be like the manner of the vowel of the second letter in that word, such as: בְּֽהֹנוֹת ידיהם ורגליהם (Jud. 1:7) = bohonoth; מתי פתים תְּֽאֵהֲבוּ פתי (Prov. 1:22) = tei’eihavu; עיניו לְֽחֵלְכָה יצפנו (Ps. 10:8) = leiḥeiləkhah; שריה רְֽעֵלָיָה מרדכי (Ezra 2:2) = reiʻeiloyoh.

Resource — Yemini Hebrew article.

So for instance in Genesis 1:3 it would be wrong to read יְהִ֣י as yə-hî . The Shva here takes the sound of the Chireq . So same in Genesis 1:14, וְהָי֤וּ should be read wau (as in caught) - hau- yū , not as wə-hā-yū (yikes) :

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֗ים יְהִ֤י מְאֹרֹת֙ בִּרְקִ֣יעַ הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם לְהַבְדִּ֕יל בֵּ֥ין הַיֹּ֖ום וּבֵ֣ין הַלָּ֑יְלָה וְהָי֤וּ לְאֹתֹת֙ וּלְמֹ֣ועֲדִ֔ים וּלְיָמִ֖ים וְשָׁנִֽים

The Shva in this case borrows the sound of the Qamats from the very next letter.

etc..

Here is my reading of Genesis Chapter 1, so folks can hear and learn.
 
Hi Jamiesin,

I learnt Temani reading from my friend here. Have it on good authority that it is quite authentic.

I'm not into your Yiddish sounds at Genesis. I don't think Jesus or any 1st century Jew ever sounded that way.
 

τράπεζα

New Member
Hi Jamiesin,

I learnt Temani reading from my friend here. Have it on good authority that it is quite authentic.

I'm not into your Yiddish sounds at Genesis. I don't think Jesus or any 1st century Jew ever sounded that way.
Yeah, the Yemenite pronunciation is indeed authentic. You say הָאָ֫רֶץ at the end of Genesis 1:1 as if you're about to blow chunks. Israeli Hebrew does not sound like Yiddish. Israel adopted the Sephardi pronunciation, not the Ashkenazi pronunciation. I'm sure you don't know the difference, of course.
 
Yeah, the Yemenite pronunciation is indeed authentic. You say הָאָ֫רֶץ at the end of Genesis 1:1 as if you're about to blow chunks. Israeli Hebrew does not sound like Yiddish. Israel adopted the Sephardi pronunciation, not the Ashkenazi pronunciation. I'm sure you don't know the difference, of course.

I'm just repeating what I've read on the internet from some non-European Jews. And I tend to agree with their assessment. "Israeli Hebrew" (I think the expression is a misnomer, it should just be called "Israeli") sounds like a mixture of German, Temani and Spanish mixed in with some Russian. See here. Even from the mouth of a beautiful lady , it's irredeemable.
 
No, it's not. You don't know what you are talking about. And posting a link to a recording and claiming it sounds like 1st century Greek doesn't help your case at all.

You don't have to take it from me. Here is some food for thought:


Given all of this, I find the choice of modern pronunciation a no-brainer. It's not only extremely close to the ancient pronunciation, but it can also serve as a standard for scholars to pronounce Greek in a consistent manner, as opposed to an idiosyncratic hodgepodge coloured by one's native accent. And on that note, I end with a quote:

“Actual pronunciation...is not a matter of theory, but of praxis: real sound, not a description of sound. Often confusing the two, most classicists, I suspect, would claim that we know fairly accurately what sounds the Greek alphabet represented, yet no two of us would sound alike in reading a given passage of prose or poetry. Our students, if they are interested, have no consistent models to follow. As a result, the pronunciation of Ancient Greek today generally bears no relation to any language, living or dead; it is an embarrassment. The less said aloud, the better. After all, the printed text provides enough challenges as it is: grammar, substance, theme (all much easier to write about); who has class time to spend on pronunciation? Where's the benefit?... Reading silently is not so much the problem; it is unavoidable. Rather, it is reading aloud badly. But who can teach us to do it well? By themselves, books cannot. We need living models...”

