DOCSLIB.ORG

The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew, Volume 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Cambridge Semitic Languages and Cultures The Tiberian Pronunciation Khan Tradition of Biblical Hebrew (Vol. I) The Tiberian Pronunciation Geoffrey Khan Tradition of Biblical Hebrew The form of Biblical Hebrew that is presented in printed edi� ons, with vocaliza� on and Tradition of Biblical Hebrew Vol. I accent signs, has its origin in medieval manuscripts of the Bible. The vocaliza� on and Volume I accent signs are nota� on systems that were created in Tiberias in the early Islamic period The Tiberian Pronunciation The by scholars known as the Tiberian Masoretes, but the oral tradi� on they represent has roots in an� quity. The gramma� cal textbooks and reference grammars of Biblical Hebrew in use today are heirs to centuries of tradi� on of gramma� cal works on Biblical Hebrew in GEOFFREY KHAN Europe. The paradox is that this European tradi� on of Biblical Hebrew grammar did not have direct access to the way the Tiberian Masoretes were pronouncing Biblical Hebrew. In the last few decades, research of manuscript sources from the medieval Middle East has made it possible to reconstruct with considerable accuracy the pronuncia� on of the Tiberian Masoretes, which has come to be known as the ‘Tiberian pronuncia� on tradi� on’. This book presents the current state of knowledge of the Tiberian pronuncia� on tradi� on of Biblical Hebrew and a full edi� on of one of the key medieval sources, Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ ‘The Guide for the Reader’, by ʾAbū al-Faraj Hārūn. It is hoped that the book will help to break the mould of current gramma� cal descrip� ons of Biblical Hebrew and form a bridge between modern tradi� ons of grammar and the school of the Masoretes of Tiberias. Links and QR codes in the book allow readers to listen to an oral performance of samples of the reconstructed Tiberian pronuncia� on by Alex Foreman. This is the fi rst � me Biblical Hebrew has been recited with the Tiberian pronuncia� on for a millennium. As with all Open Book publica� ons, this en� re book is available to read for free on the publisher’s website. Printed and digital edi� ons, together with supplementary digital material, can also be found at www.openbookpublishers.com Cover image: The Aleppo Codex. Courtesy of the Ben-Zvi Insti tute, Jerusalem. Photographer: Ardon Bar Hama. Cover design: Luca Baff a. book 1 ebooke and OA edi� ons also available OPEN ACCESS OBP https://www.openbookpublishers.com © 2020 Geoffrey Khan. Recorded material © 2020 Alex Foreman, CC BY. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0). This license allows you to share, copy, distribute and transmit the text; to adapt the text and to make commercial use of the text providing attribution is made to the authors (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). Attribution should include the following information: Geoffrey Khan, The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew, Volume I. Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers, 2020, https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0163 In order to access detailed and updated information on the license, please visit, https:// doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0163#copyright Further details about CC BY licenses are available at, https://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/ All external links were active at the time of publication unless otherwise stated and have been archived via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine at https://archive.org/web Updated digital material and resources associated with this volume are available at https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0163#resources Every effort has been made to identify and contact copyright holders and any omission or error will be corrected if notification is made to the publisher. Semitic Languages and Cultures 1, volume 1. ISSN (print): 2632-6906 ISSN (digital): 2632-6914 ISBN Paperback: 978-1-78374-675-0 ISBN Hardback: 978-1-78374-676-7 ISBN Digital (PDF): 978-1-78374-677-4 DOI: 10.11647/OBP.0163 Cover image: The Aleppo Codex, Courtesy of the Ben-Zvi Institute, Jerusalem. Photographer: Ardon Bar Hama Cover design: Luca Baffa. I.1. CONSONANTS (א) ָא ֶלף I.1.1. ʾALEF Glottal plosive [ʔ] Consonantal ʾalef occurs in the following contexts: In the onset of a syllable at the beginning of a word, e.g. [ʔɛloːˈhiːim] ֱא ִֹ֑להים ,(ʔɔːˈmaːaʀ̟] ‘he said’ (Gen. 3.16] ָא ַ֗ מר ‘God’ (Gen. 1.1). In the onset of a syllable in the middle of a word after a ’vaɟɟivˈʔaːaʃ] ‘and it became foul] ו יְב ַ֣אׁש .silent shewa, e.g (Exod. 7.21). In the onset of a syllable in the middle of a word after a [jɔːˈviːʔuː] ָי ִ֑ביאּו .vowel, a ḥaṭef vowel or vocalic shewa, e.g ’ʔaʔazzɛrˁˈχɔː] ‘I gird you] ֲא אֶזְר ָ֖ך ,(they bring’ (Exod. 16.5‘ .(moˈʔoːoð] ‘very’ (Gen. 1.31] ְמ ִ֑ אד (Isa. 45.5) וֶיְאֹ֤ס ר .In the coda of a syllable in the middle of a word, e.g [vaɟɟɛʔˈsoːorˁ] ‘and he tied’ (Gen. 46.29). In the Standard Tiberian tradition consonantal ʾalef in the middle of a word between vowels is marked with dagesh in four places: (and they brought to him’ (Gen. 43.26‘ וָי ִ֥ביּאּוָ֖֛לֹו (i) (and they brought to us’ (Ezra 8.18‘ וָי ִ֨ביּאּוָ֖ ָָ֜לנּו (ii) (you shall bring bread’ (Lev. 23.17‘ ָת ַ֣ביּאּוָ֖׀ָ֖ ֶַ֣לֶחם (iii) © Geoffrey Khan, CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0163.01 136 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew (they were not seen’ (Job 33.21‘ ַ֣ל אָֻ֖רּּֽאּו (iv) These four cases are specified in Masoretic treatises and Maso- retic notes. They are referred to, for example, in the Masoretic 1 treatise Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ: It has been said that dagesh is placed in ʾalef in some specific places in Scripture, namely in the following four ’and they brought him the present‘ וָי ִ֥ביּאּוָ֖֛לֹוָ֖ ֶאת ־ה מְנ ִָ֥חה :cases and they brought to us by‘ וָי ִ֙ ָ֖ ביּאּוָָ֜לנּוָ֖ ְכ יד־ֱא ִ֙ ֹלהינּו ,(Gen. 43.26) from‘ מְמֹוׁשִ֙ב תי ֶָ֜כםָ֖ ָת ַ֣ביּאּוָ֖׀ ,(the hand of our God’ (Ezra 8.18 ְוֻׁשִ֥פּוָ֖ ַ֝ עְצ ַָ֗מֹותיוַָ֖֣ל אָ֖ ,(you dwellings you shall bring’ (Lev. 23.17 and his bones, which were not seen, are laid bare’ (Job‘ ֻרּּֽאּו 33.21). Some examples of references to the four places in Masoretic notes include the following: ג׳ָ֖אלפיןָ֖דגשיןָ֖בלישנאָ֖וסימנהוןָ֖ממושבתיכםָ֖תבטאוָ֖לחםָ֖תנופה,ָ֖יביאוָ֖ לוָ֖אתָ֖המנחהָ֖אשרָ֖בידם,ָ֖ויביאוָ֖לנו,ָ֖וחדָ֖בלשו׳ָ֖אחרָ֖ושפוָ֖עצמותיוָ֖לאָ֖ ראו There are three occurrences of ʾalef with dagesh in a to‘ בוא particular lexical item (viz. derivatives of the root מְמֹוׁשִ֙ב ת ֶָ֜יכם ָָ֖ת ַ֣ביּאּו׀ ָ֖ ֶַ֣לֶחםָ֖ come’), these being in the verses You shall bring from your dwellings two loaves‘ ְתנ ַָּ֗ופה ְְָׁׁ֖֚ש ת ים ָ֖ וָי ִ֥ביּאּוָ֖֛לֹוָ֖ ֶאת ־ה מְנ ִָ֥חהָ֖ ֲאֶׁשר־ ,(of bread to be waved’ (Lev. 23.17 they brought to him the present which they had in‘ ְבָי ָ דם they brought to us’ (Ezra‘ וָי ִ֙ ָ֖ ביּאּוָָ֜לנּו ,(their hand’ (Gen. 43.26 8.18), and one (case of ʾalef with dagesh) in another word, 1 Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.2. Consonants 137 and his bones which were‘ ְוֻׁשִ֥פּוָ֖ ָ֜ עְצ ַָ֖֣ל ַָ֗מֹותיואָֻ֖רּּֽאּו (in the verse) 2 not seen stick out’ (Job 33.21). חדָ֖מןָ֖ד׳ָ֖אלפיןָ֖דגשיןָ֖בקרי׳ 3 One of four ʾalefs with dagesh in Scripture. These show that the occurrence of dagesh in ʾalef in these specific places was fixed in the Tiberian tradition. In some of the early Standard Tiberian codices, however, dagesh is marked in ʾalef also elsewhere in addition to these canonical four places. This applies even to L, where it occurs in the following two addi- tional places:4 (ְו ָָ֖א נ כי :and I’ (A‘ ְוָּא נ כיָ֖ :L: Ruth 2.10 ו ת עְז ִ֞ביָ֖ :and you left your father’ (A‘ וּֽת עְז ִ֞ביָָּ֖אַ֣ביְך :L: Ruth 2.11 ( ָָ֖א ַ֣ביְך These two additional occurrences of dagesh in ʾalef in L are not referred to in the Masoretic notes, which indicates that they were not canonical in the Tiberian tradition. In the manuscript C there are numerous additional cases of ʾalef marked with dagesh, none of which are referred to in the Masoretic notes (Yeivin 1980, 285), e.g. (ְׁש אְל ת יאִ֙לָ֖ :[Shealtiel’ (L [BHS‘ ְׁש ְל תָּ֖א יא ִָ֖֙ל :C: Hag. 1.1 2 Ginsburg (1880, §5), source: Masora magna in British Library, Harley 1528 (fourteenth century, Spain). 3 Ginsburg (1905, 2), source: Masora magna in the Second Rabbinic Bible (Venice 1516–17, Bomberg) to Lev. 23.17, Job 33.21 and Ezra 8.18. 4 I am grateful to Ben Kantor for drawing these to my attention. 138 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew ( ְבל ִ֙ ֹואי :[rags’ (L [BHS‘ ְבל ִ֙ ָֹ֖וּאי :C: Jer. 38.12 :[the things that befall you’ (L [BHS‘ ּֽק ְר ַ֔ת ּאָ֖י ְָ֖ך :C: Isa. 51.19 (ּֽק ְר א ַ֔ ת י ְךָ֖ Ginsburg (1905, 2) draws attention to the existence of some Masoretic notes in European manuscripts that refer to a greater number of instances of dagesh in ʾalef than the canonical four. These must reflect the awareness of a greater extent of marking the dagesh in some manuscripts. In manuscripts with Non-Standard Tiberian vocalization, the marking of dagesh in consonantal ʾalef is very frequent. In the Codex Reuchlinianus this is the general rule with only a minority of exceptions. In the single verse Isa. 37.33, for instance, we find: ’Assyria‘ ָּא ַָ֖֔שּור ,( ֶאל :[to’ (L [BHS‘ ֶּא ָ֖ל ,( ָא ֹ֤מר :[he said’ (L [BHS‘ ָּא ָ ֹ֤מָ֖ר Morag 1959, 218). There is frequent marking of) ( אַ֔שּור :[L [BHS) dagesh in ʾalef also in manuscripts with Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts written in the Middle East.
Recommended publications
  • Helmut Satzinger What Happened to the Voiced Consonants of Egyptian?

