- This topic has 21 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 9 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Why is it that the secular and modern, when transliterating Hebrew to English, use a “Q” instead of a “K” (i.e. Qedushas instead of Kedushas or Hamiqdash instead of Hamikdash) and drop the leading “C” (i.e. Haredem instead of Charedem or Halla instead of Challa) and use Sepahrdic pronounciations (i.e. Shabbat instead of Shabbos), even though they are Ashkenazim?
Because the “Q” sound is more approximately correct of what the “Kuf” should sound like…it is not the same sound as a “Kaf”.
Likewise the “Heth” does not sound like a “Chaf”, but somewhere between a “Hey” and a “Chaf”…listen to a Sefardi or Temani Jew read hebrew.
As for the the “T”, its just been accepted in academic circles that that is what is used.
It is not anymore incorrect than using a “Samech” sound for the ?.
The real sound is similar to the “Th” in the word “three”. Imagine a german saying “Three”, and then a Spaniard saying “Three” and you’ll understand why we have our present day sounds.
I believe that they follow the British method of transliteration as it exited in EY when they were here. Many street signs here have the Q instead of K, etc. Also, they go more with the Ivrit pronunciation, which took the Sephardic pronunciations, thus the Taf instead of a Saf.
Personally I find it such an eyesore that I think anyone who writes like that ought to be punished.
The Dutch are also great, though. Can you figure out these, as some examples?
Bereesjiet
Sjeemot
Wajeetsee
Besjallach
Mikeets
It’s an attempt to use proper academic transliteration without wasting too much time and effort. A ? is supposed to be an “h” with a diacritic on top but most people don’t even know what a diacritic is with out google and definitely don’t care enough to put one in every time they use a Hebrew word.
Itchesrulik: I walways wondered why they didn’t do that. (And thank for telling me it was called a diacritic. You learn something new every day. I always called it the little dot on the h.)
The Dutch are also great, though. Can you figure out these, as some examples?
“Sjeemot” is old seforim & Tashmishei Kodesh put in box for burial. It is also another appelation for the 3 sets of verses recited at very end of Ne’iloh.
If referring to Exodus, it is Sjemot in Dutch.
They’re actually the ones that are doing it right. As blockhead pointed out, all those things are the correct transliteration. The rest of us do it wrong.
MiddlePath, I disagree that “they..are the ones doing it right”.
For divrei Kodesh purposes (speaking in Israel for secular purposes is a different matter):
Just because Ashkenaz doesn’t have the precision to distinguish a saf from a samech does not mean that they should revert to Academic/Modern/Zionist Hebrew (adapted from sefardi havarah specifically disregarding their Mesorah of Ashkenaz havarah) and use a tav. A Saf is still far better.
Similarly, the non-guttural ches is arguably better than a simple imitation of the letter “hay”, since Ashkenaz does not have a mesorah for the guttural ches.
On the flip side, the non-askenazic havarah does not distinguish between a patach and a kamatz. That can’t be authentic, either…(Nor do both Ashkenaz and Sefard differentiate between a tes and a tav. So if the similarity is an issue…)
Ironically, the Israeli children are taught and/or speak a real cholent of a havarah with mixed ois and ohs (worse than their American counterparts who are generally consistent one way or the other), and even take it a step further with things like dropping the “hey” altogether and pronouncing it like an aleph.
Uncorrupted Ashkenaz (ohs) and Teiman are the closest things to the genuine deal, with Teiman being closer.
No, they’re not doing it “right”. Just because some academics decided they like it better, does not make it right.
HaKatan and Hershi, I am very aware that there are many, many different opinions on this, and I am simply stating my opinion, which I got from a few biblical Hebrew and Composition classes taught by a master in the Hebrew language. And yes, it’s true that the letter “Ches” doesn’t completely transliterate as “H”, it is closer to how the Spanish pronounce “J”, as in “Guadalajara”. The letter “Kuf” does, however, transliterate as a “Q”, and the letter “Saf” should be a “TH”.
There are only 2 correct forms of the vowel “Cholom”
Either an exceedingly deep “Oh” as in the word “Go”, or
an “OU” sound as in “How”
If anyone pronounces it as an “oi” sound, there is no way to distinguish a regular Cholom from a Cholom followed by a Yud as in the word “Goy”.
That is not a correct assesment.
hershi, I’m unsure if you were referring to me or 147 with your reply. And it’s wonderful that you have a different opinion, just please state it, so I can understand what your opinion is instead of just saying that others are incorrect.
And from what I’ve learned, the “oi” sound for a cholom is, actually, wrong. Granted, many people pronounce as such anyway, and just don’t place a lot of emphasis on Hebrew dikduk in general, which I really don’t have a problem with. I only have a problem with it when the pronunciation actually changes the meaning of the word.
