sign in sign up
<<
Home , Arabic

THE VOCALIZATION SYSTEMS OF , HEBREW, AND JANUA LINGUARUM

STUDIA MEMORIAE NICOLAI VAN WIJK DEDICATA

edenda curai

CORNEL1S H. VAN SCHOONEVELD

STANFORD UNIVERSITY

NR. XIII

1972 MOUTON & CO • 'S-GRAVENHAGE THE VOCALIZATION SYSTEMS OF ARABIC, HEBREW, AND ARAMAIC

THEIR PHONETIC AND PHONEMIC PRINCIPLES

by

SHELOMO MORAG THE HEBREW UNIVERSITY,

Second

1972 MOUTON & CO • 'S-GRAVENHAGE © Copyright 1961 Mouton & Co., The , Publishers, The Hague. No part of this may be translated or reproduced in any from, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publishers.

First Printing 1962

Printed in The Netherlands by D. Reidel, Dordrecht. PREFACE

This study is not a complete history of the vocalization systems of Arabic, Hebrew, and Aramaic, nor does it pretend to be one. The for writing a full history of these vocalization systems has not yet come; much work remains to be done in the examination of mss. and printed texts before such a history can be written. My aim in this study was to trace the major lines of development in the history of the various systems of vocalization, pointing out the pertinent linguistic principles that underlay the work of the philologi- cal schools in which these systems were formulated. I am indebted to a number of my teachers and colleagues who offered advice on various problems, or who read proofs. I must especially mention Professors H. . Polotsky, Z. Ben-Hayyim, and C. Rabin, all of the Hebrew University, and Dr. J. B. Segal, of the University of London. Mr. Harvey Sobelman, of Cambridge, , has also contributed some interesting remarks. My wife assisted in a number of ways, not the least of which has been constant encouragement. This monograph was written during my stay at Brandeis University. I wish to extend my thanks to my colleagues there for a pleasant and stimulating experience.

Cambridge, Massachusetts, June 1959 S.M.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface 5

Introduction 9

1. Arabic 13

2. Hebrew 17

3. Aramaic 45

4. Motivation and Methodology in the Vocalization Systems: Some Reflections 61

5. Tables 77 I. Synopsis of Phonemic and Nonphonemic Notations. II. The Graphic Forms of the Vocalization Signs.

6. Bibliography 79

INTRODUCTION

0.1. Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic represent in their orthography only some of their . To indicate the missing vowels, special systems of notation were invented at a certain period in the history of each of these . In these systems, usually called vocalization systems, signs which represent the vowels and some other phonetic and phonemic entities, are placed above, below, or within the letters. Thus, for example, a dot, placed beneath any letter, informs the reader of a Hebrew or a Jewish Aramaic text which is vocalized in the Tiberian (see § 2.2), that the in question is followed by the vowel i.

0.1.1. The above systems of vocalization were gradually created in various schools which flourished in , and Mesopo- tamia between the fourth and the tenth centuries A.D. These schools brought to an end a process, which, for Hebrew and Aramaic, be- gan many centuries earlier. The proto-Canaanite alphabet, from which the alphabets used in these languages developed, originated as a system of writing in which only were marked; the vowels were left un- denoted.1 In the course of time, there arose a need to indicate the missing vowels. In their search for a solution to this problem, North West Semitic scribes, particularly those writing Aramaic, began, as early as the ninth century B.C., to employ as vowel letters (i.e. letters which stand for vowels) 2 the letters which had originally

1 See Cross and Freedman, 7 if. The question whether in this alphabet a letter stands only for a consonant or for a consonant followed by any vowel - that is, whether the character of the alphabet is consonantal or syllabic - does not concern us here. The most convincing proponent of the syllabic interpretation of West Semitic writing in recent years has been I. J. Gelb (1952,166ff; 1958). 2 The traditional term for the vowel letters is matres lectionis. 10 INTRODUCTION represented only the semivocalic y and w. Later on in the gradual process of the introduction of vowel letters into a consonantal system of writing,3 the letters representing' (the ) and h were also adopted as vowel letters. Thus came into the scriptio plena, the "full writing" of Aramaic and Hebrew, an orthography in which certain vowels are represented by letters,4 as against, for example, Greek and Roman alphabetic orthographies in which an attempt is made to represent all vowels. We should also bear in mind that in Semitic writing, in contrast with the Greek and Roman, each of the vowel letters has also a consonantal (or semivocalic) function. Compared with the scriptio defectiva, the orthography in which the vowels were completely or almost completely lacking, the scriptio plena was a significant step toward making the reading of any North West Semitic text less dependent on the reader's inter- pretation, which was sometimes necessarily subjective. Even the scriptio plena, however, constituted only a partial solution to the problem in question.

0.1.1.1. In order to get a more complete picture of the inadequacy of the vowel letters, the following facts should be considered: (a) The vowels of Aramaic and Hebrew can be roughly classified into three categories: the /a/ group, the /// group, and /w/ group.6 The introduction of the vowel letters provided a useful means for the indication of the long vowels of the /// and /«/ groups. Vowels of the \a\ group, on the other hand, were consistently denoted by the vowel letters only in final position;®

3 The history of this process has been admirably presented by Cross and Freedman. 4 See Gelb 1952, 166; Cross and Freedman, 1-7, where the pertinent literature is reviewed. 5 Cf. Segal, 20. A note on transcription: an unenclosed italics letter stands for a grapheme (i.e., any letter or vocalisation sign); between slant lines and square brackets, it denotes, as usual, phonemic and allophonic values, respectively. 6 Except when following in Hebrew Ik/ in the pronominal or /// in the perfect forms of the second person masc. sing. INTRODUCTION 11 medially, they were represented only in certain verbal and nominal categories.7 (b) Short vowels of all three groups were not as a rule denoted by the vowel letters.8 (c) As a result of various processes of linguistic development, the vowel letters acquired, besides their consonantal functions, a multivalent character. Thus, in the orthography of (§ 2.2), the vowel letter y may appear not only when the vowel of the preceding consonant is ji/ but also when this vowel is /e/, /e/, and /a/. Similarly, w is written both for /«/ and /o/;' comes after /a/, /e/, /e/, /o/, and ///, and A in final position after ¡a/, ¡e/, ¡e/, and /o/.9

0.1.2. The invention of the vocalization signs (§0.1) proved to be almost as efficient as would have been the introduction of new vowel letters to represent the heretofore missing vowels (and the other phonetic and phonemic entities which were not denoted by the orthography). In fact, it was primarily because of tradition and the sacred nature of the texts that no additional vowel letters were introduced;10 instead, external signs - that is, signs placed above, below or within the letters - were adopted. The ingenious invention of the vocalization signs thus solved the problem of the necessary notation without involving any visual deformation of the tradi- tional orthography. It may be of interest to add here that the use of the vocalization signs, which became a part of scribal practice, had also a significant effect on the traditional methods of teaching,11 and played an important role in stabilizing the oral

' Medial a-vowels are regularly represented by a vowel letter in the orthog- raphy of Mandaean (which, however, employs all vowel letters to a greater extent than any other Aramaic - see below, footnote 10). 8 Exceptions to this rule are not too rare. See, e.. for Syriac, Brockelmann, 7; Noldeke, 1904, 5ff. 9 Some of these usages, for example' after an //'/ that is not represented by the vowel letter y, are rather rare (orthographical phenomena which are peculiar to specific texts, such as the Qumra :n texts, do not concern us here). 10 Orthographies which were not bound by tradition did introduce additional vowel letters. This has been the case in Neo-Punic and Mandaean. 11 For a description of certain traditional methods of teaching reading still extant in several Jewish ethnic groups, see Morag, 1957. 12 INTRODUCTION transmission of some of the reading of the texts (see § 2.2.2).

0.2. It seems worthwhile to examine the principles upon which the Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic vocalization systems are based. The analysis of these principles may shed some light upon a hitherto relatively neglected chapter in the , and, therefore, may be of interest not only to the Semitist but to the student of general linguistics as well.

0.2.1. In this study, the term vocalization sign will apply to any external (§ 0.1.2.) mark which serves to denote the proper reading of a word or of a letter, and the use of which is not confined to one letter only. Signs which regularly appear with any one letter, and with it only (such as the point which differentiates Hebrew s from s, or Syriac d from ), will not be included in this term. 1

ARABIC

1.1. The orthography of represents by vowel let- ters all the long vowel of the language - /a:/, /«:/, /»':/ - but none of the short vowel phonemes. The latter, /a/, /u/, /«'/, are denoted by vocalization signs. Quantity, which is phonemic in Arabic, is thus expressed simply by the presence or absence of the vowel letters: when the vocalization signs are not followed by the corresponding vowel letters (that is, when the sign for ¡i\ is not followed by the vowel letter y, etc.), they denote short vowels; long vowels, on the other hand, are represented by the vowel letters ' w y.1 In this case the vowel letters do not have any vocalization signs of their own (accompanied by vocalization signs of their own, the letters do not serve as vowel letters but stand for the phonemes /'/, /w/, and lyl, respectively - cf. § 1.1.1.);2 the letter which precedes the vowel letter usually has the vocalization sign for that short vowel which corresponds to the long vowel in question.3 In a few cases, Arabic does not denote long vowels by the vowel letters.4 Also, in a number of morphological categories, the vowel letter ' (in final position following w) is of purely orthographic

1 Final /a:/ may also be represented by the vowel letter y\ see Wright, I, 11. 2 The letters w and y may also represent, when accompanied by a special sign (the ), the /'/. 3 As pointed out by Fleisch {1958, 97), it would be more in accordance with the phonetic concepts of certain Arab grammarians to have the preceding letter without any vocalization sign; cf. further his valuable observations regarding this problem. 4 For such cases see Wright, I, 9-10. As to the notation of final //:/ in the orthography of the Qur'a:n cf. the literature reviewed in Birkeland, 1940b, 20-21. It seems, however, that in many of the instances in which the ortho- graphy of the Qur'a:n does not use the vowel letter y to represent a historical //:/ in final position, the historically long phoneme in question has been short- ened. In - usually, although not exclusively, with pausal forms - 14 ARABIC significance, having neither a phonetic nor a phonemic value.5 All these cases constitute, however, clear exceptions to the general rules of the Arabic systems of orthography and vocalization. In addition to the three short vowel phonemes, the Arabic vocalization system indicates , which is phonemic, and possesses a sign for zero. Also, Arabic represents by external signs, the so-called tanwi:n signs, the last components - /an/, /un/, /in/ - of the final of an indefinite noun of the so-called "triptote" class. The notation of these by external signs, and not by the orthography, results from morphophonemic and grammatical, as well as historical, considerations. In conclusion we see that the Arabic vocalization system is based on phonemic principles: it represents all the vowel phonemes, but none of the .6

1.1.1. In the Arabic vocalization a suitable method has been found to solve the problems that may have originated in the bivalent na- ture of the letters \ w, and y: as noted above, these letters serve as vowel letters when not possessing any vocalization sign of their own; otherwise, they denote consonantal and semivocalic pho- nemes.7 See further § 2.2.3.

1.2. The Arabic use of the vowel letters is based upon an applica- tion of a principle employed in Aramaic. As the developed from that of Nabatean in a gradual process stretching final /// and /«/ may be counted as long, even when they are not represented by the vowel letters y and w: Wright, II, 368ff., 390; cf., however, Birkeland's observations {1940b, 12ff.). 5 According to the Arab grammarians the function of the 'alif (the letter ') in these morphological categories is to safeguard the reader from taking the preceding w (which would otherwise be the last letter of the word) to be the first letter of the following word. This letter is, therefore, called by the grammarians the "guarding 'alif' or the "separating 'alif". See Wright, I, 11. ' Cf. Cantineau, 1941, 131. For the phonemic structure of Classical Arabic see Cantineau, 1946. 7 Initial ' may, in close juncture, also have the value of zero; in this case a special sign, the so-called hamzatulwafl, is supplied to the letter. ARABIC 15 over several centuries,8 the took over from the Nabateans the practice of denoting //:/ and /«:/ by vowel letters;9 to these two vowel letters, a third one, \ has been added in Arabic as a regular indicator of /a:/. To represent the short vowel phonemes, the vo- calization signs were invented later - in the seventh and eighth centuries A.D.10 However, the course that Arabic vowel notation finally took differs considerably from that of both Aramaic (§ 3) and Hebrew (§ 2). Of the which make use of vocaliza- tion signs, Arabic is the only one to denote in its orthography all of the long vowel phonemes but none of the short ones. Thus Arabic establishes a consistent and clear-cut opposition between its internal and external vowel notation - that is, between the values of its vowel letters and those of the respective vocalization signs. As observed above, this opposition in marking is correlated with a structural feature of the language - the quantitative opposition of the vowel phonemes.

1.2.1. The introduction of the vocalization signs into the practice of the scribes was a gradual process. Early manuscripts of the Qur'a:n show a partial use of these signs, "the vowel sign for one or more of the letters of a given word being used only where it was essential for a correct reading."11

8 See, e.g., Abbott, 5. 9 In Nabatean, ¡a:/ is denoted - by the vowel letters ' and h - only in final position, but not medially. For the Nabatean use of the vowel letters see Cantineau, 1930, 46ff. 10 We are not concerned in this study with the development of the forms of the Arabic vocalization signs from points to marks which originally were minatures of the vowel letters. For this aspect of the problem see Moritz, 384; Bergstrasser-Pretzl, 261ff.; Abbott, 39. Cf. also Fleisch, 1958, 85. 11 Abbot, loc. cit. We have not included in the description of the Arabic vocalization the signs denoting the 'ima. la (that is, in some reading traditions of the Qur'a:n, the substitution of the phonemes I a: I and /a/ by /

2

HEBREW

2.1. In Hebrew the situation is more complicated. The earliest attempts at a Hebrew vocalization system did not provide any specific signs to represent the vowels; only a diacritical point was used at that time. This dot was put above or below the word and served to differentiate homographs which resemble one another both in the number of their syllables and in the position of the stress, and which are distinguishable only by the quality of their vowels. At the present state of our knowledge, we can observe two stages in the use of the point:1 (a) Placed above the homograph, the point indicated a word in which a full vowel, usually /a/ (or a morphophonemic alternant of this phoneme) followed the first consonant;2 placed below, the point denoted that the word should be read with a sewa (or with a vowel which is a morphophonemic alternant of the Sewa) after its first consonant.3 Thus, e.g., the homographs Imsphot and wyrm had to be read respectively /lamispahot/ "by the families" ( 7,14)

1 The information we possess regarding the Hebrew diacritical point, which is based on lists of the biblical Masora, is scanty. To the best of my know- ledge, no Hebrew mss. which bear evidence of the use of the point are extant. In the interpretation of the masoretic terms milcel and milrac, as denoting, at this stage of the history of Hebrew , a point placed above and below the word, respectively, I follow Graetz, 350ff. See also Kahle apud Bauer- Leander, 1922,93, and Chomsky, 44., The arguments put forward by Mordell, 144ff., against Graetz' interpretation are not convincing. The Syriac diacritical point, by which, as suggested by Graetz, the use of the Hebrew point may have been influenced, will be dealt with below (§ 3.2.1.). Unlike its Hebrew counter- part, the Syriac diacritical point is amply attested in the mss. 2 In most cases the distinction concerns the vowel of the , or, in verbal forms, that of the wdw consecutive. 3 For pairs of such homographs see Frensdorff, lists nos. 45-51 (pp. 52-56), and the references given by Kahle, loc. cit. 18 HEBREW

and ¡wayorem/ "and shot at them" (Psalms 64, 8) 4 when they appeared with an upper point, but jlemispdhot/ "by families" (Nehemia 4, 7) and /weyorem/ "and let him teach them" (II Kings 17,27) 5 when the point appeared below. (b) Placed above the homograph, the point denoted that it was to be read as a word having as one of its vowels /o/ and not /d/, /a/, or /e/; /«/ and not /d/, /a/, ¡ej, or /*'/; /a/ and not /a/, ¡, or ///.8 A point below the homograph, on the other hand, indicated that it should be regarded as representing a word which has a vowel from the opposite group (that is, /d/, /a/, or /ej, but not /o/, etc.). In the two homographs yhynu and bncr, for example, a point placed above indicated the respective readings /yehaytinu/ "they will let us live" and Ibanocarl "in youth" as opposed to /yehaytnu/ "he will revive us" and /banacar/ "in the young man", which were denoted by a point appearing above the homographs.7 As the term diacritical implies, the point had no autonomous value - it did not represent any specific vowel - but rather belonged to the whole word. However, although it lacked an explicitly autonomous value, the point did possess an implied value. In the earlier stage of its use (above, (a)) it indicated, in most cases, a sewa as opposed to /a/. The fundamental value of the sew a was that of [a];8 hence, we may say that the diacritical point served as indicator of a quantitative opposition (cf. also § 2.3.4.). In its latter stage (above, (b)), the application of the point was based upon an opposition between a single relatively back (or, to use acoustic terms, grave) vowel and the more front (acute) vowels: /o/ versus /d/, /a/, and /e/; /«/ versus /d/, /a/, ¡el and ///; /d/ versus /a/, jel and /if.9 At this stage, the use of the point provided a valuable

4 Phonetically [lammispihoB] and [wayyorem], 6 Phonetically [lamispdhoO] and [wiyorem]. For the phonetic value of a ¡¿wd preceding /y/ see Morag, 1956, 29, 33. * The Hebrew vowels are denoted in this study by the following symbols: d = q&me$; o = holem; u = sureq; u — qibii?; a = patdh; e = s6gol; e = sewd; a = hataf-patah; e = ha(af-seg61; i = hataf-q&m6$. 7 Homographs of this category are included in Frensdorff, list no. 5 (p. 13). 8 Morag, 1956, 32ff. 9 Kahle, op. cit., 94. HEBREW 19 means of distinguishing between homographs. We should note, however, that the point could differentiate those homographs which differed from each other in one vowel phoneme only, provid- ed that the contrasting vowels belonged to different groups. As far as we can learn from the available material, the point did not assist the reader in distinguishing between homographs differing only in one vowel phoneme when both these phonemes were of the group denoted by the lower point - for example, between the words caz "strong", "fierce" (masc. sing.) and cez "goat", which are both written cz.

2.2. As we see, the use of the diacritical point was far from being sufficiently instructive: while assisting the reader in ascertaining the vocalization of certain written forms, it could not possibly indicate the correct reading of most words. Gradually, more complete systems of vocalization developed in the philological schools of Palestine and . These vocalization systems - the Tiberian, the Palestinian, the Samaritan, and the Babylonian - differ from one another not only in respect to the forms of the signs they employ, but also - and it is primarily here that the interest of the linguist lies - in the number and nature of the entities which they denote.

2.2.1. The traditional approach in the study of the Hebrew vocal- ization systems is a phonetic one; the problems which are usually dealt with are centered around a comparison of the sound values of the respective signs in the three systems. A comparative study which would consider both phonetic and phonemic factors may, therefore, be of value.10

2.2.2. Before proceeding to discuss the principles underlying the vocalization systems, we wish to point out briefly a historical fact relevant to the formation and evolution of these systems. Primarily, the systems were intended to serve as an aid in the reading of certain

10 For the phonemic structure of see Birkeland, 1940a, 59-61; Harris; Cantineau, 1950; Rosen, 1953, and Schram. These phonemic treatments are mostly concerned with the Tiberian tradition. 20 HEBREW sacred texts (mainly the Bible), and each system was based upon orally transmitted tradition(s) of reading these texts.11 The vocaliza- tion signs came to perpetuate in a written form certain linguistic entities, mostly vowels, which, prior to the creation of the signs had been transmitted by an alone.