    Helmut Satzinger What Happened to the Voiced Consonants of Egyptian?

    Helmut Satzinger What happened to the voiced consonants of Egyptian!? Coptic has five voiced consonants, viz. the sonorants, b [B], r [r], l [l], m [m], and n [n]. Otherwise, Coptic has no voiced consonants: neither stops, nor fricatives (W. H. WORRELL, Coptic Sounds. University of Michigan Studies Humanistic Series XXVI (Ann Arbor, 1934), 17-23 et passim). Delta Coptic (Bohairic): Stops and fricatives are found at four points of articulation: labial, alveolar, prepalatal, and velar. The stops are of two modes of articulation: 1) voiceless, aspirated, fortis; 2) voiceless, unaspirated, lenis. Labials: f [ph] p [b]8 w [!] Alveolars: u [th] t [d8] s [s] h Prepalatals: q [c ] è [Ô8] é [S] h Velars: x [k ] k [g8] ; [x] — — à [h] Valley Coptic (dialects1 K, F, V, M, N, L, S, P, I, A, etc.): Stops and fricatives are found at five points of articulation: labial, alveolar, prepalatal, palatal, and velar. The stops are of but one mode of articulation: voiceless, unaspirated, lenis. Labial: p [b]8 w [!] Alveolars: t [d8] s [s] Prepalatal è [Ô8] é [S] Palatal q [g8] P µ, I ! [ç] Velar k [g8] A $ [x] (double vowel) [/] à [h] The assumed voiced stops of Egyptian are emphatic, rather than voiced. Is the lack of voiced stops and fricatives a feature only of Coptic, or is it already found in older stages of the language? The transcription of Egyptian creates the impression that it possessed voiced plosives and affricates, viz. b, d, D, and g: 1 Cf. A. S. ATIYA (ed.), The Coptic Encyclopedia (New York 1991), vol.

  • The Hebrew Alphabet

    BBH2 Textbook Supplement Chapter 1 – The Hebrew Alphabet 1 The following comments explain, provide mnemonics for, answer questions that students have raised about, and otherwise supplement the second edition of Basics of Biblical Hebrew by Pratico and Van Pelt. Chapter 1 – The Hebrew Alphabet 1.1 The consonants For begadkephat letters (§1.5), the pronunciation in §1.1 is the pronunciation with the Dagesh Lene (§1.5), even though the Dagesh Lene is not shown in §1.1. .Kaf” has an “off” sound“ כ The name It looks like open mouth coughing or a cup of coffee on its side. .Qof” is pronounced with either an “oh” sound or an “oo” sound“ ק The name It has a circle (like the letter “o” inside it). Also, it is transliterated with the letter q, and it looks like a backwards q. here are different wa s of spellin the na es of letters. lef leph leˉ There are many different ways to write the consonants. See below (page 3) for a table of examples. See my chapter 1 overheads for suggested letter shapes, stroke order, and the keys to distinguishing similar-looking letters. ”.having its dot on the left: “Sin is never ri ht ׂש Mnemonic for Sin ׁש and Shin ׂש Order of Sin ׁש before Shin ׂש Our textbook and Biblical Hebrew lexicons put Sin Some alphabet songs on YouTube reverse the order of Sin and Shin. Modern Hebrew dictionaries, the acrostic poems in the Bible, and ancient abecedaries (inscriptions in which someone wrote the alphabet) all treat Sin and Shin as the same letter.
  • Torah from JTS Worship, JTS

    Torah from JTS Worship, JTS

    Exploring Prayer :(בלה תדובע) Service of the Heart This week’s column was written by Rabbi Samuel Barth, senior lecturer in Liturgy and Torah from JTS Worship, JTS. Simhat Torah: Which Way When the Circle Ends Bereishit 5774 The annual celebration of Simhat Torah brings great joy to so many of us of all generations, and it is a fitting and triumphant conclusion to the long and multifaceted season of intense Jewish observance and focus that began (a little before Rosh Hashanah) with Selichot. In Israel and in congregations observing a single day of festivals, Simhat Torah is blended with Shemini Atzeret, offering the intense experience in the morning of Hallel, Hakkafot (processions with dancing) and Geshem (the prayer for Rain). At the morning service of Simhat Torah there are four linked biblical readings (three from the Parashah Commentary Torah), and the relationship among them invites us to think about the flow of sacred text in a multidimensional context. The first reading is Vezot HaBrakha, the last chapters of Deuteronomy This week’s commentary was written by Dr. David Marcus, professor of Bible, containing the final blessings from Moses to the community—and the account of the death of Moses, alone with God on Mount Nebo. To receive the final aliyah after everyone else present JTS. has been called to the Torah is considered a great honor, and the person with this honor is called up with a special formula (a short version is presented in Siddur Sim Shalom for Shabbat Bereishit with a Capital Bet and Festivals, 215) that affirms, “May it be the will of the One Most Powerful to grant abundant blessings to [insert the name of the one called] who has been chosen to complete the Torah.” With this week’s parashah, we once again commence the cycle of reading the Torah from the first chapter of Genesis, which begins with the Hebrew word bereishit.
  • A Critique of L2/18-276