I do believe it’s high time that schools stopped this mistaken “oi” for “oh”; it’s inserting a “yud” into the word; how could it not change the meaning?
MiddlePath: I found blockhead’s post, which you agreed with, to be perturbing and I don’t know why you still back it despite some points like “quf”. To justify the saf as “t” because that’s how people say it, is, for kodseh purposes, prima facie absurd, not to mention in a dikduk discussion.
What he writes is anyways very puzzling: it is much more incorrect to use a “t” than using a samech for a saf. It may be more precisely pronounced as a “th” rather than a “s”, but an Ashkenzaic “s” is much closer to a “th” than a Sefardic “t” is.
While on the topic, the sefardi “oh” is somewhere between a kamatz and a cholam, but is not a true cholam. It is better than “oi”, though.
Regarding the chaf and Spanish “Guadalajara”, their “j” in that context is awfully close to our ches. So the ashkenaz “ches” is actually quite reasonable.
Again, the typical Ashkenazi havarah is off only in a matter of degrees, as noted. The sefardi havara is simply off, with saf and kamatz completely disregarded, pronounced identically to “taf” and “patach”, respectively (and even “oh” is not fully pronounced).
There is a difference between saying that a Havara is not what Hebrew sounded like in the time of the Gemara and before and saying that that Havara is wrong.
The transliterations are not a function of religion or ideology but of language. Different letters have different sounds in each language. If the Roman script language you are used to is English, for example, the sound the ? makes is “sh” but if you are used to French that sound is “ch”. How to transcribe a ? also varies with different languages using c, k or q. What Indo-European (Aryan) speakers due to ? is highly problematic. The ? has been pronounced at various times as a “th”, a “s” and a “t” – and in fact some Jews use each, and to complicate matters,while the “th” sound is in English, it wasn’t in Latin, so there is no single letter for it in English.
Linguistics is fsacinating, but it isn’t a function of frumkeit. A Hareidi Jews who is used to French, or one who was used to German (as was the case in Europe), and based their transliterated (romanized) spellings according, will write things differently than someone whose prefered goyish language is English.
HaKatan, I understand completely where you coming from. About blockhead’s post, I found it in line with some valid opinions. He actually did not say that a “T” for “Saf” is correct, rather that such is just what happens to be used in some circles.
I agree that “T” is not accurate for the “Saf”, but neither is an “S”. Also, everything you’ve said about how certain Hebrew letters are closer to a specific English letter than another are all a matter of opinion, and all valid opinions. I happen to think that the proper sound of the “Saf”, which is a “TH”, is not any closer to an “S” than a “T”. It would appear to me that it’s actually closer to a “T”, since a “Saf” with a dagesh is a “Taf”, which is definitely a “T”, and not an “S”, and the dagesh is there to strengthen the sound of the letter.
And yes, the Sefardim do have an issue with cholom, as well as kamatz, and don’t pronounce them accurately. So every sect has some things that are more accurate than others.
With the Spanish “J”, again, I don’t think it is any closer to a “Chof” than a “Hey”, and therefore, the “Ches” is simply in between, and writing is as a “CH” is no more correct than writing it with a “H”. It should actually be written as a “J” with a footnote that says “Spanish pronunciation”, if you really want to do it right.
I agree that most pronunciations of the Ashkenaz are very close, but the Ashkenaz seem to have most of their issues with stressing the correct syllable of words. The Sefardim are much more accurate with that.
HaKatan:
1- The hhes (two h’s to differentiate from a hey and a chaf) is not a guttural. It is formed by the palate. Ahskenazim do have a mesorah for it. Check any ashkenazi dikduk sefer e.g. Minchas Shai.
2- Please explain your assertion that prounouncing a tav refuyah like a samekh is better than prounouncing it like a tes. (If you wanted to be super accurate, you would pronounce it like the “th” in bath)
3- You are only half-right about the kamatz. Real mizrahhi havaros differentiate between a kamatz gadhol and a kamatz katan but not between kamatz gadhol and patahh. Yemenites differentiate between both as do Ashkenaz-ashkenazim (yekkes).
Even closer than Teiman is Moroccan. Their havara is like the yemenite one except for three things:
1- a weaker arabic accent than the Yemenites
2- A gimmel degusha is notpronounced as J
3- Moroccans pronounce a quf with its own sound. Yemenites pronounce it like our gimmel.
The last two things on that list are things which Rabbenu Sa’adia Gaon said the Temanim do incorrectly.
Perhaps the Teimanim long ago complied with Rav Saadia’s correction.
Derech: If you listen to a temani kria today, you will see that most of them do not comply. Of course that could just be a lack of dikduk on their part since the proper quf sound is somewhat between a kaf and a gimmel. (Parshas zachor is sloooowwww in my shul 😉 )
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.