2.2.3. All vocalization systems had, first of all, to cope with difficulties arising from the bivalent nature of certain letters which had both consonantal (or semivocalic) and vocalic values (§ 0.1.1.). The need to differentiate the former from the latter values existed in Arabic as well as in Hebrew and Aramaic; it was, however, more acute in the latter languages. In Arabic the situation is rather simple, since, as noted above (§ 1.1.), the letters y w ' serve as vowel letters as a rule only when they do not have any vocaliza- tion signs of their own. For Hebrew and Aramaic, on the other hand, the differentiation between the two kinds of values in question could not be based upon any such automatic principle. Therefore, these languages had to develop other methods to achieve the differentiation of vowel and consonant notation. The principles upon which these methods are based in the various systems are similar; they will be presented in more detail in the treatment of each system.

2.3. We shall begin our discussion of the principles of the various Hebrew vocalization systems with the Tiberian system. This is done as a matter of convenience. From a historical point of view, there is no justification for doing so - the Tiberian vocalization does not represent a stage in the general history of Hebrew vocalization that precedes those disclosed by the other systems of vocalization. However, since the Tiberian system, which is the only one employed at present in vocalized Hebrew texts,12 is generally better known than

11 See Morag, 1958. 12 Of the various Hebrew systems of vocalization, the Tiberian is the only one to be used to this very day by all Jewish communities. The Babylonian system was employed until recently by the Yemenite community, but has been un- known for centuries to all other communities; the Palestinian system has been utterly forsaken by all communities for many generations. HEBREW 21 the other systems, its placement at the head of our comparative discussion may facilitate the course of the discussion.

2.3.1. In most cases, the Tiberian vocalization has found a way to differentiate the consonantal (or semivocalic) and the vocalic values of the letters y w ' h (§ 2.2.3.); this differentiation is achieved as follows: (a) y has a consonantal value whenever any vocalization sign accompanies it (that is, appears under or above it, denoting either zero or a vowel that follows the phoneme /y[); when, on the other hand, no vocalization sign comes with it in medial position, it serves as a vowel letter. Initially, it can never appear as a vowel letter. In final position, no vocalization sign ever accompanies the letter y, and in this position the letter retains its bivalent character even after the introduction of the vocalization signs. It is only by rules based upon the nature of the preceding vowel that the value of the letter y in this position can be determined: after /a/, /a/, /o/ or /«/ it represents the semivowel /yl; /after fi'/ or /e/ it is a vowel letter.13 (b) w denotes the vowel /«/ when accompanied by a middle point and the vowel /

13 The Tiberian value of a final letter y which follows an /e/ cannot be precisely determined. However, although it may have stood for a semivocalic lyl as well, it is more probable that after ¡ej the function of the letter was that of a vowel letter. 14 In certain Tiberian mss. a w may have, in addition to the middle or the upper point, the sign for /a/ (the so-called patah furtivum). In this case the w stands for /w/. This vocalization occurs, however, only when the w precedes final /A/, Ibl, or /c/- Other mss. - and this is the common practice in printing Hebrew texts with vocalization - place the /a/ sign not under the w but under the letter that follows it. 16 Or, according to other traditions of Hebrew pronunciation, /'«/. 22 HEBREW

(c) ' is a vowel letter when not accompanied by any vocalization sign. Otherwise, it represents the phoneme /'/• Certain Tiberian manuscripts use a râpé sign (a horizontal bar above the letter) to denote 1 which serves as a vowel letter. (d) Only in final position does h appear as a vowel letter.16 A final h which represents the phoneme //¡/ has the dâgés, or mapiq, sign (a dot inserted within the letter) ; serving as a vowel letter, h either has no sign or, in certain manuscripts, has the râpé sign.

2.3.2. The vocalization signs of the Tiberian system may be clas- sified into two categories, namely univalent and bivalent signs, that is, signs which stand for one, and not more than one, entity and signs which have a double value.

2.3.2.1. There are eleven univalent signs in the Tiberian system; these signs represent: (a) Eight of the nine vowel phonemes of Tiberian Hebrew: /a/, /e/,17 /el, ///, \â\, joj, /«/, and /¿/,18 One of these phonemes, /«/, is represented by two signs.19 The only vowel phoneme not repre-

18 Exceptions are rare. They consist mostly of proper names (e.g., the names spelled csh'l, pdhsur), which historically are to be regarded as compounds. For other cases in which h occasionally represents medial vowels see Ginsberg, 1942, 235-236; 1948, 81, footnote 23. 17 The status of the phone e is somewhat problematic. In certain cases this phone may appear to be an of jaj (e.g., in nouns of the type CVCVC when it precedes consonants other than /A/, /hj or /'/) or of /// (e.g., sometimes when following /'/ or /h/). In fact, several scholars have not con- sequently accorded it a phonemic status. Birkeland (1940a, 60) considers it to represent a "neutralization" of the above phonemes or of ¡el, while Cantineau (1950, 114) regards it as an allophone of /a/. However, a and e contrast in certain forms ('ar'ékâ "I shall show you" - 'er'ékâ "I shall see you"); moreover (and since the functional load of the phone s is rather limited this seems to carry more weight) an examination of the distributional features of e leads to the conclusion that its status is phonemic rather than allophonic. 18 ¡¿¡, the hàtaf-qàmés, has an exceedingly light functional load ; the phonemic nature of this vowel is, however, clear. Cf. the oppositions l'ëni/ "I" - /'¿nil "fleet"; //iSaul Levin of the University of Saint Louis). See Harris, 147, and Cantineau, 1950, 116. 19 Of these two signs one, the surâq, is the vowel letter w with a middle point HEBREW 23

sented by a univalent sign, ¡é¡ (the séwá),20 possesses certain peculiarities which are not shared by any of the other phonemes (see § 2.3.5.2.). (b) Two allophones: [a\ and [e], allophones of /é/.21

2.3.2.2. Two of the Tiberian vocalization signs are bivalent. These signs respectively represent:

(§ 2.3.1., (b)); the other, « (the gibus), is used when the traditional orthography does not have this vowel letter, ü, it is true, appears quite frequently in closed unstressed syllables. Its use, however, is far from being limited to this position, and, therefore, it cannot be considered to represent an allophone of /«/, but should rather be regarded as a graphic variant of the former sign. 20 In this study, the term séwá stands for the séwá mobile of the traditional" terminology of Hebrew ; for the traditional séwá quiescens I use zero. 21 Harris (loc. cit.) and Cantineau {op. cit., 116) consider [à] and [e] to be phonemic. This view is shared by Garbell, 154. (Garbell, however, does not regard ¡él as a phoneme.) In my opinion, à denotes an allophone of ¡éj, and è represents a phone in transition from a nonphonemic into a phonemic status. We shall discuss here briefly the relations between [à], [e], and /é/. (a) As we learn from grammatical treatises of the Tiberian school, the value of the hátaf-patáh, the sign denoting là], is equal to that of the main allophone of ¡él, the séwá. The hátaf-patáh sign, however, is univalent and always denotes [df], whereas the Séwá sign denotes this phone only when not followed by ¡y¡ or I'h'hl (cf. § 2.3.5.2., (b)). In fact, the main purpose of the Tiberians in introducing the fiátof-patáh sign was to indicate that the consonant having this sign (usually, although not exclusively, one of the l'hcff¡ group: see Gesenius, 53) is always followed by the [á] allophone of the séwá, whatever be the following phoneme. Cf. Morag, 1956, 46-47. (b) I know of two cases only where the contrast á - è may be interpreted as representing an opposition. Both these cases, however, involve difficulties. In the first case there may be an opposition between à and è in two forms of the imper. masc. plur. of the simple stem - cánú (I 12, 3) versus cénú (Numbers 21, 17; Psalms 147, 7) - if we take the latter form to mean "sing" (the former means "answer", "bear witness".) But it is not clear whether the semantic distinction between a cny meaning "to answer" and a root cny meaning "to sing" (historically, the Hebrew root cny represents two different Semitic roots) still existed in the Tiberian tradition of Hebrew. The second case in which à and «contrast is càli "go up" (imper. fem. sing.) versus csii "pestle" ( 27, 22). However, csli comes in this verse in external open juncture, where one would expect to have /%'///, thus forming an exception (cf. Rabin. 1960, 178). On the whole, taking both contrastive and distributional features in consid- eration (for the latter features see Rabin, op. cit., 177-178), it appears that è represents a phone which, while being in transition from a nonphonemic into a phonemic status, is still closer to its nonphonemic stage. 24 HEBREW

(a) Both the phoneme /c/ and zero.22 (b) Two nonphonemic entities - gemination,23 which occurs in all consonants except f h c h[, and the versus the allophones of ¡p b t dk g/.2i These entities are both indicated by a point inserted within the letter - the so-called dagis. 2.3.2.2.1. The use of the dagts sign with a final h (§ 2.3.1., (d)) is, needless to say, univalent: ¡hi is never geminated. 2.3.3. The Tiberian vocalization does not denote stress, which is phonemic. In Tiberian Hebrew, as well as in some of the Babylonian texts, stress is indicated by means of another system - the system of accents, which also denote pitch modulations in the traditional reading of the Bible, as well as syntactic conjunction and disjunc- tion.25 As stress is indicated by the accents, the inclusion of a 22 When denoting zero, the sign in question appears in Tiberian Hebrew medially with all letters; in final position, on the other hand, it appears reg- ularly only with k. Other letters have the siwd sign in final position when they represent a consonant that forms a cluster with the preceding consonant - that is, when the preceding letter also has a ¡¿wA sign (the value of which is zero). Final t comes with the siwd sign also after a vowel, but according to most mss. only when this letter represents [f], not [0]. This is the case in the form of the for the second pers. fem. sing., and in the forms of this person in the perfect, when the third radical is /A/, ¡hi, or /c/. Cf. further § 4.2., (a). 23 Gemination can be considered phonemic only if the slwd is not regarded as a phoneme. Thus, for example, we should consider forms like [simmdhd] "she made glad" (§ 2.3.5.2., (b)) as either Isimgff&l or Isimmhd/ (versus /simhd/ "joy"). 24 Harris considers [fvBSxy], the fricative counterparts of [pbtdkg], to be phonemic {op. cit., 147). This view has been accepted by Schramm, 8. True, certain beginnings of a phonemicization process of [fvOdxy] can be traced in Biblical Hebrew; in some cases (which, however, are not very numerous), these have almost the same distribution as their stop counterparts. However, the general laws for the distribution of the stop and fricative phones in question, as well as certain variants of the Biblical vocalization, lead us to view [fvOdxy] as the respective allophones of Ipbtdkg/. See Carttineau, 1950, lOOff.; Moscati, 1954, 45. 25 In certain Babylonian texts the accents do not serve as regular indicators of the stressed syllables; for this purpose, specific signs of the Masora are used in these texts: see Kahle apudBauer-Leander, 1922, 130. For the possible nota- tion of stress in the Complicated Babylonian System, see § 2.4.2,(a). As regards the functions of the accents in the Palestinian texts, no definite conclusions concerning the notation of the stress can be reached without further study of all the available material; see also Kahle, ibid., 138-139. HEBREW 25 special sign in the vocalization system to denote it would, of course, have been redundant.

2.3.4. For most Hebrew vowels, quantity is a nonphonemic fea- ture. It is of relevance only for two vowel phonemes: /á/ and ¡é¡, which contrast quantitatively with /a/,20 and /a/,27 respectively. The quantitative feature of the former phonemes is indicated by the very forms of the signs which represent them in the vocalization system.28 It was not deemed necessary, therefore, to have a specific sign for the phonemic feature of quantity.

2.3.4.1. It is possible to assume that /e/ and ¡e¡ when followed in the orthography by y, actually represent /e:/ and ¡e\¡. If this is really the case, we shall have two other vowel phonemes for which quantity is a relevant feature: cf. ¡débáréká#¡ "your word" - ldébáré:kál "your words";29 /morénu/ "our teacher" - ¡moré:nu/ "our teachers".30 Thus, it appears that in the phonemic system, as it is reflected by the vocalization and the orthography, quantitative oppositions of two degrees exist - ultrashort versus ordinary and ordinary versus long:

ultrashort ordinary long M Idl Ml M M M lei /e:/ 24 In the Sephardi pronunciation of Hebrew, in which /¿/ in an open and in a closed stressed syllable is realized as [a], the opposition between and /df/ is not, of course, a quantitative one. This pronunciation, as is well known, does not reflect the traditional pronunciation which was considered by the Tiberian philologists to be the correct one. The quantitative opposition between /grammars of Hebrew no distinct phonemic values are assigned in these forms to /e:/ and ¡e:j as against /¿/ and /e/, respectively. 26 HEBREW

The opposition short-ordinary is, as noted above (§ 2.3.4.), rep- resented by the forms of the ultrashort vowel signs; that of the ordinary-long is indicated orthographically by the vowel letter y.

2.3.4.2. Longer allophones of all vowel phonemes are denoted in certain morphophonemic categories by the méteg - a sign which, according to the Tiberian philologists, has a status of its own among the vocalization signs.31 In other categories, longer allophones are sometimes indicated by the accents (§ 2.3.3.).32

2.3.5. One feature of the Tiberian vocalization is at first sight baffling - namely, the bivalence of certain signs (§ 2.3.2.) - and in particular that of the sign which stands both for /e/, the sëwâ phoneme, and for zero (ibid., (a)).

2.3.5.1. Less of a problem is the other case of bivalence - the use of the same sign, the dâgés, for both gemination and the plosive allophones of certain consonantal phonemes (ibid., (b)), that is, for two nonphonemic entities which are phonetically different. For the Tiberian philologists, however, the use of the same sign in this case was possibly more natural than it might appear to us: they may have regarded this use as a matter of inverting the relation- ships between a necessary and a sufficient condition. Geminated lp b t d k g[ are always plosive; on the other hand, the fricative allophones of these phonemes, which are marked by the absence of the sign that indicates both the plosive allophones of these con- sonants and gemination, are never geminated.33 The dâgés sign, which denotes gemination in all consonants (except /' h c h/, which

31 That the méteg is not an ordinary vocalization sign is self evident: it is the only sign which may accompany all the vowel signs. Some grammatical treatises of the Tiberian school also take pains to point out that the méteg does not belong to the accentual system. See Neubauer, 27, and cf. Baer-Strack, 19. Other uses of the méteg, as well as its historical evolution, remain outside the scope of this study. 32 The question of the quantitative allophones of the Hebrew vowels has been recently treated in detail by Ben-, 1957. 33 Certain mss. indicate these fricative allophones by a râpé sign (§2.3.1,. (c)). HEBREW 27

are never geminated 34), was, therefore, employed to indicate the plosive allophones of ¡p b t dk g/ even when these allophones were not geminated. In other words: it is a sufficient, although not a necessary, condition for any of the fp b t d k g/ allophones to be geminated in order to be plosive; therefore, in the opinion of the philologists, gemination could represent the plosive allophones of the phonemes in question whether they were geminated or not. This principle which, as we shall see later, is common to all schools of philology in which a Jewish tradition of Hebrew was preserved - i.e., the Tiberian, the Palestinian, and the Babylonian schools (§ 2.2.) - also found support in structural factors. In most cases, gemination in Hebrew does not occur initially, medially after a consonant, or finally - and these are the only positions in which the plosive allophones of /p b t d k g/ may occur. The use of the bivalent dages sign in these positions could, therefore, have only one, univalent, meaning - it indicated the plosive pronunciation only. The bivalent use of the dages sign is thus to a considerable extent justified by the complimentary distribution of the entities denoted by the sign.

2.3.5.2. How are we to explain the bivalent use of sewa sign - the use of this sign both for the phoneme /e/ and for zero? /e/ possesses several features which make it different from the other Hebrew phonemes: (a) It is the only vowel phoneme whose allophones are all shorter than those of all other Hebrew vowel phonemes, except This quantitative feature places jej in an intermediate status between an ordinary vowel and zero.35

34 In three words in the Tiberian Bible (according to some mss. - in four), the letter representing /'/ has the ddgis sign. It is obvious, however, that in these cases (except, perhaps, in ru'u - 33, 21) the ddges does not denote gemina- tion; apparently we have here remainders of a vocalization system, which indicated by means of this sign the consonantal value of the '. See Morag, 1959, 218 and below, § 2.5.2.1. 35 According to the grammatical treatises of the Tiberian school, /¿/, as against all other vowels, is a "light", not a "full" vowel. Only a sewd followed by a msteg, the sign which indicates the longer vowel allophones (§ 2.3.4.1.), is 28 HEBREW

(b) It is the only vowel phoneme whose allophones have been recognized by the Tiberian philologists as being in complementary distribution. The quality of these allophones always depends on the nature of the following phoneme :36 before \y\, ¡el has the allo- phone [f]; before /' h c h/, /e/ has allophones which are qualitatively identical to the next vowel (but quantitatively shorter); in all other cases, ¡el has the allophone [a]-37 These rules of distribution apply to ¡ej only when it is not preceded by /' h c h/; an ¡ej which is pre- ceded by any of these phonemes, has [a] or [e] as its allophones. Of all the allophones of ¡el only [5] and [e] have special signs. The sign representing [S\ is, however, consistently used only when /e/ follows f h c hjMost of the [&] allophones of /e/, as well as all the other allophones of this phoneme except [e], do not have special signs to represent them. They are denoted by the sewd sign, and the assignment of proper values to this sign depends on rules which have to be mastered by the reader. (c) It is the morphophonemic alternant of several Hebrew vowel phonemes, and its occurence as such is far more frequent than that of any other Hebrew vowel phoneme which is a morphophonemic alternant of other vowels. Since zero is also a frequent morpho- phonemic alternant of the Hebrew vowel phonemes, ¡ej appears again, this time by virtue of another feature, to be closer to zero than to any other vowel phoneme.

2.3.5.2.1. The use of the same sign to denote both /e/ and zero, a characteristic of the Tiberian and the Complicated Babylonian (§ 2.4.) systems, is a comparatively late phenomenon in the develop- ment of Hebrew vocalization. As we shall see below (§§ 2.4. and 2.5.), other systems of vocalization did not include any specific sign for either /e/ or zero, or else indicated by the sewd sign the phoneme a "full" vowel; in other words, only such a s£wd, which is "full" and long when accompanied by a meteg, is quantitatively equal to an ordinary vowel. See Morag, 1956, 26-33. 38 Op. cit., 26; Rosin, 1959, 220. 87 All the allophones of ¡2/ are longer (i.e., are quantitatively equal to an ordinary vowel) when the sewd sign is followed by a meteg: see footnote 35. 38 See footnote 27 in this chapter HEBREW 29

I el only, leaving zero undenoted. The Tiberian school considered the indication of zero, particularly in medial position, to be essen- tial; it was not deemed proper to let a medial letter representing a consonant appear without a vocalization sign of its own, even when this consonant was not followed by any vowel, lest the reader omit the letter in question altogether.39 The question remains, of course, why the same sign was used for the indication of both /e/ and zero, no individual signs having been invented to represent the two. To account for this, an explanation has here been offered, which is based on the peculiarities of /e/ (§ 2.3.5.2.); see further § 4.2., (a).