    A Critique of L2/18-276

    A Critique of L2/18-276 Abe Meyers* November 30, 2018 Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Multiple incompatible representations 2 2.1 <gimel-daleth-yodh> + <shin> vs <aleph-heth> + <aleph-heth> 3 2.2 <Fixed-aleph> + <gimel-daleth-yodh> vs <fixed-gimel-daleth-yodth> + <aleph> ............................. 3 2.3 <gimel-daleth-yodth> + <gimel-daleth> vs <samekh> . 3 2.4 <pe> vs <sadhe> ......................... 4 3 Miscellaneous issues 4 3.1 Joining of <aleph-heth> ..................... 5 3.2 Missing alternate form of <gimel-daleth-yodh> . 5 3.3 Inclusion of <HE> ......................... 5 3.4 Joining of <zayin> ........................ 5 3.5 Old lamedth . 5 4 The dogma of shape-shifting and the problem of good-enough 5 5 Bibliography 6 1 Introduction It has been a source of delight that after a dormant period of four years, since the submission of my proposal to encode Book Pahlavi in the Unicode *abraham.meyers AT orientology DOT ca 1 standard, there has been some renewed activity in the community. The recent preliminary proposal by Dr. Anshuman Pandey (L2/18-276) might therefore signal a resurgence of activities towards the noble goal of encoding of Book Pahlavi in the Unicode standard. I started reading the work of Dr. Pandey with enthusiasm and in antic- ipation of further improvement and suggestions and perhaps discovery of new characters. It was indeed pleasant to see a relatively thorough classica- tion of the visual joining of the stem of the characters of Book Pahlavi, while taking the base-line into consideration. Such studies will be very benecial for the future type designers of Book Pahlavialthough I have doubts about the applicability of this study to the level of abstraction pertaining to the Unicode standard.
  • A Brief Description of Consonants in Modern Standard Arabic

    A Brief Description of Consonants in Modern Standard Arabic

    Linguistics and Literature Studies 2(7): 185-189, 2014 http://www.hrpub.org DOI: 10.13189/lls.2014.020702 A Brief Description of Consonants in Modern Standard Arabic Iram Sabir*, Nora Alsaeed Al-Jouf University, Sakaka, KSA *Corresponding Author: [email protected] Copyright © 2014 Horizon Research Publishing All rights reserved. Abstract The present study deals with “A brief Modern Standard Arabic. This study starts from an description of consonants in Modern Standard Arabic”. This elucidation of the phonetic bases of sounds classification. At study tries to give some information about the production of this point shows the first limit of the study that is basically Arabic sounds, the classification and description of phonetic rather than phonological description of sounds. consonants in Standard Arabic, then the definition of the This attempt of classification is followed by lists of the word consonant. In the present study we also investigate the consonant sounds in Standard Arabic with a key word for place of articulation in Arabic consonants we describe each consonant. The criteria of description are place and sounds according to: bilabial, labio-dental, alveolar, palatal, manner of articulation and voicing. The attempt of velar, uvular, and glottal. Then the manner of articulation, description has been made to lead to the drawing of some the characteristics such as phonation, nasal, curved, and trill. fundamental conclusion at the end of the paper. The aim of this study is to investigate consonant in MSA taking into consideration that all 28 consonants of Arabic alphabets. As a language Arabic is one of the most 2.
  • L2/20-246 Teeth and Bellies: a Proposed Model for Encoding Book Pahlavi