Matthew Dillon, “The Erasmian Pronunciation of Ancient Greek: A New Perspective.” Classical World 94, no. 4 (2001), p.323
 

Gryllus Maior

Active member
You don't have to take it from me. Here is some food for thought:
I take very little from you, because normally you have very little to give. You nabbed this little quote from Textkit, didn't you, https://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?t=64810 ? Be that as it may, I found the original article on Jstor:


Dillon is not arguing that anything like "modern pronunciation" is the closest to ancient, rather he's arguing for a sensible restored pronunciation using insights both from modern Greek and what we know about the historical development of ancient Greek, using Erasmean pronunciation as a kind of springboard to get there (and he treats Erasmus very kindly, actually). You can find his conclusion on page 333:

Few classicists who take the trouble to learn a little Modern Greek will be content to pronounce Ancient Greek precisely as Modern. We must compromise to produce something like "la lingua antica in bocca moderna." The adjustments will vary from case to case and person to person; given the uncertainties and unknowns of Greek phonetics, we cannot expect general consensus. But the results should not be totally chaotic. If Modern Greek is recognized as a valid starting point, our differences will at least emerge from a basic common ground. A number of models might well emerge, but the underlying standard will be recognizably Greek.

My own efforts are directed to what I would tentatively call a "Hellenistic" pronunciation....

You need to put your quotes in context and understand the entire argument, not just cherry picked to support your "theories."
 
I take very little from you, because normally you have very little to give. You nabbed this little quote from Textkit, didn't you, https://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?t=64810 ? Be that as it may, I found the original article on Jstor:


Dillon is not arguing that anything like "modern pronunciation" is the closest to ancient,
rather he's arguing for a sensible restored pronunciation using insights both from modern Greek and what we know about the historical development of ancient Greek, using Erasmean pronunciation as a kind of springboard to get there (and he treats Erasmus very kindly, actually). You can find his conclusion on page 333:



You need to put your quotes in context and understand the entire argument, not just cherry picked to support your "theories."

He just says things like it's "a no brainer" to use Modern pronunciation to read the GNT and it "is extremely close to the ancient pronunciation." I'll take that. Modern pronunciation certainly is closer to the Erasmian which you started out with 40 plus years ago, and which you eventually discarded for another poor substitute, namely Randall Booth.

Once again you are straining out the gryllus and swallowing the camel.
 
Last edited:

Gryllus Maior

Active member
He just says things like it's "a no brainer" to use Modern pronunciation to read the GNT and it "is extremely close to the ancient pronunciation." I'll take that. Modern pronunciation certainly is closer to the Erasmian which you started out with 40 plus years ago, and which you eventually discarded for another poor substitute, namely Randall Booth.

Once again you are straining out the gryllus and swallowing the camel.
In the first place, I never started with Erasmean per se, but with a form of reconstructed Attic, sans tonal qualities, used by my original Greek professor. Secondly, that's "Buth" not "Booth." Thirdly, you again miss the point. Ancient Greek didn't sound like modern Greek, and Dillon readily admits this. I'm not going to rehearse the article and why Dillon talks about Erasmus in the first place, but I do suggest you read the entire article. It's actually quite good, and nothing in it supports your claims.

BTW, just for fun, my beginning Greek professor was Jewish, not "Trinitarian." I"m so glad I avoided all those nasty Trinitarian corrupting influences right at the beginning!
 
In the first place, I never started with Erasmean per se, but with a form of reconstructed Attic, sans tonal qualities, used by my original Greek professor. Secondly, that's "Buth" not "Booth." Thirdly, you again miss the point. Ancient Greek didn't sound like modern Greek, and Dillon readily admits this.

That you think Ponytail Booth ("Buth" if you like) is a substantial improvement over Erasmian says all. Also, forgive me but I do not believe you. 40 years ago when you started Greek, Buthian was in it's infancy (perhaps even non-existent) so you couldn't have started with it. Erasmian was your poisonous initiation into Greek, just like it was Jamisin's.


I'm not going to rehearse the article and why Dillon talks about Erasmus in the first place, but I do suggest you read the entire article. It's actually quite good, and nothing in it supports your claims.

BTW, just for fun, my beginning Greek professor was Jewish, not "Trinitarian." I"m so glad I avoided all those nasty Trinitarian corrupting influences right at the beginning!

The point is that Modern Greek pronounciation most closely approximates how 1st century Koine sounded -- not "Reconstructed," nor "Erasmian," not "Southern -drawl Erasmain reconstruction " ( see example here ) etc. :ROFLMAO:
 
Top