2.3.6. Summing up, it appears that in its system of vocalization the Tiberian school attempted to achieve relative completeness. The philologists of this school regarded as complete a system which fulfilled two requirements: it had to serve as an apparatus for establishing the full phonemic structure of the text and simulta- neously supply some information which, although phonemically redundant, would be phonetically relevant - that is, pertinent for the correct pronunciation of the text. This two-fold tendency to supply the reader with both phonemic and phonetic data may account for the fact that, in addition to all the phonemes, the Tiberian vocalization includes signs which represent certain allo- phones (§ 2.3.2.1.). It is obvious that no attempt has been made to represent all the allophones that were known to the philologists of the Tiberian school. Thus, only a few of the allophones of /e/ have specific signs (§ 2.3.5.2.). These philologists, so it seems, were aware of the nature of a purely phonetic approach, which "may or may not err in telling us too little; but it is quite certain to err in telling us too much."40

39 According to the principles of the Tiberian school, a medial letter should not be pronounced at all when not accompanied by vocalization sign. The differentiation between consonantal (= 'semivocalic') and vocalic values of medial y, and h is also based upon this principle (§ 2.3.1.). 40 Block and Trager, 39. 30 HEBREW

2.4. In the Hebrew philological schools of ,41 two systems of vocalization evolved sometimes between the sixth and tenth centuries: these systems are known as the Simple Babylonian (= SB) and the Complicated Babylonian (= CB).42

2.4.1. The SB vocalization differs considerably from the Tiberian. The main points of difference between these two systems (aside from the forms of the vocalization signs, which will not concern us here) are as follows: (a) The SB system of vocalization indicates the Hebrew vowel phonemes /a/, /e/, ///, /a/,43 jo/, juj, and ¡el, but no allophones. (b) Two Tiberian phonemes are not included in the Babylonian system: /ef, which in the latter system is represented by /a/, and /

41 The most important schools were those named for the cities of Surd and Nihardec& (the latter school was continued by that of PumbSditiJ). See Kahle apud Bauer-Leander, 1922, 75. 42 Our main sources of information regarding the Babylonian systems are Kahle's works (1902; 1913 ; apud Bauer-Leander, 1922; 1928; 1959). 43 Some mss. interchange the signs which represent jdj and /a/: see Kahle, 1913, 40 (ms. no. 29) and Dlez Macho, 1959c, 273-275. This phenomenon, common in the SP (§ 2.5.1.6.), the FP (§ 2.5.1.7., (d)) and the Samaritan (§ 2.5.3.2.2.) vocalization systems, is not typical of Babylonian Hebrew. It may either represent a local variety in the Babylonian traditions or result from Aramaic interference. 44 See footnote 17 in this chapter. 45 See footnote 18 in this chapter. 49 We may, of course, also assume that some of the differences between the HEBREW 31

(c) As a rule, the principle of bivalence (§ 2.3.2.2.) is not applied in the SB system to the sign of /ë/ : whereas in the Tiberian system this sign represents also zero, in the SB system it usually stands only for /#/, zero being left undenoted.47 (d) The nonphonemic feature of gemination is indicated in the SB system, as in the Tiberian, by the same sign which denotes the plosive allophones of ¡p b t d k g/ - digsâ, the counterpart of Tibe- rian dâgés. For the fricative allophones of these phonemes SB employs the qipyâ sign, the counterpart of the Tiberian râpé. How- ever, the occurrence of both these signs in texts which have the SB vocalization is far less frequent than that of the signs which rep- resent the vowel phonemes.48 We should further note that the use of the two signs in question is not limited in SB to the indication of the above phonetic entities; they occasionally serve also to denote other features. Thus, the digsâ sign may denote also the consonantal value of the letter ' (which is also a vowel letter: § 2.3.1., (c))49 or the proper pro- nunciation of the pharyngeals /c/ and //;/50 and the emphatics It s q\.hx Needless to say, the use of these signs is multivalent, but it is only with regard to the notation of phonetic entities that this multivalence is allowed : any of the signs in question may rep-

Tiberian and the SB schools with regard to the notation of the allophones, as well as that of ¡el and /

2.4.2. The main points in which the CB system 83 differs from the SB system are the following: (a) The CB system denotes allophones: it has specific signs for allophones of the vowels /a/, /e/, /i'/, and /u/.64 The value of these

61 Ibid. 52 See Kahle, 1913, 107 (ms. no. 12). 63 Certain texts have a vocalization which could be described as intermediary between the SB and the CB. We shall not deal here with these texts, neither shall we describe all the variations in the use of the vocalization signs which appear in the CB texts. 54 A sign which stands for the counterpart of Tiberian & appears in some mss.: see Kahle apud Bauer-Leander, 1922,134. Whereas in Tiberian Hebrew this sign seems to represent a phoneme (§ 2.3.2.1., (a)), its use in these Babylonian mss. appears to be allophonic. This sign, however, is not to be regarded an integral constituent of the CB system: its use in this system probably results from Tiberian interference. HEBREW 33 allophones cannot be determined with certainty from the evidence of the extant CB texts; it would appear, however, that this notation represents either vowel allophones in unstressed syllables, or quan- titative allophones.85 (b) The nonphonemic features of gemination is denoted in a fairly regular way by means of a univalent sign,66 which is distinctly different from the sign which indicates the plosive versus fricative allophones of ¡p b t d k g/.57 (c) In the CB system, zero is sometimes indicated, as it is reg- ularly in the Tiberian system, by the sewa sign - the same sign which denotes /e/. (d) Another case of bivalence in the CB system is the occasional use of one sign for two allophones of \i\ - that which precedes a geminated consonant and that which comes in an unstressed closed syllable.58 This bivalence is, needless to say, nonphonemic. (e) The differentiation between the consonantal and vocalic values of' and h is far more systematic in the CB system than it is

66 According to Kahle {1913, 161; apud Bauer-Leander, 1922, 134) the signs in question denote allophones in unstressed syllables. Other interpretations have been offered by Grimme, 138, who, following Praetorius, 181, sees here qualitative allophones, and Ben-David, 1957, 17ff., who believes that this is a notation of quantitative allophones. None of these interpretations, however, offers a solution which would be valid for all the cases in which the signs in question appear in the CB texts. M A bar above the sign of the vowel denotes gemination of the consonant represented by the following letter; see table II (p.77). This bar may denote an entity other than gemination only with the vowel sign which represents /i/. See below, (d). 67 The fricative allophones are denoted either by qipyd - the sign which serves this purpose in SB - or by the absence of any sign whatsoever. The plosive allophones are indicated by either the digsd or the ddges - respectively the SB and the Tiberian signs of the plosive allophones of the phonemes in question as well as of gemination (§§ 2.4.1., (d); 2.3.5.1.). The Tiberian sign, however, appears sometimes also with a letter in which gemination is indicated by the usual CB means of denoting gemination (see preceding footnote). The use of this Tiberian sign - for gemination as well as for the plosive allophones of Ipbtdkgl - in CB texts, is to be regarded a phenomenon of Tiberian interference in a non-Tiberian system of vocalization. This holds good also for some other peculiarities of the CB vocalization. 68 Or which is quantitatively different (cf. above, (a)). For this bivalent use, which is rather rare, see Kahle, 1913, 148; apud Bauer-Leander, 1922, 133. 34 HEBREW in the SB. It is achieved by the application of the digsâ and qipyâ signs, or of their Tiberian counterparts, the dâgés and the râpé.59 To sum up: when compared with the Simple Babylonian, the Complicated Babylonian system appears to be more phonetic in its approach, and discloses a tendency to relative completeness. The bivalent use of the sëwâ sign in this system is to be explained in the light of the principles which underly the parallel practice in the Tiberian vocalization (§ 2.3.5.2.).

2.5. In Palestine, there evolved, to the extent of our present know- ledge, three schools of vocalization besides the Tiberian school. Two of these schools were Jewish; the third was Samaritan. We shall refer to the two Jewish vocalization schools of Palestine as the Simple Palestinian (henceforth: SP)60 and the Fuller Palestinian (henceforth: FP) schools.61

2.5.1. The SP system has specific signs for all the vowel phonemes, except /e/, the sëwâ. Only a few texts have a special sign for the sëwâ.62 In most of the texts the practice of the vocalizers varies in the notation of this phoneme: in some texts it is not represented at all;63 in others, the signs representing jâj, /a/, /e/, or /e/ stand also for the phoneme in question;64 still others denote the sëwâ by the sign which usually indicates gemination;65 sometimes two of the above means of representing /é/ are employed in the same text.

69 See Kahle, 1913, 168. In the SB system the consonantal value of a h is sometimes indicated by a superimposed h; that of an in a small number of cases only, by the digsâ sign. 60 The term Simple Palestinian refers here to the vocalization which has been hitherto called Palestinian. For this vocalization see Levias; Kahle, 1927, 1930, 1959; apud Bauer-Leander, 1922, 98ff.; Murtonen, 1958. 61 The term "Fuller Palestinian" has been proposed by the present to denote the vocalization of certain mss., such as the Codex Reuchlinianus, which, although employing Tiberian vowel signs, disclose in their tradition of Hebrew affinities to that of the Palestinian mss. See Morag, 1959. •2 See Levias, 1898/99, 159; Ormann, 22. Cf. also Murtonen, 1958, 31. •3 Cf., e.g., the text of the qërobôt published in Kahle, 1927. ** Kahle, 1930, 17*, 31*; apud Bauer-Leander, 1922, 107; Morag, 1956, 39 footnote 5; Murtonen, 1958, 29, 31. 85 Kahle, 1930, 15*. HEBREW 35

This diversity in the notation of the sewa probably indicates that with regard to this phoneme there existed a number of varieties in the several traditional pronunciations of Hebrew which were all reflected in the SP vocalization.66 However, in considering this problem we should also bear in mind the peculiarities of the sewa (§ 2.3.5.2.). It appears possible that those vocalizers who did not employ a special sign for the sewa did not consider it, to use modern terminology, a phoneme. Therefore, they chose either not to denote it at all or to represent it by the signs of the phonemes /aj, /a/, /e/, or /e/, or by the sign of gemination. The representation of the sewa by the above phonemes has a phonetic basis: some of the allophones of these phonemes were, in the Palestinian pronun- ciation of Hebrew, close to the main allophones of /e/.87 The use of the sign of gemination for the sewa discloses, on the other hand, a phonemic principle: one and only one of the entities in question, the sewa and gemination, can be considered phonemic in Hebrew (§2.3.2.2., (b)).

2.5.1.1. Certain SP texts have neither the gemination sign nor the sewa sign; others may have either one of these signs. See further § 2.5.1.4.

2.5.1.2. The SP system denotes no vowel allophones. Consonantal allophones (gemination, fricative and plosive ¡p b t d k g/) are occasionally denoted (see further § 2.5.1.4., (b)).

2.5.1.3. Some SP texts have only one vowel sign as the counter- part of both Tiberian /e/ and /e/;68 others represent Tiberian /o/ and /«/ by the same sign.69 Both features bear evidence of an affin-

66 Cf. the status of the sewd in (§ 2.5.3.1.4.). 6' In the Palestinian tradition of Hebrew the main allophones of the sewd were [a] and [«] (possibly [d] and [£]). See Morag, 1956, 39. For the use of the signs of both jd! and /a/ for /aj, as well as that of both lei and ¡el for either lei or lei, see below, § 2.5.1.6. 68 Cf. e.g., the text published in Kahle, 1927, pages 1-6 (of the Hebrew pagination). 69 See the texts published by Kahle, 1930, 66-72 and Murtonen, 1958, 34, 36 (Hebrew pagination), and cf. Ben-Hayyim, 1958, 201. 36 HEBREW ity to Samaritan Hebrew and to the Samaritan vocalization system (cf. § 2.5.3.)- For the interchange of the signs for jej and /o/ with those of/e/ and /«/, respectively, in other texts, see § 2.5.1.6.

2.5.1.4. In the following instances, the SP system discloses a bivalent or multivalent use of certain signs. (a) As noted above (§ 2.5.1.), some texts employ the gemination sign to denote both gemination and /£/. Obviously, this is a case of phonetic bivalence. (b) The gemination sign may serve also for the indication of the plosive allophones of /p b t d k g/,70 as it does in the Tiberian (§ 2.3.2.2., (b)) and SB (§ 2.4.1., (d)) systems, as well as for some other purposes. Among these, mention should be made of its use for the differentiation of consonantal /'/ and /A/71 from ' and h which are vowel letters, and for the indication of the correct pro- nunciation of the pharyngeals and other consonants.72 These uses of the gemination sign in the SP texts are also paralleled in the Tiberian system (cf. the use of the dâgés to denote the consonantal value of h - § 2.3.1., (d)) and in the Babylonian systems (§ 2.4.1., (d)). As in these systems, the multivalent use of the gemination sign in SP is permitted only if no two phonemically different entities would be denoted by it. (c) The sign which in certain texts denotes the fricative allo- phones of ¡pbtdk g/, that is, the counterpart of Tiberian râpé and Babylonian qipyà, may occasionally represent other entities also. With the letter it indicates that it is a vowel letter;73 with w, that it is not a vowel letter but represents the semivocalic /w/.n In most of these functions, the sign in question, like its Tiberian and Baby- lonian counterparts, denotes entities which are in complementary distribution to those denoted by the gemination sign. In fact, we

70 For descriptions of mss. in which the plosive and fricative allophones of these phonemes are denoted see Kahle, op. cit., 29* ; Murtonen, 1958, 33. 71 Kahle, 1930,29 ; Murtonen, 1958, 26*. 72 Murtonen, ibid. 73 Op. cit., 33. 74 Kahle, 1930, loc. cit.; Murtonen, ibid. HEBREW 37 do not have here a real phenomenon of multivalence, since there is no one letter which may have two different values, whether phonetic or phonemic, when this sign accompanies it. (d) In a comparatively small number of texts the sewa sign also denotes zero.75 This use, which is obviously not characteristic of the SP system, has probably resulted from Tiberian interference: as a rule, the SP system, like the SB, does not denote zero.

2.5.1.5. The SP texts vary a great deal in the extent to which they use signs for nonphonemic entities. A considerable degree of in- consistency is disclosed by the texts with regard to the use of these signs; their omission is a phenomenon of frequent occurrence. Also, quite regular in SP texts are the phenomena of partial word-vocali- zation and partial text-vocalization (§ 2.4.1., (e)).

2.5.1.6. A phenomenon of redundancy is sometimes found in SP texts. In some texts the signs indicating /a/, ¡el, and /«/ interchange with those denoting /a/, /e/, and /o/, respectively.76 Usually not more than two of these pairs of signs are used interchangeably in the same text.77 There is a historical reason for this phenomenon. The vocalizers of these texts preserved a system of signs which reflected an earlier stage of the traditional pronunciation - a stage in which the above vowel phonemes were still distinct. Later on, the oppositions /a/- /a/, /e/-/e/ and /w/-/o/ were neutralized in some varieties of the Palestinian pronunciation (usually not more than two of them in the same variety); out of respect for tradition, however, the vocal- izers adhered to the practice of using all these vowel signs.

2.5.1.7. Summing up the principles underlying the SP vocalization system we see that its approach is primarily phonemic. With the exception of the sewa, all the vowel phonemes are denoted, but no vowel allophones are indicated. Multivalence is permitted only for

76 Murtonen, 1958, 29. Kahle, 1930, e.g. 15*. 28*. 77 For a text in which all the three pairs are used interchangebly see ibid. 17*. 38 HEBREW the indication of nonphonemic entities. Moreover, there is a great deal of inconsistency in the use of the signs that denote nonphonem- ic entities.

2.5.2. The Fuller Palestinian system employs vowel signs which in their forms are identical to those of the Tiberian ; it reflects, how- ever, a Palestinian, not a Tiberian, tradition of Hebrew. The main features of this system, which in its approach differs fundamentally from the Simple Palestinian,78 are as follows: (a) In all letters which may have either a consonantal or a non- consonantal (vocalic or zero) value - y w J h - the consonantal values are systematically differentiated from the others. This is achieved by the help of signs placed above or within these letters. Thus, for example, an ' has the dâgés sign (§ 2.3.2.2., (b)) when it represents the consonant /'/ (= the glottal stop) but the râpé (a bar above it) when its value is zero.79 (b) The FP system indicates syllable boundaries. The boundary marker (identical to the dâgés in its form) appears initially, and medially when the preceding syllable is closed. It is used with all letters, with the exception of w and y and the letters representing consonants which are not geminated Q h c h, and, as a rule, also r80). All letters with which the dâgés is employed as a syllable- boundary marker usually have the râpé as a sign complementary to the dâgés (§ 2.3.5.1.): the râpé appears in those positions which do not require the dâgés. The significance of marking the syllable boundaries will be discussed below (§ 2.5.2.1.). (c) As far as possible, the FP vocalizers attempt not to leave

78 Mss. which belong to the FP school vary in some of their characteristics. See Kahle, 1930, 55*ff. The following discussion is based primarily on the analysis of Codex Reuchlinianus. Cf. Morag, 1959. 79 In the same way a final consonantal h is differentiated from a nonconsonan- tal h. Cf. §§ 2.3.1., (d); 2.4.2., (e). With w and y other means of differentiation are used: w which is /w/ frequently has a râpé sign when it is medial (and not geminated), and a sëwâ sign when it is final; y which is lyl has a râpé sign (unless it is geminated) or, when final, both the râpé and the /// sign. For further information see Morag, op. cit. 80 Ibid., 219 footnote 2. HEBREW 39 any letter in any position without a vocalization sign of its own, so that the reader will never be in doubt about its proper reading. As in the Tiberian system, a medial zero is indicated in FP by the sewa sign. With final letters, however, the extent of the FP use of the sewa sign to denote zero is greater than in the Tiberian system: whereas in the latter, as a rule, it comes only with final k and t,sl the former has this sign also with finalc, h, and w. The purpose of the FP use of the sewa sign with these letters is to point out that the pharyngeals /c/ and /hf should be pronounced "correctly", and that w has here a semivocalic, not a vocalic, value. (d) A phenomenon of redundancy known from SP texts is found also in FP texts: the signs /o/ and ¡ej interchange, respectively, with those of /a/ and /e/. The reasons for this redundancy have already been discussed: see § 2.5.1.6. It appears that the redundancy in question was not considered a disadvantage by the FP school, since the use of two signs which have the same value could not possibly lead to error in reading the text.

2.5.2.1. In conclusion, we see that the FP philologists aimed at achieving a notation which would be far more complete than that of any other Hebrew system of vocalization. The two central prob- lems, for which these philologists sought solutions more satisfac- tory than the previous ones, were (a) the bivalence of the vowel letters (i.e., their use as representatives of both consonant and vowel phonemes), and (b) the bivalence of the sewa sign. The first problem was shared by all the systems; the second was specific to the Tiberian (§ 2.3.5.) and to the CB (§ 2.4.2., (c)) systems.

2.5.2.1.1. In its solution of the first problem (§ 2.5.2., (a)), the FP school employed methods which had been used in part by earlier vocalization systems, for example the use of the dages sign to denote the consonantal versus the nonconsonantal values of the

81 See footnote 22 in this chapter. 40 HEBREW letter \82 However, the markers of the consonantal and noncon- sonantal values of the vowel letters had never been used before so extensively and consistently as they were in the FP system.