    L2/20-246 Teeth and Bellies: a Proposed Model for Encoding Book Pahlavi

    L2/20-246 Teeth and bellies: a proposed model for encoding Book Pahlavi Roozbeh Pournader (WhatsApp) September 7, 2020 Background In Everson 2002, a proposal was made to encode a unified Avestan and Pahlavi script in the Unicode Standard. The proposal went through several iterations, eventually leading to a separate encoding of Avestan as proposed by Everson and Pournader 2007a, in which Pahlavi was considered non-unifiable with Avestan due to its cursive joining property. The non-cursive Inscriptional Pahlavi (Everson and Pournader 2007b) and the cursive Psalter Pahlavi (Everson and Pournader 2011) were later encoded too. But Book Pahlavi, despite several attempts (see the Book Pahlavi Topical Document list at https://unicode.org/L2/ topical/bookpahlavi/), remains unencoded. Everson 2002 is peculiar among earlier proposals by proposing six Pahlavi archigraphemes, including an ear, an elbow, and a belly. I remember from conversations with Michael Everson that he intended these to be used for cases when a scribe was just copying some text without understanding the underlying letters, considering the complexity of the script and the loss of some of its nuances to later scribes. They could also be used when modern scholars wanted to represent a manuscript as written, without needing to over-analyze potentially controversial readings. Meyers 2014 takes such a graphical model to an extreme, trying to encode pieces of the writing system, most of which have some correspondence to letters, but with occasional partial letters (e.g. PARTIAL SHIN and FINAL SADHE-PARTIAL PE). Unfortunately, their proposal rejects joining properties for Book Pahlavi and insists that “[t]he joining behaviour of the final stems of the characters in Book Pahlavi is more similar to cursive variants of Latin than to Arabic”.
  • Language of the Old Testament: Biblical Hebrew “The Holy Tongue”

    Language of the Old Testament: Biblical Hebrew “The Holy Tongue”

    E-ISSN 2281-4612 Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies Vol 4 No 1 ISSN 2281-3993 MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy March 2015 Language of the Old Testament: Biblical Hebrew “The Holy Tongue” Associate Professor Luke Emeka Ugwueye Department of Religion & Human Relations, Faculty of Arts, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, PMB 5025, Awka- Anambra State, Nigeria Email: [email protected] phone - 08067674763 Doi:10.5901/ajis.2015.v4n1p129 Abstract Some kind of familiarity with the structure and thought pattern of biblical Hebrew language enhances translation and improved ways of working with the language needed by students of Old Testament. That what the authors of the Scripture say also has meaning for us today is not in doubt but they did not express themselves primarily for us or in our language, and so it requires training on our part to understand them in their own language. The features of biblical Hebrew as combined in the language’s use of imagery and picturesque description of things are of huge assistance in this training exercise for a better operational knowledge of the language and meaning of Hebrew Scripture. Keywords: Language, Old Testament, Biblical Hebrew, Holy Tongue 1. Introduction Hebrew language is the language of the culture, religion and civilization of the Jewish people since ancient times. It belongs to the northwest ancient Semitic family of languages. The word Semitic, according to Kitchen (1992) is formed from the name Shem, Noah’s eldest son (Genesis 5:32). It is an adjective derived from ‘Shem’ meaning a member of any of the group of people speaking Akkadian, Phoenician, Punic, Aramaic, and especially Hebrew, Modern Hebrew and Arabic language.
  • Saudi Dialects: Are They Endangered?

    Saudi Dialects: Are They Endangered?

