A wonderful post by Jim Davila discusses an interesting (but flawed) Slate article on reviving dead languages. I don't wish to enter here in a full discussion of Jim Davila's comments (let me simply say that the history of Modern Hebrew, culminating in the story of Elizier Ben Yehuda, is fascinating both as history and linguistics, and Jim Davila is correct in all is his comments).
But Jim's article remind me that for a long time I have wanted to write a short piece on Hebrew pronuncations: in response both to reader-submitted comments on this and some other blogs.
The Jewish Diaspora lead to a variety of different pronunciations of Hebrew. There are today many, many different Hebrew pronunciations, but (admittedly overly-simplistic) characterization of them places most pronuncations into of two broad groups: Ashkenazi accented Hebrew and Sephardi accented Hebrew. Modern Israeli Hebrew tends to mainly follow the Sephardi dialect, although there are a few concessions to Ashkenazi pronunciation. Excepting some Jewish religious institutions, most North American colleges teach pronunciation -- even of the Biblical language -- following the general outlines of modern Israeli Hebrew.
In contrast, when engaged in prayer or Biblical reading, Ashkenazi traditions require special pronunciation. This is especially noted in pronunciation of the tav character: in modern Israeli Hebrew this is always pronounced as "t"; but in the Ashkenazi dialect (and Middle Eastern dialects such as Mizrahi or Yemeni Hebrew) there is a difference between a tav depending on whether it has a dagesh (dot in the middle of the character): without a dagesh, the pronunciation is softened (to an "s" sound in Ashkenazi, to a "th" sound in the Middle Eastern dialects.) This dates back to an ancient tradition preserved by the Masoretes. Often, Israelis will pronounce one dialect on the street and another dialect in the synagogue.
To me, it is fairly pointless to debate the merits of different accents. Is American English pronunciation better than British English pronunciations? Is Caribbean English pronunciation better than Australian pronunciation? Should the government mandate pronunciation? While such debates have played a large role (for example) in twentieth century Chinese linguistic history, most of us in the West would say that all pronunciations with a significant speaking population are equally valid. (Although different pronunciations may be significant cultural or socio-economic markers.)
There is, of course, האקדמיה ללשון העברית, the Academy of the Hebrew Language, which imposes standards for modern Israeli Hebrew -- standards that are binding on Israeli government agencies, notably the Israel Broadcasting Authority. However, I am not an Israeli citizen, and certainly not an Israeli broadcaster, and I feel no need to defer to a foreign (secular) body to proscribe my pronunciation. Similarly, I do not rely on L'Académie française to regulate my French. If I want to speak in Quebecois or Cajun or Swiss French or in lousy American-accented French, that is my God given right.
The Sephardi tradition and culture is unusually rich and detailed, and I am in awe of it, study it, and often rely on it. However, I reserve the right -- especially when speaking of matters relating to Biblical or other religious books -- to use Ashkenazi pronunciations. And while it is not fashionable to say so, I do not believe the use of Ashkenazi is necessarily limited to religious Jews. Now, of course, it is a valid linguistic question to ask about the early pronunciations of Hebrew. This is a fascinating area -- but is also in a sense irrelevant to living communities -- or the question of how I desire to pronounce Hebrew.
If I decided to look solely to original pronunciations as a guide to contemporary pronunciation, I would be well-advantaged: I am perfectly capable of chanting Beowulf in acceptable Anglo-Saxon, or reciting the Canterbury Tales in (pre-vowel shift) Chaucerian English, or even feigning a Franklin Roosevelt-style patrician accent. But in spoken language, I see no reason not to use the accents most comfortable for me.
(Now, of course, when it comes to the question of translating written language, I hardly feel that "anything goes" -- lest one misrepresent the intent of the source material, one should adopt stylistic features closest to the original source material.)
4 comments:
Slate writes: "Because no Hebrew dictionary or grammar books existed (the only written documentation was the Old Testament and a few other pieces of literature)"
This is patently incorrect. Systematic study of the Hebrew language began to flourish in the high middle ages, including dictionaries and grammars. The continually growing body of literature was huge and ever-creative, both linguistically and topically (and never ceased).
Further mention might be made of precise oral traditions for reading central Hebrew texts, similar but more deeply developed than Arabic Koran readings and applied to a great many textual forms (Bible, Mishnah, midrash, piyyut).
While I agree with Slate that native speakers using a language in everyday speech is the central criterion for many languages, it does not apply to all cultures in the same degree. In the case of Hebrew, it was never really a dead language; perhaps it might be described as having been in slumber and dreaming, until Ben Yehudah and his colleagues came to wake it up.
As far as Iyov's pronounciations go, there is an oral project to document all of these at the Hebrew University.
Slate was trying to compare the revival of Hebrew with the potential for reviving endangered and dead languages in North America. Hebrew is the most celebrated case of language revival and is always held up as the model.
Unfortunately such a comparison completely ignores the historic function of Hebrew as a written language, not only for the literature which it encodes but also the metalinguistic llterature which describes ir.
It is a naive attempt to hold out hope for reviving dead languages that have only functioned in an oral culture and do not have a written function. Whether it could be done or not is another question, but to frame this effort in terms of the revival of Hebrew is not realistic. However, the literature on language revival depends on Hebrew as the exemplary case.
Sadly language revivalists don't perceive the difference between holding out false hope and saying something useful.
My MA was on the role of the written function of a language in language maintenance and revival. It was a deliberate attempt to deconstruct just such nonsense as Slate articulates.
BTW What is the pronunciation used at Mechon Mamre. I am using it to learn to read the Psalms - the short ones.
I'm fascinated by the Temani/Yemeni accent, and would positively love to be fluent with it. Not only can one distinguish the value of the vowels (patach and qamets, for instance), but the subtleties of the gutturals are preserved as well. In that way, it's complicated, but precise, though largely incomprehensible to the inattentive. That's something on my To Do list, though since it most likely inolves a move half-way round the world, it's not as high on the list as, say, relining my greatcoat....
Iyov, also, I tag you!
Post a Comment