2.5.2.1.2. The FP school succeeded also in solving that peculiarity of the Tiberian vocalization, which is, perhaps, most confusing of all: the bivalence of the sëwâ sign, its use both for ¡ëj and zero. In order to establish the value of this sign, particularly in medial position (not with ' h c h), the reader of a Tiberian text has to rely upon oral tradition and grammatical rules, as well as auxiliary, but not always effective, written clues (such as the méteg). But for the reader of an FP text, a medial sëwâ sign is usually univalent, its value being determined by the syllable-boundary marker (§ 2.5.2., (b)). With the letters pbttdkqgszs{s)slmnr, a medial sëwâ sign83 has the value of ¡ëj when its letter has the dâgés sign (e.g., 'as. (e)ru = fasëruj "guide" [imper. masc. plur.]), or when the following letter has the râpé sign (e.g., hâl(ë)Îcâh = ¡hàlëkàj "[she] went") ; a sëwâ sign with a letter which has the râpé (e.g., sib(e)tey = Isibte:/ "the tribes of") or which precedes a letter with a dâgés (e.g., lëHar(e)m.o = ¡1ëkarmo/ "to his vineyard"84), has the value of zero. In a considerable number of cases these principles of notation apply also to a nonmedial sëwâ sign. However, since the rules concerning the value of a nonmedial sëwa are comparatively simple, the primary purpose of the above principles was their application to the medial sëwa. We should add that, in the use of the dâgés to solve the problem of the medial sëwa, the FP vocalizers extended

82 For the sporadic and rare use of Tiberian dâgés to denote consonantal ' see footnote 34 in this chapter; for that of the Babylonian digiti and the Pales- tinian gemination sign- §§ 2.4.1., (d) and 2.5.1.4., (b). Some of the means which serve to differentiate consonantal from nonconsonantal w and y in the FP system (see footnote 79 in this chapter) are also occasionally found in other vocalization systems. See Morag, op. cit., 232. 83 By medial sëwa we mean any sëwa coming in medial position (not to be confused with the term sëwa medium of Hebrew grammatical terminology). 84 In these examples the words are first transliterated and then phonemically transcribed. In the (e) represents the sëwâ sign, and a dot following a letter and a bar above it stand for the dâgës and râpé signs, respec- tively. HEBREW 41 to most Hebrew letters a principle which in the Tiberian vocaliza- tion system holds good only for p b t d k g.8B It appears that the FP vocalizers took linguistic distribution features into considera- tion when they employed the same sign to denote both gemination and (initially and medially after a closed syllable) the beginning of a new syllable. Gemination never occurs in Hebrew medially where the sign in question is used as a syllable-boundary marker; ini- tially, its occurrence is limited to specific categories.86 Therefore, the reader of an FP text could not interpret a medial dages sign bivalently (nor usually an initial dages).

2.5.3. The Samaritan vocalization, like that of Hebrew and Syriac (§§2.1.; 3.2.1.), apparently also employed the diacritical point in the early stages of its development. The Samaritan diacritical point also differentiated homographs, 87 and had some other functions as well.88 Among these were the indication of the consonantal versus the nonconsonantal value of a vowel letter; the differentiation of the two phonemic values of the letter w, namely jwj and /¿>/;89 and the differentiation of the plosive and fricative allophones oi ¡pbt d/. At the present state of our knowledge, however, we cannot deter- mine to what extent the diacritical point was actually used in Samaritan texts.90

88 Only in a limited number of cases does the Tiberian vocalization apply this principle to letters other than pbtdkg. 8* The so-called categories of dlhiq and 'die merahiq. 87 The information we have with regard to the use of the diacritical point for the differentiation of homographs is meagre (for the sources utilized see below, footnote 90 in this chapter). We should perhaps add that from Ibn Dura0a:'s Rules of Reading (see ibid.) one may learn that the point was mainly used to differentiate two homographic forms, in one of which a consonant was followed by zero while in the other the same consonant was followed by a vowel. Compare the similar use of the diacritical point to differentiate homographs which contrast only by having a sewd versus a full vowel in Hebrew (§ 2.1., (a)) and Syriac (§ 3.2.1.1., (b), (1)). 88 The diacritical mark sometimes appeared in the form of two points placed below the word. 89 ¡bl = [6] and [v]. The historical relationship between Samaritan /w/ and Ibl has been dealt with by Ben-ifayyim, 1954a, 103ff. As the case is with regard to the use of the Hebrew diacritical point (see 42 HEBREW

2.5.3.1. Later on, a fuller system of vocalization evolved. In its most complete form the system included six signs, denoting /a/,91 /a/, ¡ej, ¡H, /«/, and gemination.

2.5.3.1.1. In many manuscripts, particularly later ones, only four signs are used, and one sign may stand in them for more than one vowel;92 see below, § 2.5.3.2. Also, quite common in Samaritan manuscripts is the practice of partial vocalization - the application of the signs only to some of the words in the text, or the omission of some of the vowels of a single word.93 Cf. §§2.4.1., (e); 2.5.1.5.

2.5.3.1.2. Samaritan vocalizers quite frequently interchange the signs denoting /a/ and /a/.94 In this respect, as in several others,95 the Samaritan tradition of Hebrew resembles the Simple Palestinian, and the reasons which account for the interchange of the jaj and ¡a/ signs in the latter hold good also for the former.

2.5.3.1.3. Gemination is phonemic in Samaritan Hebrew. Cf. e.g., Iqarabl "he approached, drew near" - ¡qarrabl "he brought near" ;96 fadennil "my " - ^adenij (also I'adani/) "sockets of".97

2.5.3.1.4. The Samaritan system of vocalization does not have a

footnote 1 in this chapter), our information concerning the Samaritan point is derived mainly from grammatical treatises, and not from an examination of mss. Our description of the use of the diacritical point in Samaritan is primarily based on Ibn Dura9a:'s Rules of Reading (Ben-ffayyim, 1957, II, 312, 317). See also Ben-Iiayyim, 1954a, 109ff. 91 The sign representing /a/ occurs mostly when the preceding consonant is 0 or (i; it does not, however, appear exclusively after any of those consonants. As I now learn from Professor Ben-Hayyim (see 1954b), the conclusions previously reached by him with regard to this sign are to be revised. 92 Ben-Ifayyim, 1957,1, Introduction, 45. 93 Diening, 11. 91 Ibid. 95 Kahle, 1927, 32-33; Diening, 9, 11. 96 Ben-Hayyim, 1957,1, 210. 97 Ibid., 234 footnote 4. HEBREW 43 special sign for the sewa.98 By the time the vocalization signs were invented, and very possibly already at a far earlier period, Samari- tan Hebrew did not have this phoneme - it possessed other vowels as the counterparts of the sewa of other Hebrew traditions." Consequently, one occasionally encounters in Samaritan texts the signs of ¡e/ and /// where the other traditions have a sewa.100

2.5.3.1.5. Like the SP system (and the SB), the Samaritan vocali- zation does not mark zero.101

2.5.3.1.6. The Samaritan system has no special signs for any allophones. Certain allophones are denoted by the signs of their phonemes. Such is the case with [/:] and [e], allophones of ///, as well as with [«:] and [o], allophones of /w/, which are denoted by the signs of /// and /«/, respectively.102 Other vowel allophones are not represented at all.

2.5.3.2. In Samaritan manuscripts multivalence occurs in the use of certain signs, particularly in that of the /a/ sign for /a/, ¡ej and gemination.103 It appears, however, that whereas in the other systems of vocalizations heretofore reviewed, the phenomena of multivalence are integral constituents of the systems and may well be accounted for by certain principles (see §§ 2.3.5.; 2.5.1.4.), this is not the w This is explicitly pointed out by the Samaritan philologist Ibn DuraOa:. See ibid., II, 310. Ibn Dura9a:'s knowledge of the term siwd is probably to be explained by his familiarity with the concepts and treatises of Jewish gramma- rians. " Ben-Hayyim, 1958, 205. 100 This applies in particular to an initial sewa: Ben-Hayyim, 1954b, 519. 101 See, however, Ben-Hayyim, 1957,1, Introduction, 92: some late mss. use a sign which at the same time represents sewa, zero, and gemination. Such a feature can be explained only as reflecting the vocalizers' confusion and misinterpretation of the linguistic tradition. 10s Ben-Hayyim, 1954b, 524. 103 Ben-Hayyim, op. cit., 528. In a private communication Dr. A. Murtonen informs me that in some mss. this sign is used to distinguish between homo- graphs (or to differentiate a less common form from the usual one), as well as to denote that the letter w represents Ibj. In these functions the use of the sign is equivalent to that of the diacritical point (§ 2.5.3.). 44 HEBREW case in Samaritan. As a system, Samaritan vocalization does not have signs which were originally meant to have more than one value. The multivalent or bivalent use of certain signs seems to have originated in the practice of vocalizers who were not completely certain of the correct vocalization of some words or the precise value of some of the signs.104

104 This is a tentative conclusion. More material is needed before more certain conclusions can be reached regarding the problem of multivalence, as well as a number of other problems in the history of Samaritan vocalization. 3

ARAMAIC

3.1. There is no Jewish system of vocalization which is used exclusively with Aramaic texts. The Hebrew systems of vocaliza- tions are all used also with Aramaic texts of Jewish origin. This applies to , of which we have texts vocalized in the Tiberian and in the Simple Babylonian systems, and to the several varieties of Targum Aramaic, of which there are texts vocalized in the Tiberian, the Simple and the Complicated Babylonian, the Simple and the Fuller Palestinian systems.

3.1.1. It appears that the vocalizers did not encounter any difficulty in applying the same vocalization systems to both Hebrew and Aramaic, in spite of the phonetic and phonemic differences between the two languages. This is to be explained by the fact that the vowel phonemes of Hebrew and Aramaic differ from each other mainly in their distribution (morphophonemic relationships in the two languages are also different); the two languages share, however, most of the phonemes and their main allophones, as well as the other phonemic and nonphonemic entities denoted by the vocalization systems. Some of the phonemes of Hebrew, such as /d/, /e/, or /o/ may have been nonphonemic in certain Aramaic dia- alects,1 but, to my knowledge, no Jewish-Aramaic dialect to which vocalization signs have been applied, possesses any nonconsonantal phonemic entity which Hebrew does not have. Therefore, all Aramaic vowel phonemes could have been adequately denoted by the vocalization systems of Hebrew.

1 In considering this question with regard to any Jewish-Aramaic vocalized text, one should, of course, bear in mind the structure of that specific Aramaic dialect which is reflected in the text in question and its vocalization. 46 ARAMAIC

3.1.2. We cannot draw any definite conclusions about the phonetic aspects of the use of the Hebrew vocalization systems for Aramaic texts. Our present knowledge of the phonetic value of Aramaic vowel allophones is rather limited. However, insofar as the extant sources permit, we may surmise that there were no major differ- ences in this respect between Hebrew and Aramaic.

3.2. The history of the Syriac vocalization, which possibly in- fluenced the Arabic and Hebrew systems, is better known than that of the other two Semitic languages which employ vocalization signs. Vocalized manuscripts are available, and analytical work of value has been done in this field; we are therefore in a position to trace in some detail the historical development of Syriac vocalization. Three major periods may be distinguished in this development. Here, however, we shall be interested mainly in the first two periods; the third one (from the eleventh century on), being a period of synthesis, is not very instructive for our purposes.2

3.2.1. The first period (from the fourth 3 to the beginning of the seventh century A.D.) is marked by an almost exclusive use of the diacritical point. Only towards the end of this period did there begin to appear signs which denoted the vowels ¡e¡ and /a/;4 prior to this development, no specific signs were employed for the various vowels.

3.2.1.1. Placed either above or below the line and belonging either to a specific letter or to the entire word, the diacritical point5 was used for the following purposes: (a) to differentiate between the uses of y w' h as vowel letters and as consonant letters;6 (b) to

2 In presenting the history of the Syriac vocalization I have benefited from the use of J. B. Segal's admirable work. 3 Or the third; see Segal, 12. 4 Ibid., 22. 5 Certain mss. use two points as a diacritical mark for some of the following functions: Weiss, 5-9; Segal, 17. 8 Diettrich, XIV; Weiss, ibid.; Segal, 12-15. ARAMAIC 47 differentiate homographs. The uses of the diacritical point for the latter purpose can be classified under two headings: (1) The use of the point to distinguish between homographs which contrast only by having a sewa versus a vowel phoneme.7 The lower point usually indicates a form in which a sewa follows one of the consonants, whereas an upper point denotes that the other member of the homographic group has a vowel phoneme after that consonant.8 This phoneme is quite frequently /a/. By analogy, the point is used also in some verbal and nominal categories which have no homographs.9 (2) The point differentiates homographs which have two full vowel phonemes in contrast:10 an upper point denotes a homo- graph which has a vowel of the /a/ group (§0.1.1., (a)) as its distinc- tive phoneme, while a lower point (or the absence of any point whatsoever) denotes a homograph which has a phoneme of the /// or the /«/ group.

3.2.1.2. A special type of diacritical mark is the syame, the sign of the plural (two upper points). This sign, which was created in the very early stages of the development of Syriac vocalization, orig- inally served to establish a distinction between a plural form and its singular homograph (e.g., between /malkd/ "king" and ¡malkej "kings", which are both written mlk>). Later on, however, it be- came an indicator of all plural forms as well as of those collective nouns which form no plural. Aside from the domain of noun , the syame is used also with verbs (the forms of the third person feminine plural), some of the numerals (particularly when they have pronominal suffixes), and prepositions which take the pronominal suffixes of plural nouns.11

3.2.1.3. The use of the diacritical mark in Hebrew discloses a

7 For the phonemic status of the siwa in Syriac see below, § 3.2.2.2.3. 8 Segal, 15-20. 9 Ibid., 18. 10 Ibid., 20ff. 11 See Duval, 123-5; Noldeke, 1904,10-11. 48 ARAMAIC clear affinity to that of Syriac;12 as first observed by Graetz,13 it seems that the former has been influenced by the latter. This affin- ity is apparent in the use of the mark both with homographs (§ 3. 2.1.1., (b)) and as an indicator of the consonantal versus the vocalic values of the letters y w ' h (ibid., (a)). However, in the devel- opment of the Hebrew vocalization systems, the original diacritical mark fell together with the gemination sign, the dages (§ 2.3.2.2.) - a sign which Syriac does not have. In the Tiberian and the FP systems (the FP employs the same vocalization signs as the Tiber- ian - § 2.5.), both the diacritical mark and the gemination sign appear in the form of a point; the SB and the SP systems, on the other hand, do not use the point for the above functions. However, one and the same sign serves both as a gemination sign and as a in these systems also. The CB system, in which gemina- tion is denoted by the vowel sign of the consonant which precedes the geminated one, constitutes a separate case (see § 2.4.2., (b)).

3.2.2. The use of the diacritical point was far from adequate. As a result of the desire for a more accurate indication of the vocalic constituents of the word, and perhaps also because of "intimate association and dependence upon non-Semites"14 two fuller sys- tems of vocalization gradually evolved, the Eastern (or Nestorian) and Western (or Jacobite). This development marks the second period in the history of Syriac vocalization (from the seventh to the eleventh century A.D.).15 The development of the fuller systems has not, however, brought forth a concomitant rejection of the diacritical point. Although the

12 I have given here only a general outline of the use of the diacritical point in Syriac. For other aspects of development in the application of the point (such as the use of the double diacritical point, the mfagddnd, to indicate a third form in a homographic group) see Blake, 402-3; Segal, 15 and 22ff. 13 See above, chapter 2 footnote 1. 11 Segal, 24. 15 The development of the ES system took place prior to that of the WS system. See Segal, 24-25. We shall not deal here with the intermediary stages in the development of the Syriac vocalization systems. These stages have been carefully described by Segal, 37ff. ARAMAIC 49 use of the point became redundant after the vocalization signs had been invented, tradition continued to exert its influence for genera- tions.

3.2.2.1. In its most complete form, the ES system has signs for /a/, /a:/, /e/, /e:/, ///, /o/, and /«/. The phonemes which are denoted in the WS system are /a/, /d/, jej, /z'/, and /«/. WS /a/ is historically equivalent to ES /a:/ and WS ¡el corresponds to both ES lei and /e:/ (the latter phoneme may, however, also correspond to WS ///).

3.2.2.1.1. The problem of the quantitative aspects of the ES pho- nemes is rather complicated. The notion of quantity is not rep- resented by the vowel signs of the Eastern system, and the tradi- tional ES pronunciation does not bear evidence of any consistent opposition, either quantitative or qualitative, between /a/ and /a:/ or between /e/ and /e:/. Some information concerning the above problem may be derived from a grammatical tradition, in which the terms arika "long" and karya "short" appear in the names of all ES vowels except /a:/ and /a/. However, the interpretation of this information is problematical. To begin with, it is WS grammarians who use the vowel names in which the notion of quantity is ex- pressed,18 and these grammarians employ these terms to denote the presumed WS counterparts of the actual ES vowels:17 in the WS traditional pronunciation, quantity did not, as far as we know, play a phonemic, or a regular phonetic, role. On the other hand, the ES tradition, in which quantity seems to have been phonemic, does not employ the vowel names which express the notion of quantity. And then there is another difficulty here. A confusion seems to have occurred in the application of the qualifiers 'long' and 'short' le The use of these vowel names appears in the thirteenth century A.D. in ' writings (kOdvd dsemhe, Introduction § 3 = Moberg, 1922, 5). Bar Hebraeus may have followed a terminology which had been in part in- troduced before by a famous grammarian of the seventh century, of . See kOdvtJ dsemhe, ibid.; Merx, 48ff., and Noldeke, 1890, col. 1216. Cf. also Moberg, 1907, 17*, 33*. 17 See below, footnote 21 in this chapter. 50 ARAMAIC

in the WS names for jej and /e:/, the long vowel phoneme having been denoted as a short one and vice versa.18 As concerns the Eastern phoneme denoted here as /a:/, neither the name of the sign which stands for this phoneme, nor that of /a/, indicates any quantitative feature. In spite of these difficulties, it is possible to accept Birkeland's interpretation of the opposition of the phonemes which we denote as /a:/ and /e:/ to the phonemes /a/ and /e/, respectively, as a quantitative one.19 True, this interpretation still requires further support; but it is obvious that there existed an opposition between the phonemes in question, and we have reason to believe that this opposition was a quantitative, rather than qualitative, one. On the whole, the ES vocalization system shows the vowel system to be in a transitional stage - a stage in which the phonemic feature of quantity is gradually being replaced by that of quality.20 The WS system, on the other hand, had already com- pletely lost the feature of quantity.21

3.2.2.2. Neither of the Syriac vocalization systems possesses spe- cific signs to denote the sewa, zero, gemination, or the vowel allophones.22

3.2.2.2.1. The Syriac philologists were certainly well aware of the existence of gemination. This may be inferred from the traditional pronunciation of ES (in WS, gemination has been lost) and from the very existence of the term 'gemination' {huyasa or hyasa),23 as 18 See Noldeke, 1890, loc. cit. and 1904, 9. Noldeke's explanation, according to which the confusion originated in a misunderstanding of Greek terms, is, however, still hypothetical. 18 Birkeland, 1947, 14ff. 20 Birkeland, loc. cit. 21 According to Bar Hebraeus (kddvd dsemhe, loc. cit.), WS has long and short jil, /el, /u/. I tend to accept Segal's view that Bar Hebraeus' statements on this subject should not be regarded as reflecting an actual feature of the WS pronunciation of his time, but rather as "an afterthought and an expedient to bring the WS vowels up to the number of the ES" {Segal, 47). See also Segal, 50, and Duval, 75 ff. 22 For attempts to denote certain allophones see Segal, 30. This notation never became an integral part of the vocalization systems. 23 Moberg, 1907, 38*. ARAMAIC 51 well as from discussions of various aspects of gemination in the grammatical treatises.24 In certain manuscripts gemination is occa- sionally denoted by the mhagyana sign (§ 3.2.2.5., (a)). This sign, however, is multivalent; moreover, its use for the purpose of de- noting gemination is comparatively late and far from consistent. It appears that the philologists in whose schools the vocalization systems evolved did not consider gemination to be phonemic; therefore, it was not deemed worthy of a specific sign. The verdict passed by the philologists on the nature of gemination appears to be in agreement with the structure of Syriac.