    Academic Research Publishing Group English Literature and Language Review ISSN(e): 2412-1703, ISSN(p): 2413-8827 Vol. 2, No. 12, pp: 131-141, 2016 URL: http://arpgweb.com/?ic=journal&journal=9&info=aims Saudi Dialects: Are They Endangered? Salih Alzahrani Taif University, Saudi Arabia Abstract: Krauss, among others, claims that languages will face death in the coming centuries (Krauss, 1992). Austin (2010a) lists 7,000 languages as existing and spoken in the world today. Krauss estimates that this figure could come down to 600. That is, most the world's languages are endangered. Therefore, an endangered language is a language that loses her speakers within a few generations. According to Dorian (1981), there is what is called ―tip‖ in language endangerment. He argues that a language's decline can start slowly but suddenly goes through a rapid decline towards the extinction. Thus, languages must be protected at much earlier stage. Arabic dialects such as Zahrani Spoken Arabic (ZSA), and Faifi Spoken Arabic (henceforth, FSA), which are spoken in the southern region of Saudi Arabia, have not been studied, yet. Few people speak these dialects, among many other dialects in the same region. However, the problem is that most these dialects' native speakers are moving to other regions in Saudi Arabia where they use other different dialects. Therefore, are these dialects endangered? What other factors may cause its endangerment? Have they been documented before? What shall we do? This paper discusses three main different points regarding this issue: language and endangerment, languages documentation and description and Arabic language and its family, giving a brief history of Saudi dialects comparing their situation with the whole existing dialects.
  • Arabic Alphabet - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia Arabic Alphabet from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia

    Arabic Alphabet - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia Arabic Alphabet from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia

    2/14/13 Arabic alphabet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Arabic alphabet From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia َأﺑْ َﺠ ِﺪﯾﱠﺔ َﻋ َﺮﺑِﯿﱠﺔ :The Arabic alphabet (Arabic ’abjadiyyah ‘arabiyyah) or Arabic abjad is Arabic abjad the Arabic script as it is codified for writing the Arabic language. It is written from right to left, in a cursive style, and includes 28 letters. Because letters usually[1] stand for consonants, it is classified as an abjad. Type Abjad Languages Arabic Time 400 to the present period Parent Proto-Sinaitic systems Phoenician Aramaic Syriac Nabataean Arabic abjad Child N'Ko alphabet systems ISO 15924 Arab, 160 Direction Right-to-left Unicode Arabic alias Unicode U+0600 to U+06FF range (http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0600.pdf) U+0750 to U+077F (http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0750.pdf) U+08A0 to U+08FF (http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U08A0.pdf) U+FB50 to U+FDFF (http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/UFB50.pdf) U+FE70 to U+FEFF (http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/UFE70.pdf) U+1EE00 to U+1EEFF (http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U1EE00.pdf) Note: This page may contain IPA phonetic symbols. Arabic alphabet ا ب ت ث ج ح خ د ذ ر ز س ش ص ض ط ظ ع en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_alphabet 1/20 2/14/13 Arabic alphabet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia غ ف ق ك ل م ن ه و ي History · Transliteration ء Diacritics · Hamza Numerals · Numeration V · T · E (//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Arabic_alphabet&action=edit) Contents 1 Consonants 1.1 Alphabetical order 1.2 Letter forms 1.2.1 Table of basic letters 1.2.2 Further notes
  • Persian Language

    Persian Language

    v course reference persian language r e f e r e n c e زبان فارسی The Persian Language 1 PERSIAN OR FARSI? In the U.S., the official language of Iran is language courses in “Farsi,” universities and sometimes called “Farsi,” but sometimes it is scholars prefer the historically correct term called “Persian.” Whereas U.S. government “Persian.” The term “Farsi” is better reserved organizations have traditionally developed for the dialect of Persian used in Iran. 2 course reference AN INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGE Persian is a member of the Indo-European Persian has three major dialects: Farsi, language family, which is the largest in the the official language of Iran, spoken by 50 world. percent of the population; Dari, spoken mostly in Afghanistan, and Tajiki, spoken Persian falls under the Indo-Iranian branch, in Tajikistan. Other languages in Iran are comprising languages spoken primarily Arabic, New Aramaic, Armenian, Georgian in Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, India, and Turkic dialects such as Azerbaidjani, Bangladesh, areas of Turkey and Iraq, and Khalaj, Turkemenian and Qashqa”i. some of the former Soviet Union. INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES GERMANIC INDO-IRANIAN HELLENIC CELTIC ITALIC BALTO-SLAVIC Polish Russin Indic Greek Serbo-Crotin North Germnic Ltin Irnin Mnx Irish Welsh Old Norse Swedish Scottish Avestn Old Persin Icelndic Norwegin French Spnish Portuguese Itlin Middle Persin West Germnic Snskrit Rumnin Ctln Frsi Kurdish Bengli Urdu Gujrti Hindi Old High Germn Old Dutch Anglo-Frisin Middle High Germn Middle Dutch Old Frisin Old English Germn Flemish Dutch Afrikns Frisin Middle English Yiddish Modern English vi v Persian Language 3 ALPHABET: FROM PAHLAVI TO ARABIC History tells us that Iranians used the Pahlavi Unlike English, Persian is written from right writing system prior to the 7th Century.
  • Considerations About Semitic Etyma in De Vaan's Latin Etymological Dictionary