3.2.2.2.2. As concerns the sewa, the situation is somewhat dif- ferent. The Syriac grammarians do not have a term for the sewa, and they seem to have lumped together the sewa and zero:26 these two entities were quantitatively distinct from all the other vowel phonemes, and, since there was no between them,26 they could be assigned to the same category.27 In the vocalization system both members of this category are usually left undenoted - that is, denoted by the absence of any sign. The prac- tice of the Syriac vocalization systems with regard to the sewa and zero resembles that of the Simple Palestinian system, which, as a rule, denotes neither the sewa nor zero. Also, a historical sewa may sometimes be represented in these systems, as occasionally in the SP (§ 2.5.1.), by the sign of one of the vowel phonemes, usually that of /a/, ¡el, or /e/.

3.2.2.2.2.1. Occasionally, zero is denoted by a specific sign, the marhtana (§ 3.2.2.5., (b)). This sign, which is of more frequent occurrence in ES manuscripts,28 is, however, multivalent (see be- low, ibid.) \ moreover, no consistency is to be found in its use, and

24 Cf., e.g., the references given in Moberg, ibid., s.v. fids, huydsd, hydsd. 25 Cf. Segal, 11. 26 For the phonemic status of the sewd in Syriac see Birkeland, 1947, 34-35. 27 For zero, however, the Syriac grammatical tradition has a term: selyd or salyuOi1 (Moberg, 1907, 99*). 28 Duval, 129. 52 ARAMAIC by no means can it be regarded as an intrinsic part of the system of vocalization.

3.2.2.2.2.2. It is to be recalled that in the first period of the history of Syriac vocalization (§ 3.2.1.), a lower point indicated a homo- graph which had a sewa (§ 3.2.1.1., (b)). In other words: at that period the existence of the sewa could have been implied from the appearance of the lower point. Needless to say, we are not dealing here with a sign which stands for the sewa; the notation in question, the diacritical point, came to differentiate homographs, not to rep- resent individual vowel phonemes or allophones.

3.2.2.3. Both Syriac systems denote the plosive versus the fricative pronunciation of pb t dk g. Syriac, as against Hebrew (§§ 2.3.2.2.; 2.3.5.1.) has two sets of plosive and fricative phonemes: ¡p b t dk g/ and If v Q d x y/.w Among the minimal pairs in which a plosive of the /p b t d k g/ group contrasts with its fricative counterpart, we may mention hurba "ruins", "waste place" - hurva "a stork",30 or garba "leper" - garva "leprosy", in which b and v contrast; t and 6 contrast, e.g., in the forms of the perfect with the pronominal suffixes - the first person sing, as compared with the third person fem. sing., e.g., qtalteh "I killed him" - qtalOeh "she killed him"31; d and d contrast, e.g., in haduda "a subterranean store" versus haduOd "joy".33 In certain morphological categories there is phonemic contrast, at least in theory, between a plosive and its fricative counterpart, for all members of the ¡pb t dk g/ and // v 9 d x yj groups. Such is

M At present, jp/ is always fricative in the traditional pronunciation of WS. See Costaz, 28. ES, on the other hand, usually has only a plosive //>/; its fricative counterpart may occur, in the form of /h>/, at the end of a syllable. See Noldeke, 1904, 15; Brockelmann, 21. Also, the fricative counterpart of /¿>/ is /w/, not /v/, in the ES pronunciation: Duval, 31; Noldeke, ibid., 21; Brockelmann, ibid. 30 See Moberg, 1922, 210-213. 31 Noldeke, ibid., 17; Duval, loc. cit.; Noldeke, ibid., 135. With the suffixes, the form of the second person masc. sing, may be identical to that of the first person sing. Thus qfaltdh means "I killed her" or "you killed her". 32 See Moberg, 1922, 210-211. ARAMAIC 53 the case with the masc. sing, form of the imperative of a root having as its third radical a member of the p b t d k g group in the >e6pcel verb stem, as compared with the same form of the imperative of the same root in the 'edpacal stem. The former has a plosive as its last consonant whereas the latter has a fricative.33 Thus, e.g., the >eOpcel imperative masc. sing, of hsb is'eOhasb "be numbered", "be counted among", whereas the ye9pacal imperative masc. sing, from the same root is 'eOhasv "think", "plan". The difference between Hebrew and Syriac with regard to the pb t dk g group is also clearly indicated by the distribution of the plosive and fricative phones in question in the two languages. Whereas in Hebrew the occurrence of the plosive and fricative pb t dk g is usually regulated by automatic rules,34 in Syriac both the plosive and fricative phones quite frequently occur in the same positions.35 From a historical point of view, the status of the plosive and fricative p b t d k g in Syriac is inversely correlated to the phonemic status of the sewa: the loss of the phonemic contrast between the sewa and zero brought about a process through which allophones of the above consonants were phonemicized.38 The notation of the plosive and fricative pb t dk g in the Syriac vocalization systems should, in conclusion, be regarded as dis- closing a phonemic principle of writing.

3.2.2.4. Stress, which is nonphonemic in Syriac, is not denoted in the vocalization systems. Neither do the accentuation systems serve this purpose, unlike those of Hebrew (in which stress is phonemic [§ 2.3.3.]).37

33 This holds good only for WS: Duval, 115; Noldeke, ibid., 107. The ES tradition has preserved a "historically correct" form of the 'eOpa'al imperative - a form which has an /a/ between the second and the third radicals. This form is sometimes used also in the WS tradition. 34 See above, § 2.3.5.1. Biblical Aramaic agrees, by and large, with Biblical Hebrew in its pbdkg rules. [/] and [6], however, appear to be in transition from a nonphonemic to a phonemic status (for their distribution see Bauer-Leander, 1927, 43g). 35 See Noldeke, ibid., 16ff. 38 See Noldeke, loc. cit.; Birkeland, 1947, 33. 37 The Syriac accents serve two linguistic purposes: they indicate syntactic 54 ARAMAIC

3.2.2.5. In addition to the signs which denote the vowel phonemes and the plosive and fricative p b t d k g, Syriac manuscripts make use of several other signs which, inasmuch as they serve to indicate the proper reading of the written forms, are to be regarded as vocalization signs (§ 0.2.1.). (a) The mhagydnd, a horizontal bar placed under the letter. This sign denotes the existence of an anaptyctic vowel - usually [e], sometimes [/] or [a] - where a cluster is to be expected (e.g., that the word "wisdom" should be read [hexemda] and not [hexmda]), or a specific value, as well as a distinctly clear articulation, of cer- tain letters. In its latter capacity the mhagydnd may indicate that the letter w has, when the sign accompanies it, a consonantal (that is, semivocalic - § 0.1.1.), not a vocalic, value; with the letter h, the sign draws the attention of the reader to the necessity of making a clear articulation of the consonant h. Occasionally the mhagydnd is used to denote gemination (§ 3.2.2.2.1.) - that is, also a specific value of the letter in question.38 (b) The value of the marhtdnd (a horizontal bar above the letter) is, in most of its functions, the inverse of the value of the mhagydnd; it denotes a zero where one might expect a vowel to follow a con- sonant, or, less frequently, a specific value of a letter which is opposed to that indicated by the mhagydnd (e.g., the vocalic value of the letter w).39 conjunction and disjunction as well as pitch modulation in the recitation of a given sentence, in accordance with its meaning. See Duval, 137ff.; Segal, 59ff. The musical significance of the accents is closely related to the latter function. 38 For the uses of the mhagydnd see Duval, 125BF.; Noldeke, 1904, 11, 38; Moberg, 1907, 28*, 29* (and the references given therein). The cases in which an anaptyctic vowel appears are presented in detail by Bar Hebraeus (Moberg, 1922, 198-200 = Moberg, 1907, 15-20). 39 For the marhtdnd see Duval, 128ff.; Noldeke, 1904, ibid.; Moberg, 1907, 94*. The two Syriac traditions, the Eastern and the Western, differ in their use of the mhagydnd and the marhtdnd; some of these differences reflect variations in the traditional pronunciation. The mhagydnd is more extensively employed in the WS tradition, whereas the marhtdnd appears more frequently in the ES. Also, there are some differences between the two traditions with regard to certain aspects of the use of these signs. For a full description of the various uses of the mhagydnd and marhtdnd, further studies, based upon detailed examinations of the practice of mss., are necessary (cf. Segal, 5 footnote 2). ARAMAIC 55

(c) The so-called linea occultans, indicating that the letter which it accompanies is not to be pronounced.40 In ES manuscripts this sign, a horizontal bar, usually appears above the letter; in WS manuscripts it appears either above or, more frequently, below the letter.41

3.2.2.5.1. We have not attempted to give here more than a general survey of the main uses of the mhagyana, marhtana, and the linea occultans. These signs, which we shall henceforth term "the auxil- iary vocalization signs" (whereas the other signs will be tentatively called "basic"), evolved in a comparatively late stage in the history of Syriac vocalization, and they constitute a separate group within the general system of the Syriac vocalization signs. To begin with, the auxiliary signs, as against the basic signs (§ 3.2.2.1.), do not represent specific phonemes; they denote the presence or absence of certain entities which may be either phonemic (e.g., the use of the linea occultans) or not (e.g., the use of the mhagyana to denote an anaptyctic vowel or gemination). And then, whereas the basic vocalization signs of Syriac are all univalent, two of the three auxiliary signs, the mhagyana and marhtana are multivalent. The multivalent character of these signs is apparently related to the fact (and this is another point of difference between the auxil- iary and the basic vocalization signs) that some of their functions are nonphonemic. In the Syriac systems, as in all others, multi- valence in the use of the signs is permitted only when it does not involve a conflict in the notation of any two phonemic entities. This feature of difference between the basic and the auxiliary signs

40 This sign does not come in all cases in which a letter is not pronounced. Lists of cases in which a letter is written but not pronounced appear in the masoretic apparatus as well as in grammatical treatises (see Weiss, and Moberg, 1907, in the terminological glossary, under the roots gnb (24*-25*), fipy (40*), and tsy (46*)). 41 See Duval, 130-131; Noldeke, 1904, 11-12. Originally, the linea occultans had other forms, which were clearly distinct from the mhagydnd and the marhtdnd - in ES mss. it appeared in the form of a perpendicular line, in WS in that of a slant line {Duval, 131). A complete treatment of the development of the linea occultans, like that of the mhagydnd and the marhtdnd (see footnote 39 in this chapter), would require a thorough study of scribal practice. 56 ARAMAIC will be readily understood when we consider the background of the growth of these two categories of signs. The basic signs evolved as a result of a need to complete a system of writing which was phonemically deficient (§ 3.2.2.); the auxiliary signs (in particular the mhagyana and the marhtana) were invented as supplements to a system which was phonemically sufficient. The former were essen- tial; the latter did assist the reader, it is true, in the correct reading of the words of a given text, but they were not indispensable for the objective establishment of the meaning of any written form - that is, for determining the meaning of the written form without recourse to contextual factors or grammatical considerations. In their use as supplements to the system of basic signs, some of the functions of the mhagyana and marhtana seem redundant. Thus, for instance, in a text which is fully supplied with the basic signs, it is not necessary to have a special sign for the consonantal or the vocalic value of the letter w: any medial w which is not pre- ceded, in the WS vocalization, by the sign for /«/, or which is not accompanied, in the ES vocalization, by the upper and lower points which respectively denote /o/ and /«/, is consonantal; a nonmedial w is, as a rule, always consonantal (see § 3.2.3.). Similarly, the notation oi zero by the marhtana (§ 3.2.2.5., (b)) looks redundant: according to the principles of Syriac vocalization, any consonant letter which is not accompanied by a sign of its own stands for consonant plus zero (or consonant plus sewa - cf. § 3.2.2.2.2.). Apparently, however, our conceptions of necessity and redundancy were not shared by the Syriac vocalizers. We should also bear in mind that Syriac manuscripts were frequently only partly vocalized, words being supplied with only some of the vocalization signs (cf. §§ 2.4.1. (e); 2.5.1.5.). The vocalizers who introduced the marhtana, must have attached a certain importance to its use for stressing the fact that a consonant was followed, in certain cases, by zero and not by a vowel. This usage was deemed particularly important in forms where the occurrence or non-occurrence of zero was of some significance, although not of distinctive relevance, for the estab- lishment of the correct meaning. By accompanying, e.g., the m of qamt "you (masc. sing.) arose" with the marhtana sign, the vocal- ARAMAIC 57 izers sought to make it as clear as possible that the written form in question stands for the second person masc. sing, of this verb and not for that of the third fem. sing. (qamaQ "she arose") or the first sing. (qameO "I arose").42 Finally, we may add that the introduction of auxiliary signs (particularly the mhagyana and the marhfana, the linea occultans being a mark of zero-value for a letter of the traditional orthog- raphy and thus somewhat different in nature) could be expected in a comparatively late stage of the development of a vocalization system: as in the history of the Hebrew vocalization systems (cf. §§ 2.4.2; 2.5.2.1.), the need for the introduction of supplements of a nonphonemic nature arose after the problem of phonemic nota- tion had been solved.

3.2.2.6. In a vocalized text of Syriac, certain signs are redundant - primarily the diacritical points: the single point (§ 3.2.1.1.), and the syame, the double point (§ 3.2.1.2.). As we saw above, these signs had been created, for the purpose of differentiating homo- graphs, before the specific signs of the vowel phonemes were in- troduced. With the introduction of the latter signs, the problem of the homographs was solved for most cases; needless to say, the diacritical marks thereby became redundant. However, with their reverence for tradition, the Syriac scribes adhered to the use of these , and did not forsake them even after they had lost their raison d'etre. For the redundant aspects of the use of the mhagyana and the marhtana see § 3.2.2.5.1.

3.2.2.6.1. A redundancy of a different nature is disclosed by the ES vocalization. ES vocalizers continued the practice of having

42 /i/ and ¡6j are orthographically represented by the same letter, the differen- tiation between them being achieved, as is the case with all plosive and fricative phonemes of the pbtdkg group, by the help of an upper and a lower point. When these points were omitted - and such omissions were none too rare - the function of the marhtdnd became, of course, more important: in such a case the reader could distinguish between qdmt, q&maO and qdmeO only by ascertaining the quality of the vowel preceding the last consonant. 58 ARAMAIC different signs for /a/ and /a:/, as well as for ¡el and /e:/, even after these pairs of oppositions had been neutralized.43 We have observed a similar phenomenon in the practice of Palestinian and Samaritan vocalizers (see §§ 2.5.1.6.; 2.5.3.1.2.); obviously, in all these cases a system of vocalization has been preserved which was based on an earlier stage of the traditional pronunciations - a stage in which the vowel oppositions in question were phonemic.

3.2.3. In its methods of differentiating between the consonantal, vocalic, and zero values of the letters y w ' h, Syriac resembles Hebrew (§ 2.3.1.). (a) y is a vowel letter when it is preceded by the signs of the vowels /// or /e/ (also /e:/ in the ES system) and when it is not accompanied by a vocalization sign of its own.44 Otherwise, it usually has a consonantal (that is, semivocalic) value. However, in a number of cases, most of which belong to specific morphological categories, a final y has neither a consonantal nor a vocalic value (and in this case the final y is not preceded by any vocalization sign);46 it is an orthographical convention of historical origin. But this orthography does have a grammatical function in the written form of the language: in most cases, it indicates morphemes which would not otherwise appear graphically. (b) Initial w has consonantal value - that is, it represents the semivocalic /w/. Medially, w is /w/ if it is not preceded, in the WS vocalization, by the sign for /«/, or if it is not accompanied, in ES texts, by the upper and lower points which denote /o/ and /«/; otherwise, it is a vowel letter, representing /«/ in WS, and /o/ or /«/ in ES. In final position, w is usually /w/. However, in two verbal categories (in the third person masc. plur. of the perfect and in the

43 However, the signs which represent Ial and /a:/, and those denoting /e/ and /e:/, sometimes interchange in ES mss: Noldeke, 1904, 8, 29. 44 In this paragraph (§ 3.2.3.), the term vocalization sign is used to the exclu- sion of the marhfdnd, the mhagydnd and the linea occultans which sometimes serve to differentiate consonantal from vocalic and zero values of certain letters (§ 3.2.2.5.). 45 Ibid., 36. Only as an exception (in the word spelled 'yk = I'ax/ "as") can a nonfinal y serve neither as a vowel letter nor as a consonant letter. ARAMAIC 59 masc. plur. of the imperative - in both cases provided that the third radical of the verb is neither /w/ nor ¡y/)46 final w, like final y in other morphological categories (see above), is a mere ortho- graphical convention of historical origin, also having grammatical significance. (c) ' is a vowel letter (or has the value zero) when it is not accompanied by a vocalization sign of its own; otherwise, it represents /'/-47 (d) h as a rule stands for /h/; in certain cases, however - pri- marily in the enclitic forms of the root hwy and of the independent pronominal morphemes for the third person, masc. sing, and fem. sing., as well as in the suffixed pronominal morphemes of the third person masc. sing, which follow a bound morpheme ending with a vowel - it has the value zero.48

3.3. Reviewed in conclusion, the Syriac vocalization systems ap- pear to be characterized by an approach which is primarily pho- nemic: they include all vowel phonemes, but hardly any allophones (§ 3.2.2.2.). Only some of the nonphonemic entities are represented, rather inconsistently, by special signs, the "auxiliary signs" - that is, as seen above (§ 3.2.2.5.1.), signs which were introduced at a comparatively late period to supplement systems of vocalization which had been phonemically sufficient.

4® Noldeke, loc. cit. 47 An ' which has the value zero may be accompanied by the linea occultans. 48 In these cases the h is usually accompanied by the linea occultans. Sporadic cases in which the h has the value zero are pointed out by the Syriac Masora; see, e.g., Weiss, 19.

4

MOTIVATION AND METHODOLOGY IN THE VOCALIZATION SYSTEMS: SOME REFLECTIONS

4.1. An analysis of a vocalization system - like that of an ortho- graphical system - is, in fact, simply an attempt at a reconstruction of the phonemic analysis which was carried out by the inventors of the system:1 the concept of the phoneme had been, of course, inherent in linguistic thought and work long before its first for- mulations by Kruszewski and Baudouin de Courtenay.2 In the present study we have tried to investigate the methods on which the work of the Arabic, Hebrew, and Aramaic vocalizers was based; some of the results of this investigation are summarized in table I (p. 77).

4.1.1. The most obvious result of the comparison of the vocaliza- tion systems with which we are here concerned is, perhaps, the fundamental difference between the historical development of the Arabic system and that of the Hebrew and Aramaic (Syriac)3 systems. The Arabic vocalization discloses principles which are purely phonemic; moreover, it never developed beyond a phonemic notation. In other words: in Arabic the use of the external signs (§ 0.1.2.) discloses the same principle which underlies the use of the letters as representatives of the consonantal (and the semivocalic) phonemes: both these categories of marks indicate phonemes, but no entities that are nonphonemic.

1 Cf. Polotsky, 221. Polotsky's statement, made with regard to a problem of Coptic orthography, has general validity. 2 Cf. Firth, 2. 3 Syriac and Jewish Aramaic are the only Aramaic to employ external vocalization signs (§ 0.1.2.). Jewish Aramaic, as noted above (§ 3.1.), has developed no vocalization systems of its own, but made use of the various systems of Hebrew. We shall, therefore, deal here with Syriac as the sole representative of Aramaic. 62 MOTIVATION AND METHODOLOGY: SOME REFLECTIONS

In Syriac, and particularly in Hebrew, the situation is different. Both the Hebrew and the Syriac systems of vocalization originated in an attempt to differentiate homographs, an attempt which re- sulted in the invention of the diacritical point (§§ 2.1; 3.2.1.). The use of the diacritical point to differentiate between members of homographic pairs which resemble each other both in the number of their syllables and in the position of the stress and which can be distinguished only by the quality of two of their vowels (§ 2.1.), had a significant by-product: it produced a clearer formulation of the relationship between the concept of the consonant and that of the vowel. Whether we consider the orthography of Hebrew and Aramaic to have been originally consonantal or syllabic,4 it is obvious that at a certain stage in the development of the writing systems of these languages a clarification of the consonant-vowel relationship had to be made, namely - it had to be conceived that the vowel phonemes are independent entities which in all cases can be graphically separated from the preceding consonants (if we consider the orthography to be originally syllabic) or inserted into "clusters" of consonantal symbols (if we consider it as consonantal). As noted above (§ 2.1.), the diacritical point, although devoid of any autonomous value, did have an implicit value: its use with the homographic pairs stressed the fact that the opposition between the words represented by the homographs depended on the con- trast of the vowel phonemes. It appears, therefore, that the use of the diacritical point was instrumental in the establishment of the "independence" of the vowel phoneme and the possibility of its regular marking as a separate entity. Needless to say, to a certain extent the "independence" of the vowel phoneme, its existence as a separate entity, was inherent already in the use of the vowel letters in the scripiio plena (§0.1.1.). However, the introduction of the vowel letters into the orthography reflected in no small measure morphemic considerations, synchronic as well as diachronic; it was, therefore, only in a rather feeble manner that the concept of the vowel as an independent entity was expressed by the scripiio plena.

4 Cf. chapter 1, note 1. MOTIVATION AND METHODOLOGY: SOME REFLECTIONS 63

In both Hebrew and Syriac there occurred a transition from a system which denoted by one single sign - the diacritical point - the proper reading of a whole word to systems in which separate signs mark the individual vowel phonemes. The systems of vocal- ization which developed as a result of this transition disclose various levels of agreement with the principles of phonemic nota- tion. As far as possible, the vocalizers attempted to provide in their systems a sufficient representation for those phonemic entities which were neither marked by the orthography nor denoted by any other external system, such as the system of accents (§ 2.3.3.). The vocalizers did not, however, confine themselves to the notation of the above phonemic entities. Some systems - the Tiberian, the Complicated Babylonian and the Fuller Palestinian - also included from their inception signs for nonphonemic entities; in others - the vocalization systems of Syriac - most of the signs which may also serve nonphonemic purposes, the "auxiliary vocalization signs" (§ 3.2.2.5.1.), evolved as later additions. There still remains the question of how we may explain the difference between the almost purely phonemic approach disclosed by the Arabic vocalization and the tendency of the Hebrew and Syriac vocalization to develop towards a notation which can be tentatively defined as "phonemic plus" (that is, representing the phonemic entities plus some of the nonphonemic), the nature and essence of the "plus" varying from one system to another. It ap- pears that this difference between Arabic on the one hand and Hebrew and Syriac on the other, should be examined in the light of historical circumstances. During the period when the Arabic vocalization system was being formulated, Arabic, in its spoken form, consisted of a number of native dialects and non-native speech varieties.5 Naturally, these

5 By 'native dialect' we mean a collection of idiolects (cf. Hockett, 321) of native speakers; 'non-native speech variety', on the other hand, denotes here a collection of idiolects of speakers, to whom Arabic was a and who shared the same mother . The original native dialects of Arabic were , and the non-native varieties resulted from the contact between Arabic and other languages during and after the Islamic conquests. For a description of the linguistic situation in the Empire of the Omayyads (632- 64 MOTIVATION AND METHODOLOGY: SOME REFLECTIONS dialects and speech varieties differed from each other phonetically and phonemically; from the available sources we learn that quite a few of these differences involved the allophonic inventory of the vowel phonemes.6 In creating a system of vocalization the Arab philologists were concerned with problems caused by homographs; at the same time, however, they also had to cope with the problem of the standard pronunciation of the . For the solution of both types of problems, the phonemic approach to nota- tion - that is, the most "natural" and simplest approach - appeared also to be the most suitable. The indication of the vowel phonemes and of the other phonemic entities (gemination, zero) not represented in the orthography, but not of any nonphonemic entities, made clear the structure of every morpheme; thus, the homographic problem found its solution. But this was not the only value of a strictly phonemic approach at that period in the history of Arabic. A phonemic notation also served as an efficient means for the preservation of the structure of a literary language which had been undergoing a process of stan- dardization - as was the case with Classical Arabic at the period in which its vocalization system came into being. At that time, the native dialects of Arabic were being subjected to strong and va- riegated interference from other languages, as well as from non- native speech . Whatever the relationship of Classical Arabic to the native dialects, it is obvious that it was also affected by some interference of this nature. Consequently, the need arose for the establishment of a lucid graphic representation of those phonemic entities which were missing in the orthography,

750 A.D.) see Fuck, 8ff. The rather complicated problems of the essence of "Classical Arabic" and its relationship to the dialects lie, of course, beyond the scope of this study. For treatments in the recent literature see Kahle, 1949a; 1949b; Rabin, 1955. 9 Consult, e.g., the general index to Rabin, 1951, s.v. a < u, 'imala, 'ishmam. (Rabin's study describes the linguistic features of a group of pre-literary Arabic dialects; however, our information with regard to these features is derived from literary sources, and this very fact indicates, of course, that they - or, to be more precise, some of them at least - were retained in the dialects for some time also in the literary period.) MOTIVATION AND METHODOLOGY: SOME REFLECTIONS 65 so that the foundations of the literary language could be strength- ened, its graphemes becoming consistent and unambiguous in value. The indication of these phonemic entities was sufficient; on the other hand, any inclusion of other than phonemic entities would have been undesirable and even detrimental at a time when dialects and non-native speech varieties clashed. In the case of Arabic a "phonemic plus" approach would have undermined the attempt for standardization: allophones seem to defy standardiza- tion to a greater extent than phonemes. Moreover, at a period which saw the rise and development of ,7 the estab- lishment of a sufficient graphic representation of the phoneme inventory of the language was, to be sure, a most logical compro- mise between a puristic demand to impose upon the users of Clas- sical Arabic an intricate and detailed model of "correct pronuncia- tion", and a more practical approach, which took into account the ever-existing gap between puristic desiderata and linguistic facts. The historical background in which the Hebrew - and, to certain extent, also the Syriac - systems of vocalization were gradually formulated, was different. When the systems of vocalization evolved, Hebrew was no longer a "living" language: in its written form, Hebrew served as a literary vehicle, but orally its existence at that time was primarily that of a liturgical language - a language in which texts, mostly sacred ones, were taught and recited. In a lan- guage of this nature, the vocalization systems, as observed above (§ 2.2.2.), came to perpetuate in a written form certain linguistic entities which, before the invention of the signs, had been carried over from generation to generation by oral tradition alone. In formulating the systems of vocalization, the philologists of the various Hebrew schools had, of course, to tackle the problems of homographs; however, they also considered it their task to transmit to generations to come a graphic system that would convey the traditional values of those linguistic entities which were not rep- resented in the orthography. Naturally, there arose the question of what entities should be included in such a system; on this point

7 For the historical background of the puristic approach to Arabic see Fiick, 22. 66 MOTIVATION AND METHODOLOGY: SOME REFLECTIONS we see differences of opinion among the philologists of the various schools. Some schools regarded the solution of the homographic problem as their primary goal in the creation of the vocalization systems, and in these schools - the Simple Babylonian, the Simple Palestinian, the Samaritan - it was the phonemic approach that had the upper hand. In other schools - the Tiberian, the Complicated Babylonian and the Fuller Palestinian - the approach was rather that of a "phonemic plus" notation: in their attempt to combine a solution of the homographic problem with a method of transmitting some information about the "correct pronunciation", the philol- ogists of these schools created systems of notation which, in addi- tion to the phonemes, also indicated certain nonphonemic entities - probably the main allophones of some phonemes. The systems which are based on the "phonemic plus" principle evolved from systems which adhered more closely to the principle of a phonemic notation. The tendency to develop beyond a phonemic notation appears to be prevalent in the history of the Hebrew vocalization systems: it is readily demonstrated by the study of the relationship of the Complicated Babylonian and the Fuller Palestinian systems to the Simple Babylonian and the Simple Palestinian, respectively. It appears that the later systems of vocalization placed more stress on the need for the representation of certain nonphonemic entities, as well as on the necessity for a thorough-going and consistent use of the signs. Accordingly, the practice of partial vocalization, com- mon in Simple Babylonian and Simple Palestinian texts (§§2.4.1., (e); 2.5.1.5.), tends to disappear in the later systems.8 In the later stages of the development of Hebrew vocalization more and more importance was attached to preserving the "correct pronunciation" and to representing it, as far as possible, in the system of signs. This is quite natural. First, the homographic prob- lem had lost its urgency, having been solved at the earlier stages of the development of the systems. And then, in a language which, as pointed out above, did not serve as a regular means of oral

8 This holds good for sacred and liturgical texts. In other texts partial vocal- ization continued to be employed. MOTIVATION AND METHODOLOGY: SOME REFLECTIONS 67 communication but had its oral existence primarily in a liturgical, semi-fossilized, form,9 conservatism with regard to the "correct pronunciation" tended to develop. In the Hebrew philological schools in which the vocalization systems were created, this conserv- ative attitude seems to have become stronger with the passage of time - that is to say, with the growth of distance in time from the period in which the language had had a normal existence. This explains to some extent why the later schools, which insisted on the necessity of representing graphically the "correct pronunciation", advocated in their systems a notation based on the "phonemic plus" principle. Syriac did not go so far as Hebrew in its "phonemic plus" ap- proach. Both the Eastern and the Western systems are phonemic in principle. The "phonemic plus" approach is disclosed in Syriac in the introduction of the "auxiliary" signs (§ 3.2.2.5.1.). But these signs do not constitute an intrinsic part of the systems, and, unlike the signs that in the Hebrew systems represent nonphonemic entities, they never achieved full status - that is, never equalled the "basic" signs in value and significance. In certain respects, the development of the Syriac vocalization systems had a setting different from that of the Hebrew systems. Whereas the latter, as we saw above, evolved at a time when the language was no longer "living", the former were created - at least in their main outline - for a . As in the case of Hebrew, the Syriac vocalization systems were designated for a literary and liturgical language; however, for Syriac, unlike Hebrew, the liturgical aspect was not the main aspect of its oral existence. When the Syriac systems of vocalization evolved in their principal outline, the language was still enjoying a normal existence, being spoken, in several dialects and varieties, in certain regions of Syria, Mesopotamia, and Persia. For such a language a phonemic ap- proach was, of course, both sufficient and desirable. This difference between the background of the Hebrew and Syriac vocalization systems may in some measure account for the fact that in the Syriac

9 Cf. Morag, 1958, All. 68 MOTIVATION AND METHODOLOGY: SOME REFLECTIONS systems the phonemic principle is more in evidence than in the systems of Hebrew. It was only when Syriac lost its normal exist- ence and became primarily a liturgical and literary language, that a tendency towards a notation based on the "phonemic plus" ap- proach developed. This tendency, which, as in the case of Hebrew, apparently resulted from the desire to preserve traditions of "cor- rect pronunciation", brought about the formation of the "auxil- iary" signs. In its major lines of development, Syriac vocalization, in both the Eastern and the Western Systems, occupies a middle position between Arabic vocalization, which never developed beyond the phonemic notation, and Hebrew vocalization, which shows a strong tendency to evolve from a phonemic to a "phonemic plus" approach. In comparing the Hebrew and the Syriac principles of vocaliza- tion, we should also point out another factor, namely the status of vocalization in the cultural patterns of the community in which it arose. In both Hebrew and Syriac, the vocalization constituted a part of the Masora - the apparatus created in order to transmit canonical texts to future generations in a complete and accurate form. However, Syriac Masora, albeit quite elaborate, never achieved the authoritative status of Hebrew Masora.10 This may be due to the fact that the Syriac canonical scriptures were trans- lated texts, whereas those of Hebrew were original texts. And there seems to have been some relationship between the status of the vocalization (as a part of the Masora) in the community and a tendency to make the vocalization more elaborate, specific, and intricate: the higher the status of the vocalization, the stronger was the tendency.11 This tendency had a considerable impact on the development of the Hebrew vocalization systems towards a "pho- nemic plus" notation; in the case of Syriac, it was weaker, and,

10 See Segal, vii and 3. 11 It is of interest to note here, in passing, that the Samaritan system of vo- calization (§ 2.5.3.) has never attained a recognized status in the community (see Ben-Hayyim, 1954a, 62), and this, as Professor Ben-Hayyim informs me in a private communication, may account for some of the confusion which developed in the use of certain signs in this system (see § 2.5.3.3.). MOTIVATION AND METHODOLOGY: SOME REFLECTIONS 69 therefore, had a lesser influence on the evolution of the Syriac systems in the same direction.

4.2. Certain aspects of the development of the vocalization systems reveal the principle of the economy of representation.12 This prin- ciple, which, to use I. J. Gelb's definition, "strives for the effective expression of language by means of the smallest possible numbers of signs",13 is fundamental for many systems of writing.14 Needless to say, those systems of vocalization which were pho- nemic in their principles had found a most appropriate method of representing in an economical way the entities which had not been included in the orthography. This principle is also evident, however, in some features of the systems which are based on the "phonemic plus" approach. (a) The bivalent and multivalent use of certain vocalization signs, which as a rule is permitted only in the notation of non-phonemic entities (§§ 2.3.5.; 2.4.1., (d); 2.4.2., (d); 2.5.1.4.; 3.2.2.5.1.), seems to have originated in the desire for an econo- mical representation. The logical foundation of this bivalent and multivalent use is clear: whereas with signs that denote phonemic entities there should be a one-to-one assignment of the signs to the segmental phonemes,15 this is not a prerequisite for signs which stand for nonphonemic entities. Several nonphonemic entities may be denoted by one and the same sign - particularly if they are in complimentary distribution (cf., e.g., § 2.3.5.1.). The only major exception to this rule of employing bivalence only for nonphonemic entities is constituted by the case of the sewd sign in the Tiberian system (§ 2.3.5.2.): in this case the same sign denotes /e/ as well as zero - both of which are phonemic en- tities.18 However, as observed above, /£/ has certain peculiarities

12 , 59. 13 Gelb, 1952,90. 14 Ibid., 72. 15 Cf. Hockett, 545. 16 /¿/ can be regarded as nonphonemic if gemination is accorded a phonemic status; in this case [e] would be an allophone of zero. See chapter 2, footnote 23. 70 MOTIVATION AND METHODOLOGY: SOME REFLECTIONS which seem to connect it with zero: from a quantitative point of view, its position is intermediate between that of all other vowel phonemes, except /¿/,17 and zero (§ 2.3.5.2., (a); cf. also § 2.3.4.1.); morphophonemically, both ¡ef and zero appear as frequent al- ternants of several of the vowel phonemes of Hebrew (§2.3.5.2., (c)). Taking into consideration the affinity of ¡ej and zero, the vocalizers deemed it legitimate to extend in one case the boundaries of the principle of economic representation and to use the same sign, the sewd sign, for two entities which are phonemically distinct. One may farther assume that this breach of the rule of one-to-one assign- ment of the signs to the segmental phonemes may also be justified on distributional grounds: only in a limited number of cases do ¡ej and zero occur in the same position. In most cases, ¡el and zero do not contrast, and in general a contrast between any vowel phoneme and /e/ may be equally well described as a contrast between this phoneme and zero. The Tiberian philologists who - unlike the phi- lologists of the SB (§2.4.1., (c)) and the SP (§2.5.1.4., (d)) schools - insisted on providing every letter which represented a medial consonant with a vocalization sign, even when this consonant was not followed by any vowel (§ 2.3.5.2.1.), could, therefore, use the /e/ sign also for zero. In most cases, this bivalence does not create confusion. As for the differentiation of the ¡el values from the zero values of the sewa sign, the Tiberian approach was to base this differentiation, in most categories, on rules of distribution for these two entities. In the other categories - in all of which the sewa sign comes in medial position - this differentiation had to be attained by having recourse to the msteg (§ 2.3.4.2.), to the system of accents, or to the apparatus of the Masoretic notes.18 A very different type of exception to the rule that bivalence and

In this study, we have preferred to consider /e/ as a phoneme and gemination as nonphonemic. 17 The functional load of this phoneme, however, is extremely light. See chapter 2, footnote 18. 18 We cannot deal here with this problem in detail. For a presentation of the problems with regard to the value of the Tiberian sewd sign which are encoun- tered by members of a Jewish community in reading the Bible, see Morag, 1956, 12ff. MOTIVATION AND METHODOLOGY: SOME REFLECTIONS 71 multivalence may be applied only for the notation of nonphonemic entities is furnished by the Samaritan vocalization (§2.5.3.2.). In this vocalization, however, the multivalence in the use of phonemic signs is far from being an integral part of an original system. It should rather be considered a symptom of a waning language tradition (see further ibid.). (b) The systems which use the sewa sign also for zero - that is, the Tiberian and the Fuller Palestinian - avoid redundancy in its use for zero. In the Tiberian vocalization the use of the sewd sign in final position is limited to cases in which it apparently had special functions.19 A sewa sign which comes with a final letter representing a consonant that directly follows the preceding con- sonant is generally taken to have the value zero. It is probable, however, that this sewa sign may have originally indicated that the reader must not consider the two last consonants in the morpheme to form a cluster (thereby assigning the value zero to this sign), but that he should rather pronounce an anaptyctic vowel after the final consonant (that is, should regard the sign in question as denoting /e/).20 The reason for the consistent application of the sewd sign to final k may, perhaps, lie in the fact that with this letter a final sewd assisted the reader in differentiating a final k from a final n - two letters which in certain periods in the history of Hebrew script were rather similar in shape. In the FP system, the use of the final sewa sign has been extended to include several letters, namely c, h, and w, with which this sign does not appear in the Tiberian vocalization (§ 2.5.2., (c)). In the opinion of the vocalizers of the FP school, there were specific

18 For the use of the sewd sign in final position see chapter 2, footnote 22. 20 I owe this observation to Dr. H. Blanc. To the best of my knowledge, all reading traditions of Hebrew (§ 2.2.2.) consider the siwd sign in question to denote zero. However, the value of /¿j is assigned to this sewa by Yehudi Hayyug, a grammarian of the tenth century A. D. David Qimhi, the famous philologist of the thirteenth century, also knows of such a value of final siwd. See Morag, 1956, 17. Final t sometimes has the sewd sign also when a vowel precedes (chapter 2, footnote 22). Its use in these cases apparently results from analogy to the form of the second pers. fem. sing, in the perfect of verbs which as their third radical have a consonant other than ¡h/, /£/, or /"/: in these verbs /// directly follows a consonant. 72 MOTIVATION AND METHODOLOGY: SOME REFLECTIONS reasons for the use of the sewa sign with these letters (see ibid.): to employ this sign for the notation of final zero without having further justification, would have been a case of redundancy, since in the FP system, as well as in the Tiberian, final zero is as a rule sufficiently denoted by the absence of any vocalization sign.