    Considerations About Semitic Etyma in De Vaan's Latin Etymological Dictionary

    applyparastyle “fig//caption/p[1]” parastyle “FigCapt” Philology, vol. 4/2018/2019, pp. 35–156 © 2019 Ephraim Nissan - DOI https://doi.org/10.3726/PHIL042019.2 2019 Considerations about Semitic Etyma in de Vaan’s Latin Etymological Dictionary: Terms for Plants, 4 Domestic Animals, Tools or Vessels Ephraim Nissan 00 35 Abstract In this long study, our point of departure is particular entries in Michiel de Vaan’s Latin Etymological Dictionary (2008). We are interested in possibly Semitic etyma. Among 156 the other things, we consider controversies not just concerning individual etymologies, but also concerning approaches. We provide a detailed discussion of names for plants, but we also consider names for domestic animals. 2018/2019 Keywords Latin etymologies, Historical linguistics, Semitic loanwords in antiquity, Botany, Zoonyms, Controversies. Contents Considerations about Semitic Etyma in de Vaan’s 1. Introduction Latin Etymological Dictionary: Terms for Plants, Domestic Animals, Tools or Vessels 35 In his article “Il problema dei semitismi antichi nel latino”, Paolo Martino Ephraim Nissan 35 (1993) at the very beginning lamented the neglect of Semitic etymolo- gies for Archaic and Classical Latin; as opposed to survivals from a sub- strate and to terms of Etruscan, Italic, Greek, Celtic origin, when it comes to loanwords of certain direct Semitic origin in Latin, Martino remarked, such loanwords have been only admitted in a surprisingly exiguous num- ber of cases, when they were not met with outright rejection, as though they merely were fanciful constructs:1 In seguito alle recenti acquisizioni archeologiche ed epigrafiche che hanno documen- tato una densità finora insospettata di contatti tra Semiti (soprattutto Fenici, Aramei e 1 If one thinks what one could come across in the 1890s (see below), fanciful constructs were not a rarity.
  • Classical and Modern Standard Arabic Marijn Van Putten University of Leiden

    Classical and Modern Standard Arabic Marijn Van Putten University of Leiden

    Chapter 3 Classical and Modern Standard Arabic Marijn van Putten University of Leiden The highly archaic Classical Arabic language and its modern iteration Modern Standard Arabic must to a large extent be seen as highly artificial archaizing reg- isters that are the High variety of a diglossic situation. The contact phenomena found in Classical Arabic and Modern Standard Arabic are therefore often the re- sult of imposition. Cases of borrowing are significantly rarer, and mainly found in the lexical sphere of the language. 1 Current state and historical development Classical Arabic (CA) is the highly archaic variety of Arabic that, after its cod- ification by the Arab Grammarians around the beginning of the ninth century, becomes the most dominant written register of Arabic. While forms of Middle Arabic, a style somewhat intermediate between CA and spoken dialects, gain some traction in the Middle Ages, CA remains the most important written regis- ter for official, religious and scientific purposes. From the moment of CA’s rise to dominance as a written language, the whole of the Arabic-speaking world can be thought of as having transitioned into a state of diglossia (Ferguson 1959; 1996), where CA takes up the High register and the spoken dialects the Low register.1 Representation in writing of these spoken dia- lects is (almost) completely absent in the written record for much of the Middle Ages. Eventually, CA came to be largely replaced for administrative purposes by Ottoman Turkish, and at the beginning of the nineteenth century, it was function- ally limited to religious domains (Glaß 2011: 836).