4.2.1. In all Hebrew systems, except the FP, and in the Syriac systems, the principle of economical representation is also disclosed in the relationship between the vocalization signs and the vowel letters. The introduction of external signs (§ 0.1.2.) - the vocalization signs - into an orthography which had already denoted some of the vowels by means of vowel letters (see §0.1.1.), also had to offer a solu- tion to the problem of the bivalent nature of the vowel letters: prior to the creation of the vocalization signs, these letters had had both consonantal (= 'semivocalic') and vocalic values (§ 2.2.3.). In solving this problem, the philologists generally sought to make the distinction between the consonantal and the vocalic values of the letters in question a by-product of the primary use of the vocalization signs - their use for the indication of the entities that were missing in the orthography. Needless to say, specific signs could have been used for the systematic differentiation of the above two categories of values: such a method was indeed adopted by the FP school (§2.5.2., (a)). The other Hebrew schools, however, employ such specific signs only in part and far less systematically than the FP school;21 in Syriac the differentiation is sometimes achieved by the "auxiliary" signs. A more systematic approach to the problem was considered unnecessary by these schools, the consistent use of such signs probably being regarded as excessively cumbersome: in the opinion of the philologists, any reader who studied the distributional patterns of vowels and consonants, and the fundamental rules of the relationship between the vowel letters and the vocalization signs that may accompany or precede them,

S1 For the Tiberian school see § 2.3.1., (c),(d); for the SB - § 2.4.1., (d); for the SP - § 2.5.1.4., (c). We should add that the Babylonian schools sometimes use a superimposed h to indicate the consonantal value of final h. See Kahle, 1913, 167. MOTIVATION AND METHODOLOGY: SOME REFLECTIONS 73 would be able to differentiate the above categories without having to rely upon any specific signs. Apparently, this was also the opinion of the Arab philologists with regard to the problem under considera- tion; in the Arabic vocalization, however, the situation was far less complicated than in the Hebrew and Aramaic vocalization systems (see §§ 1.1.; 2.2.3.).

4.2.2. We have just observed (§ 4.2.1.) that there existed between the FP school and the other Hebrew schools a difference of opinion concerning the need for specific signs to differentiate the consonan- tal values of the vowel letters from their vocalic values. Similar differences of opinion among philologists, also reflecting upon the concept of economical representation as comprehended by the various schools of vocalization, are disclosed in other domains as well. All Hebrew schools of philology acknowledge the interdepend- ence of the vocalization system and the system of accents (§ 2.3.3.); they vary, however, in the extent to which the interpretation of the former rests upon the latter. In the Tiberian and the FP vocaliza- tion systems (and to some measure also in the SB and the SP sys- tems), the vocalization signs can sometimes be properly interpreted only with the help of the accents. Such an interpretation of the vocalization signs is phonemic only in a comparatively small num- ber of cases - primarily with regard to the distinction between ¡ej and zero. What we usually have to deal here with is a phonetic interpretation: the accents (or their absence) may indicate some of the allophones of the phonemes which are denoted by the vocaliza- tion signs. The Complicated Babylonian school of philology tended to limit the extent to which the vocalization system is dependent on the system of accents. In the vocalization system created in this school, special signs stand for certain allophones (§ 2.4.2., (a)), which - whatever their value 22 - are not indicated by the vocalization sys-

22 The value of these allophones is still a matter of controversy. See chapter 2, footnote 55. 74 MOTIVATION AND METHODOLOGY: SOME REFLECTIONS tems of the other schools. In these systems these allophones have sometimes to be deduced from the notation of accents. In other words: whereas some Hebrew schools regarded the interdependence of the two systems as convenient, considering it to be one of the means by which an economical representation might be achieved, the CB school attempted, so it appears, to lessen the dependence of the vocalization system on the system of accents. The reasons behind the desire to do so will be readily understood if we recall that the indication of allophones in the system of accents is no more than a by-product; this system has, as described above (§ 2. 3.3.), three main functions, none of which, however, directly includes any notation of allophones. Of course, the question under consideration here concerns the notation of nonphonemic entities; the divergence of opinion among the various schools regarding the principle of economic rep- resentation and its relation to the interdependence of the systems is thus closely connected to the divergence of opinion concerning the necessity of denoting nonphonemic entities (§ 4.1.1.).

4.3. As was the case in the history of the alphabetical writing systems, changes in the vocalization systems were slower to occur than the corresponding linguistic changes: conservatism in the use of the vocalization signs is no less common a feature than it is in the orthography. Therefore we sometimes find the vocalizers using a system of signs which had originally been invented to represent the traditional pronunciation as it existed in an earlier period, without adjusting it to reflect the traditional pronunciation em- ployed in their time.23 Evidence for such a relationship between a system of vocalization and the traditional pronunciation as it had been in a period earlier than the one in which the system was invented, is provided by the SP, the FP, and the Samaritan systems of Hebrew (§§ 2.5.1.6.; 2.5.2., (d); 2.5.3.1.2.), as well as by the

23 Changes in the traditional pronunciation of liturgical languages may result either from an internal development or from the interference of another pho- nemic system. A brief description of such an interference has been given by Morag, 1958. MOTIVATION AND METHODOLOGY: SOME REFLECTIONS 75 vocalization system of Eastern Syriac (§ 3.2.2.6.1.)- A relationship of this nature may create either redundancy in the vocalization system (in case the number of signs in the vocalization system is greater than the number of phonemes and nonphonemic entities the system has to indicate) or insufficiency (when the relationship between the number of signs and the number of phonemes and other entities is the inverse of the above). In the history of the vocalization systems redundancy resulted, since some of the en- tities which had originally constituted a part of the phonemic sys- tem of the traditional pronunciation merged with others (/d/=/a/ in SP, FP and ES; /e/=/e/ in SP and FP). The background and origin of the redundancy in the vocalization systems of Hebrew and Aramaic is clearly analogous to that which developed in the orthog- raphy of other languages, e.g. English.

4.4. Another point of resemblance between the history of other orthographical systems and that of the systems of vocalization is the dissolution, in certain cases, of the one-to-one relationship of the signifiant to the signifié. As is well known, an alphabetic , when invented or first applied to a certain language, is usually free from ambiguities.24 In the course of time, however, the one-to-one relationship changes, and consequently a writing system may evolve in which some letters - particularly those which were originally designated to denote the vowel phonemes - become over- loaded, having to represent more than one phoneme. The situation is somewhat happier in the vocalization systems which - be it recalled - were planned as additions to already estab- lished (although partly deficient) alphabetic systems of writing. A planned invention of such a nature had to be based on clear prin- ciples. This was indeed the case, and prominent among these prin- ciples was the one that permitted multivalence only for the notation of nonphonemic entities (§ 4.2., (a)). To this rule there were some exceptions, which have been discussed above {ibid.). However, apart from these exceptions, whose integration into the systems

24 Cf. e.g., Hockett, 545. 76 MOTIVATION AND METHODOLOGY: SOME REFLECTIONS had apparently been seriously weighed in the philological schools, there are cases in which multivalence has obviously originated in an unplanned development. Noteworthy among these cases is the coalescence, in the Hebrew systems, of the dagis sign and a sign which originally was a diacritical mark (§ 3.2.1.3.). This merger - the products of which have for generations puzzled students of Biblical Hebrew - is the result of the transition from that stage in the history of the vocalization in which the diacritical mark (whether in the form of a point or in any other form (see ibid.)) was the only (or the major) vocalization sign (§ 2.1.), to a stage in which a fuller notation of the vowel phonemes (as well as some other entities) was introduced. In this latter stage, new functions were given to the sign which originally had been a diacritical mark. In some cases, however, residues of its former functions were retained. TABLES

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbott, N.: The Rise of the North Arabic Script and its Kur'attic Development (Chicago, 1939). Allony, N. y Diez Macho, A.: "Dos manuscritos 'palestinenses' más de la Geniza del ", Estudios Bíblicos, 17 : 83-100 (1958). —: "Otros dos manuscritos 'palestinenses' de Salmos", Sefarad, 18 : 254-271 (1958). —: "Pésiqtá dérab Káhéná in Palestinian Vocalization", Lesonénu, 23 : 57-71 (1958/59). [In Hebrew.] —: "Lista de variantes en la édición de los mss. palestinenses T.-S. 20/58 y 20/52", Estudios Bíblicos, 18 : 293-298 (1959). Baer, S. und Strack, H. L.: Die Dikduke Ha-t'amim des Ahron ben Moscheh ben Ascher... herausgegeben von - (Leipzig, 1879). Bar, F.: Liturgische Dichtungen von Jannai und Samuel (Bonn, 1936). Bauer, H. und Leander, P.: Historische Grammatik der Hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testamentes (Halle a. S., 1922). —: Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramäischen (Halle a. S., 1927). Ben-David, A.: "Upon what is based the division of vowels to long and short ones?", Lesonénu, 22 : 7-35, 110-136 (1957/58). [In Hebrew.] —: Review of Murtonen, A., Materials for a Non-Masoretic Hebrew Grammar, I, in Kirjath Sepher, 33 : 481^91 (1957/58). [In Hebrew.] —: "On the Unusual Vocalisation of a Poem", Tarbiz, 29 : 250-260 (1959/60). [In Hebrew.] Ben-Hayyim, Z.: "The Samaritan Tradition and its Use for the Study of Aramaic and Hebrew", Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies (1947), Vol. I, 146-153. [In Hebrew.] —: Studies in the Traditions of the (-Barcelona, 1954). —: "The Samaritan Vowel-System and its Graphic Representation", Archiv Orientální, 22: 513-530 (1954). —: The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic amongst the (Jerusalem, 1957). [In Hebrew.] —: "Traditions in the Hebrew Language, with Special Reference to the Scrolls". Scripta Hierosolymitana, 4: 200-214 (Jerusalem, 1958). Bergsträsser, G.: Hebräische Grammatik (Leipzig, 1918). —: und Pretzl, O.: Die Geschichte desKorantexts (Leipzig, 1938; = Nöldeke, T.: Geschichte des Qoräns, III). Birkeland, H.: "Akzent und Vokalismus im Althebräischen", Skrifter utgitt det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo: II, Hist.-Filos. Klasse, No. 3 (1940). —: "Altarabische Pausalformen", Skrifter utgitt av Det Norske Videnskaps- Akademi i Oslo: II, Hist.-Filos. Klasse, No. 4 (1940). 80 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Birkeland, H. : "The Syriac Phonematic Vowel Systems", Festskrift til Professor Olaf Broch pâ 80-Ârsdag, 13-39 (Avhandlinger utgitt av Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo: II, Hist.-Filos. Klasse, 1947). Blake, F. R.: "The Development of Symbols for Vowels in the Alphabets derived from the Phoenician", Journal of the Society, 60 : 391-413 (1940). Bloch, B. and Trager, G. L. : Outline of Linguistic Analysis (Baltimore, 1942). Brockelmann, C. : Syrische Grammatik • (Leipzig, 1951). Brown, R.: Words and Things (Glencoe, Illinois, 1958). Cantineau, J.: Le Nabatéen (Paris, 1930-1932). —: Cours de phonétique arabe (Alger, 1941). —: "Esquisse d'une phonologie de l'arabe classique", Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, 43: 93-140 (1946). —: "Essai d'une phonologie de l'hébreu biblique", Bulletin de la Société de Lin- guistique de Paris, 46: 82-122 (1950). Chomsky, W.: "The History of Our Vowel-System in Hebrew", The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, 32: 27-49 (1941-1942). Costaz, L. : Grammaire Syriaque (Beyrouth, 1955). Cross, F. M. and Freedman, D. N. : Early Hebrew Orthography (New Haven, Connecticut, 1952). Diening, F.: Das Hebräische bei den Samaritanern (= Bonner Orientalische Studien, Heft 24; Stuttgart, 1938). Diettrich, G. : Die Massorah der östlichen und westlichen Syrer in ihren Angaben zum Propheten Jesaia (London, 1899). Diez Macho, A.: "Un importante manuscrito targúmico en la Biblioteca Vaticana", Homenaje a Millás Vallicrosa, I : 375^63 (1954). —: "Tres nuevos manuscritos bíblicos 'palestinenses'", Estudios Bíblicos, 13 : 247-265 (1954). —: "Un manuscrito hebreo protomasorético y nueva teoría acerca de los llamados Mss. Ben Naftalí", ibid., 15 :187-222 (1956). —: "Nuevos manuscritos importantes, bíblicos o litúrgicos, en hebreo o arameo", Sefarad, 16 : 1-23 (1956). —: "Importants manuscrits hébreux et araméens aux États Unis", Vêtus Testamentum, Supplement 4 : 27-46 (1957). —: "Valiosos manuscritos bíblicos en la Biblioteca Nacional y Universitaria de Estrasburgo", Estudios Bíblicos, 16 : 83-88 (1957). —: "Nuevos manuscritos bíblicos babilónicos", ibid. : 235-277. —: "Un manuscrito 'palestinense' en la Biblioteca Nacional de Estrasburgo", Sefarad, 17 : 1-7 (1957). —: "Un manuscrito yemení de la Biblia babilónica (el ms. 229, EMC 105) del Seminario Teológico Judío de Nueva York", ibid. : 237-279. —: "Fragmento del texto hebreo y arameo del libro de Números escrito en una muy antigua megillá en el sistema babilónico (ms. ENA 3781 (40) del Seminario Teológico Judío de Nueva York)", ibid. : 386-388. —: "Onqelos Manuscript with Babylonian Transliterated Vocalization in the (Ms. Eb. 448)", Vetus Testamentum, 8 : 126-133 (1958). —: "Un especimen de ms. bíblico babilónico en papel", Bíblica, 40 : 171-176 (1959). BIBLIOGRAPHY 81

—: "La cantilación protomasorética del Pentateuco", Estudios Bíblicos, 18 : 223-251 (1959). —: "Un manuscrito protobabilónico de los libros poéticos de la Biblia", ibid., 323-356. —: "Un manuscrito babilónico de Onqelos en el se confunden los timbres vocálicos 'patah' y 'qameç'", Sefarad, 19 : 273-282 (1959). —: "A New Fragment of with Babylonian Pointing", Textus, 1 : 132- 143 (1960). — y de J. Martinez, T. : "Ms. 4083 f. II de la Biblioteca Nacional y Universi- taria de Estrasburgo", Estudios Bíblicos, 16 : 389-391 (1957). — y —: "Ms. 4065 pp. 81-82 de la Biblioteca Universitaria de Estrasburgo", ibid., 17 : 429-436 (1958). — y Larraya, J. A. G. : "Ms. 4083ff. 1-2 de la Biblioteca Nacional y Universi- taria de Estrasburgo", ibid., 16 : 383-387 (1957). — y—: "E14084, if. 1-11 de la Biblioteca Nacional y Universitaria de Estrasburgo; un largo fragmento del Targum de Jonatán ben cUzziel en texto babilónico", ibid., 19 : 75-90 (1960). — y Spiegel, S. : "Fragmentos de Piyyutim de Yannai en vocalización babi- lónica", Sefarad, 15 : 287-340 (1955). Duval, R.: Traité de Grammaire Syriaque (Paris, 1881). Edelmann, R. : Zur Frühgeschichte des Mahzor {= Bonner Orientalische Stu- dien, Heft 6; Stuttgart, 1934). Finkelstein, L. : Sifra or Torat Kohanim according to Codex Assemani LXVI, with a Hebrew Introduction by —. Firth, J. R. : Papers in Linguistics 1934-1951 (London, 1957). Fleisch, H. : L'arabe classique; esquisse d'une structure linguistique (Beyrouth, 1956). —: "La conception phonétique des Arabes d'après le sirr çinâcat al-i°râb d'Ibn ôinnï", Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 108 : 74-105 (1958). Frensdorff, S. : Das Buch Ochlah W'ochlah (Massorah). Herausgegeben, über- setzt. .. von -. (Hannover, 1864). Friedmann, Ch. B.: "Zur Geschichte der ältesten Mischnaüberlieferung", Jahrbuch der Jüdisch-Literarischen Gesellschaft (Frankfurt a.M.), 18 : 265-288 (1927). Friedrich, J. : "Zur Bezeichnung des langen ä in den Schreibweisen des Ara- mäischen", Orientalia, 26: 37-42 (1957). Fück, J.: cArabiya, Recherches sur l'histoire de la langue et du arabe. Traduction par Denizeau, C. (Paris, 1955). Fuste Ara, R. : "El fragmento targúmico T.-S. B 3 de la Biblioteca Universitaria de Cambridge", Estudios Bíblicos, 15 : 85-94 (1956). Garbell, I.: "The Phonemic Status of Sëwâ, the Hätefim and the fricative bgdkpt", Lesonénu, 23 : 152-155 (1959/60). [In Hebrew.] Gelb, I. J.: A Study of Writing, the Foundations of Grammatology (Chicago, 1952). —: "New Evidence in Favor of the Syllabic Character of West Semitic Writing", Bibliotheca Orientalis, 15: 1-7 (1958). Gesenius, W. : Hebrew Grammar. Edited and enlarged by Kautzsch, E. Second 82 BIBLIOGRAPHY

English Edition, revised in accordance with the twenty-eighth (1909) German Edition by Cowley, A. E. (London, 1949). Ginsberg, H. L. : "Aramaic Studies Today", Journal of the American Oriental Society, 62: 229-238 (1942). —: Studies in (, 1948). Graetz, H. : "Die Anfänge der Vokalzeichen im Hebräischen", Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums, 30:348-367; 395-405 (1881). Grimme, H. : "Die jemenische Aussprache des Hebräischen und Folgerungen daraus für die ältere Sprache", Festschrift Sachau... herausgegeben von Weil, G.: 125-142 (Berlin, 1915). Grünert, M. T. : Die Imäla, der Umlaut im Arabischen (Wien, 1876). Hamp, E. P.: A Glossary of American Technical Linguistic Usage 1925-1950 (Utrecht/Antwerp, 1957). Harris, Z. S.: "Linguistic Structure of Hebrew", Journal of the American Oriental Society, 61: 143-167(1941). Hirschfeld, H.: "The Dot in Semitic ", The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, 10 : 159-183 (1919-1920). Hockett, C. F. : A Course in Modern Linguistics (New York, 1958). Jones, D. : The History and Meaning of the Term "Phoneme" (Supplement to Le Maître Phonétique, July-December 1957). Joos, M. (ed.): Reading in Linguistics (Washington, 1957). Kahle, P. : Der masoretische Text des Alten Testaments nach der Überlieferung der babylonischen Juden (Leipzig, 1902). — : Masoreten des Ostens (Leipzig, 1913). —: §§ 6-9 apud Bauer, H. und Leander, P.: Historische Grammatik der Hebräi- schen Sprache des Alten Testamentes (Halle a.S., 1922). —: "Die Lesezeichen bei den Samaritanern", Paul Haupt Anniversary Volume: 425-436 (Baltimore-Leipzig, 1926) (= Opera Minora von Kahle, P., Fest- gabe zum 21. Januar 1956, Leiden, 1956, 167-179). —: Masoreten des Westens I (Stuttgart, 1927). —: "Die hebräische Bibelhandschriften aus Babylonien", Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 46 : 113-137 (1928). —: Masoreten des Westens II (Stuttgart, 1930). —: "Der alttestamentliche Bibeltext", Theologische Rundschau, 1933 : 227-238 (= Opera Minora : 68-78). —: The Cairo Geniza2 (Oxford, 1959). —: "The Arabic Readers of the Kor'än", Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 8: 65-71 (1949). —: "The Qur'än and the cArabiya", Goldziher Memorial Volume I, edited by Löwinger, S. and Somogyi, J. : 163-182 (Budapest, 1949). —: and Weinberg, J.: "The Mishna Text in Babylonia", Hebrew Union College Annual, 10 : 185-222 (1935). —: "The Mishna Text in Babylonia, II", ibid., 12-13: 275-325 (1937/38). Kober, M.: Zum Machsor Jannai (Frankfurt a.M., 1929). Leander, P. : "Bemerkungen zur palästinischen Überlieferung des Hebräischen", Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 54 : 91-99 (1936). Levias, C. : "The Palestinian Vocalization", American Journal of Semitic Lan- guages and Literatures, 15: 157-164 (1898/99). BIBLIOGRAPHY 83

—: "Vocalization", , Volume 12: 446-448 (New York and London, 1906). Margoliouth, G. : "The Superlinear , its Origin, the different Stages of its Development, and its Relation to other Semitic Systems of Punctua- tion", Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, 23 :164-205 (1892/93). I. D. Markon: "A Fragment of Mishna with Babylonian Vocalization", Hakedem, 1 : 41-48 (1907). [In Hebrew.] —: "Two Fragments of Mishna with Babylonian Vocalization", Festschrift zu Lewy's siebzigsten Geburtstag herausgegeben von Brann, M. und Elbogen, /., Hebrew Part: 193-211 (Breslau, 1911). Martin, J. P. P. : "Histoire de la ponctuation ou de la Massore chez les Syriens", Journal Asiatique, Septième Série, 5: 81-208 (1875). Merx, A. : "Bemerkungen über die Vocalisation der Targume", Verhandlungen des fünften internationalen Orientalisten-Congress (Berlin, 1881), II : 142- 225 (1882). —: Historia artis grammaticae apud Syros (Leipzig, 1889). Moberg, A., 1907: Buch der Strahlen, die grössere Grammatik des Barhebraeus, Übersetzung von -, II (Leipzig, 1907). — : Buch der Strahlen, I (Leipzig, 1913). — : Le livre des splendeurs. La grande grammaire de Grégoire Barhebraeus, texte syriaque édité diaprés les manuscrits avec une introduction et des notes par - (Lund, 1922). Morag, S.: The Sëwâ in the Traditional Yemenite Pronunciation of Hebrew (Jerusalem, 1956)= LeSonénu, 20 :10-29, 112-134 (1955/56); 21 : 44-56 (1956/57). [In Hebrew.] —: "On the Principles of the Reading of Hebrew in Jewish Ethnic Groups", LeSonénu Là'&m 73 : 20-27 (1957). [In Hebrew.] —: "A Special Type of Evolution", Proceedings of the VIII International Congress of Linguists: 425-428 (Oslo, 1958) . —: "The Vocalization of Codex Reuchlinianus: Is the 'Pre-Masoretié' Bible Pre-Masoretic?", Journal of Semitic Studies, 4 : 216-237 (1959). —: "The Seven Double Letters bgd kprt", Studies in Honour of N. H. Tur- Sinai: 207-242 (Publications of the Israel Society for Biblical Research, 8, 1960). [In Hebrew.] Mordell, P.: "The Beginning and Development of Hebrew Punctua- tion", The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, 24: 137-149 (1933- 1934). Moritz, B.: "Arabic Writing", The Encyclopaedia of , I: 381-392 (Leyden and London, 1913). Moscati, S. : Il sistema consonantico dette lingue semitiche (Roma, 1954). Murtonen, A. : "Mishna Fragments with Babylonian Punctuation", LeSonénu, 21 : 1-6 (1956/57). [In Hebrew.] —: Materials for a Non-Masoretic Hebrew Grammar, I: Liturgical Texts and Psalm Fragments provided with the so-catted Palestinian Punctuation (Helsinki, 1958). Neubauer, A. (ed.): Petite grammaire hébraïque provenant de (Leipzig, 1891). 84 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Nöldeke, T. : Review of Merx, A., Historia artis grammaticae apud Syros, in Literarisches Centralblatt, 1215-1220 (Leipzig, 1890). —: Compendious Syriac Grammar, translated by Crichton, J. A. (London, 1904). Ormann, G. : Das Sündenbekenntnis des Versöhnungtages, sein Aufbau und seine Entwicklung in Verbindung mit Geniza-Texten untersucht (Frankfurt a.M., 1934). Penzl, H. : "The Evidence for Phonemic Change", Studies presented to Joshua Whatmough, 193-208 ('s-Gravenhage, 1957). —: "Orthographic Evidence for Types of Phonemic Change", Proceedings of the VIII International Congress of Linguists, 146-148 (Oslo, 1958). Pinsker, S. : Einleitung in das Babylonisch-Hebräische Punktationssystem (Wien, 1863). [Hebrew and German.] Polotsky, H. J.: Review of Till, W. C., Koptische Grammatik, in Orientalische Literaturzeitung, 1957: 219-234. Porath, E.: (Jerusalem, 1938). [In Hebrew.] Praetorius, F.: "Über das babylonische Vokalisationssystem des Hebräischen", Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 53: 181-196 (1899). Prijs, J.: "Über Ben Naftali-Bibelhandschriften und ihre paläographischen Besonderheiten, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 69 : 171-184 (1957.) Rabin, C.: Ancient West-Arabian (London, 1951). —: "The Beginnings of Classical Arabic", Studio Islamica, 4: 19-37 (1955). —: "The 'Small' Vowels in Tiberian Hebrew", Studies in Honour of N. H. Tur-Sinai : 169-206 (Publications of the Israel Society for Biblical Research, 8, 1960). [In Hebrew.] Rosén, H. B.: "Remarques au sujet de la phonologie de l'hébreu biblique", Revue Biblique, 60: 30-40 (1953). —: Review of Morag S., The Sëwâ in the Traditional Yemenite Pronunciation of Hebrew, in Word, 15 : 219-224 (1959). Sattler, P. und Von Selle, G. : Bibliographie zur Geschichte der Schrift bis in das Jahr 1930 (Archiv für Bibliographie, Beiheft 17, Linz, 1935). Schramm, G. M. : "A Reconstruction of the Biblical Hebrew Consec- utive", General Linguistics, 3: 1-8 (1957). Segal, J. B. : The Diacritical Point and the Accents in Syriac (London, 1953). Sonne, I. : "An Unknown î^eroba of Jannai", Hebrew Union College Annual, 18 : 199-220 (1944). Sperber, A. : The Bible in Aramaic, edited by - (Leiden, 1959-). Spiegel, S. : "The Qerobot of Yannai with Babylonian Vowelling", Studies of the Research Institute for Hebrew Poetry in Jerusalem, 7 : 139-143 (1958). [In Hebrew]. Strack, H. L.: Prophetarum Posteriorum Codex Babylonicus Petropolitanus, edidit - (Petropoli, 1876). —: Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramäischeri* (München, 1921), 32-41 : Daniel 4, 21- 7, 7 mit superlinearen Punktation. Wallenstein, M.: "A Dated Tenth Century Hebrew Parchment from the Cairo Genïzah in the Gaster Collection in the John Rylands Library", Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 40 : 551-558 (1957/58). BIBLIOGRAPHY 85

—: "A Unique Kol-Nidrê Piyuut from the Cairo Genïzah in the Gaster Collection of the John Rylands Library", ibid., 41 : 488-450 (1958/59). Weerts, J.: "Über die babylonisch punktierte Handschrift no. 1546 der II. Firkowitschschen Sammlung (Codex Tschufutkale No. 3)", Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 26 : 49-84 (1906). Weiss, T.: Zur ostsyrischen Laut- und Akzentlehre (= Bonner Orientalische Studien, Heft 5; Stuttgart, 1933). Wright, W. : A Grammar of the Arabic Language, translated from the German of Caspari, and edited, with numerous additions and corrections by -. 3rd ed., revised by Robertson , W. and de Goeje, M. J. (Cambridge, 1896-98). Yeivin, I. : "A Biblical Fragment with Tiberian non-Masoretic Vocalization", Tar biz, 29 : 345-356 (1959/60). [In Hebrew.] Zulay, M.: Zur Liturgie der babylonischen Juden (= Bonner orientalische Studien, Heft 2; Stuttgart, 1933). —: Piyyute Yannai, Liturgical Poems of Yannai. . . published by - (Berlin, 1938). —: "Contribution to the History of the Liturgical Poetry in Palestine", Studies of the Research Institute for Hebrew Poetry in Jerusalem, 5 : 107- 180 (1939). [In Hebrew.] —: "A Contribution to the Study of the and the Costums", Assaf Jubilee Volume: 302-315 (Jerusalem, 1952/53). [In Hebrew.] o ra •Q « 3 M •S I .2

JO I s C o. o E o - S --> C i— 1» o E *3 ra O •C >. c C. ra M

y s. O V5

¡s ?

x> e N .2 O E •J 25 O c « H o •o a x: >i i> c. ~ p C y "o S o ra > O c C B o o P 5 ï c

o 3: ®

o £ Z 3 "V

8 -o oy - 2 a £ a W s s - o a m « a C- o o 2 ° D. ra¡/i II i -a ra

«i I-?0 j a ra ra xi -í.

S 1 o >

00' C . c

c c.a X) if ra o. 5 • ûI o _ o •3 a >> o t x: > o « & t: o e o O o x: jz x: II a c c § £ - .c n o a o c c

• A « ¿ S

uff c o o -o z C C 3 ,—, x; u s. 7» u a s o o = 'Ili > ra -S 3 8 8 •ï MÏ O

& =« i- « 1a1 E I S .a o E M ill I £ i| 8 e ra p O. > p" o» .s & a o x: -o —; 4> ra i« 3 I-Si " 1/1 Q. c -5 - c 8 2 . e >> o (N ' > Cu 'T ü X 3 -1- •¡s •¿5 '— •n '•j o >> c 1 c: E e Xì : O 3 S .2 o •A •yi)j « E - i i S t/1: ~ c. o O yj .E 'J L_ S ü E c X •y> y; .2 J OD •5 c • O c u< o X>i> n o u •ä « y. o CL — c -C TJ 5) £ "il d à C c ü Ç J3 5 « ö c3 g . ä 5 « u -S >JS t- S O w O > o ~rï c = co y. tso ^ -O J — o o Ti t/i c i 1 c. 3

O = fi 3 f- -3 >> -C O — T3 Si = n -y > -C — ? M) S o (/) c "S N G S O C (/<5y rT-J c O •— v<»y >> = 3 •O 'S "re y ô NI £ a» § -C 3. o Q. c t: o 5.2 « — o •if TJ .si V -O n — o•¿ u s g « s .a g g C o i> c t/ì m, o Plut- I, —Ei T~ 3 c«I 3£ «l c.

^ O .5«

•o 3 .. C r> c/l _ « ~ C C ___ £ M 60 •ij '5 r^-o r- - >, O u •O w« g. S ¡Hn a c "c 8 >> o o « > -O e c c o •c — o a

>o c -= •a o rac g E c 5 o es o j> D. c t/5 C o. E is a O U -C C u oC o O«» C. ~_ M O .E O 6«0 <= o E ra o a o 5 8.- » Ä c <_, .y o .tí S a ra cO rab B O c O 5 <— u g o ra o «S C 3 o ca U TC3 CO 2g c/¡ 3 c: U, O Í •C _o o c. J5 - z H u S o c tu .S Z c 0 1 CL n C z CL E o c» i z y u c p. u — c o OÜL v- c o Xî u a. U5 o a, Ä X. •a O cra Z>< A -o Co UM "S O •J) "ra Co x: Xai 05 •a M 'os Xi ^ ra « —

o c o

o c

M c 1> 3 O g

1» 'ir ÎT3 o £ S .ü -S. JC «« 5 S c L5 i/) ® « I O rs a> •sL -S S -O w M g >< u> O - -J w <2 "1/5 O M O w E o O« O C ® § S >> .5? 3 c o 7Z o 81 O yî (A o o -C w> » -a -» = 3 o E o a J Ï.E 8 I .5? — o "3 íC o o a Os —«' — c o 0 y x: • ~ i« "H c •/! c w O -S 8 i¿ ÛÛ C- > O o C T3 ra o "O •J oía V. yc e "<75 5 3 r3 .s -8 £ : •4o> xy '•75 C.

o o _C c — o c: -C Ö O C r3 o 5 s

-c J= ¿5 a£ t— » a o = 5 o

X > - o •x" e M II c il 11 o « c ..i \x II X c :X- •X* £ -J 3 "i? s —. rt II ¡i Vi o S "a •-*X •X• - 4> e c — r.X M i vxVx a

-— II >» X- II •C X-' S e X- ni 'i- -Si. ti X 3 u II = X) o > II $ X.: X e X 11 c - XK 2 •C oj V X: •X N s c o lì c S II II II II IX Xi X: XV X" X

y X 3 c < o ¡I ai js < S X»

II

-X -X XN »X

•£o —3; « C « > c3 > IB

C T3 O c g Ä 8 a £ 3 >O «g

00 c o G •C C 3* s s O i is

s e =3 s 5 S2 c ta > c o •SP-e .18 JÊ t/í c. iX X c c .2 .S i-t JS 1 H H H II il il iX X * •

«x" • *

- o&, H "3 3

4 -C S il -S3 u X -i Ü O •T, # Ü >i S =5 C rî a C Mo • .2 • -s M - 5 "5 is ì • .tí «t U 3 S c I* O •J u > o _ O o Ä = - "g 5 _O ra-O T 3 C «> - M > 'ü o c O '-1 # 2 C U H.S f-o 3 *3 > If C yi 0 O O ? a ¿ex: s J. O « 5. •g U . ja S - M ' " JS -5. c C ¿ £ >> .tí ii-â-i TD . ra u . H 3 > S * « o" S o« _0I * £-5 - a 1 " s .O S ss O -S ° _ aj y: .c « O V - i- 2 u 2 5 u O it ju S u O c -o O oï >> o ¡£ u y >. >, , w a c XI tí c c ni ra •2 Ê H i.s S, tí ü O 3 E T. >- sr- « w = 5« g < ? X X X -s z o(

£ S u H ei U. m O u C/2 a B¿ O Uh U 3

u ». s ' ' •S •§. 11 o <.v « =5 -

h« ' ft lìì!

e c c c c c B a - - s ra c c c c c c o o o o o •z ' ^ V A -crt c c c c c c. o 0 o o o o o o u o EJ o TS •o -o -o T3 -a H a> u « « « ¡3 ñ « c ç a ç C ç E S £ E i> oS •y o E o ao W es M as CA rt ta M C3 CS « >> >. >. >> x> £ XI JD XI XI •a •o T3 •a •a T3 --> u '-> «c S ï í S S to .O J2 o _o _o rt "o "o "o "S "o 1 Ci c; Ci ex ci ex -t X> — ri ~ -- '— •jy> II II II II II II rX l*X i:X I Xl-X l-X "à" u- t , O - O o u u "-) u c c c c o o o o x; x: x: x: o, a. c. c _o _o •QC. "3 13 O !l il II

..X :lX -IX l-X

IX X c c .2 •S £ JS H H

iX* *X

«-x' c o « c II E c il •J - 00 »X -X -a c « o CS e. II iX C" E II rt c >X I, IX; 3 s c il il h « h — N fN 3 o X IX IX IX ^ ; C o c o « c : a " ft.

•:X T3 * i 3 X* " vx «X C/3 "H, Z E " -X* X-»X «X

e .e -e-a -C eg O so 4» S 0C -*E S OS Uî o. o >s .iü UJ a M —IT3 •áE-2û «fi o 3= o M O U •a E 1 -s ,i \J o« -JJíl>>..X„ 2- £ o

•ï-oçt5 « = C" -c cS Oa u m .5 II _ 13 =0 — S - - C s i u .S m 8d P >> vi es —i c <2 "> S ¿5 • ts O « S 5 "Î P y: .SCO ta LU •l'i s « H ; 5 g o &a .s. 4) O ws t/i C« -s ' Vî z tA T3 «> 2 B-S

c '.n2 £ H II vX X> >> « E

1 u

II »X 8 o ¡ o "<3 £ > •X HX- I I «> c: ^ jo Q as nj a i rt n c u o < s II II II I g in c C £ 5 ! O O u c ¡ sT lA Ì JS -C

1 # ! ¡1 II II f

II II : ' go1 ! ÇS < i 5 5 o o ••X *.5£ £ •C > » -a. II II * I XIiX: W •X- X: X" X •S u O f> C u S a> I~ <* 9•o a o rj_j a •a -S «c «a S) C « •ís -î: <3 s: 5 u . JX a fe o — jz an "" S U o o SÍ « 3 2 1 <_ o ¿3 — M 2 u V) i "5 c il LS* Os "s S • 5? *5" '3 .o ti g, 5> . MS8 E to 2 ^ •5 "5 S2 c c a « .52 .s £ X cd s c a I Ü M 5 O% ->co -J. [/> E x> ^ "S I- 'i -a $ S S 'I o « a> 4» c tfl o S" o M y 1> ~ ? o tì .e _cj S? M c M (y D, X X- s » « c VCï TZ o TD 23 c to S- "m ° O O Ut 5. c t* C ^ 2 a o 3 E2 w • o C I g • s « a oo- -li ff« M S <• a c o M ta u C/5 o >, .E •3 rt o -o .S u £ 2 • c ÜI ~ S «î r> O M; o c S» » £ §u 1 "i S. ' i? S II " = i o S X — O •5 I Uh ; S XI O ti : •£ « w o o £ : ^ . IX s a E XI t¡ «5, : a = S S2 'CS» ° E , 0 (g o o c» 1 JD c : Sif >>« i _ o 1 ° Z o O X) r-Sîis