ENCYCLOPEDIA of HEBREW LANGUAGE and LINGUISTICS Volume 3 P–Z

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF HEBREW LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS Volume 3 P–Z

General Editor Geoffrey Khan

Associate Editors Shmuel Bolokzy Steven E. Fassberg Gary A. Rendsburg Aaron D. Rubin Ora R. Schwarzwald Tamar Zewi

Volume One

Introduction ...... vii List of Contributors ...... ix Transcription Tables ...... xiii Articles A-F ...... 1

Volume Two

Transcription Tables ...... vii Articles G-O ...... 1

Volume Three

Transcription Tables ...... vii Articles P-Z ...... 1

Volume Four

Transcription Tables ...... vii Index ...... 1

The phonetic reality of the schwa in Israeli Hebrew”. A number of theories have been advanced SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 2:1–13 to explain the phonological issue at hand (see Browman, Catherine P. and Louis Goldstein. 1992. Rendsburg 1992 for a summary). The present “ ‘Targetless’ schwa: An articulatory analysis”. Papers in laboratory phonology 2, ed. by Bob entry follows the lead of Speiser (1942) and Ladd and Gerry Docherty, 26–67. Cambridge: Swiggers (1981), who argued that the Gileadites Cambridge University Press. retained the proto-Semitic phoneme /μ/ [θ]. Swig- Eychenne, Julien. 2006. “Aspects de la phonologie du schwa dans le français contemporain: Opti- gers adds that the meaning ‘ear of grain’ derives malité, visibilité prosodique, gradience”. PhD. dis- from the root šbl (as shown by Semitic cog- sertation, Université de Toulouse-Le Mirail. nates), while ‘flow, stream, torrent’ derives from IPA. 1999. Handbook of the International Phonetic the root tbl (though unfortunately there are no Association: A guide to the use of the International Phonetic Alphabet. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- Semitic etyma to confirm this). He notes that versity Press. in the context of Judg. 12.6 the meaning of the Morin, Yves. 1978. “The status of mute ‘e’ ”. Studies word must be ‘stream’, since in parallel folktales in French Linguistics 1:41–56. the password used in such incidents is related to Oostendorp, Marc van. 1998. “Schwa in phonological theory.” GLOT International 3(5):3–9. the narrative framework. The Ephraimites were Ohala, Mandrik. 1999. “Hindi”. Handbook of the crossing the Jordan at this point, and so ‘stream’ International Phonetic Association, 100–103. Cam- is more germane than ‘ear of grain’. bridge: Cambridge University Press. In Transjordanian Hebrew the word was Pullum, Geoffrey K. and William A. Ladusaw. 1996. Phonetic symbol guide, 2nd edition. Chicago / apparently pronounced [θibbolÆt]; when a Cis- London: The University of Chicago Press. jordanian was asked to utter this word he was Silverman, Daniel. 2011. “Schwa”. Companion to unable to articulate the voiceless interdental phonology, ed. by Marc van Oostendorp, Colin fricative and thus said [sibbol t]. This is a Ewen, Elisabeth Hume, and Keren Rice. Oxford: Æ Blackwell-Wiley. well-known linguistic phenomenon: speakers who lack the voiceless interdental fricative /θ/ Marc van Oostendorp in their phonetic inventory approximate the (University of Leiden) sound as [s] (for example, Germans when speaking English, or non-Arab Muslims who learn or recite Arabic). Shibboleth Support for the Speiser-Swiggers approach emerged when Rendsburg (1988a; 1988b) dem- The English word shibboleth has its origins in onstrated that Ammonite (a neighboring dialect an episode narrated in Judg. 12.1–6. The story of Gileadite) preserved the phoneme /μ/, but that Cisjordanians pronounced the sound as [s]. The ִשׁבֹּ ֶלת there revolves around the Hebrew word šibbòlÆμ, meaning both ‘ear of grain’ and ‘flow, evidence consists of the Ammonite royal name b≠lyš≠ (the root of the second element in בעלישע stream, torrent’ (15× and 4×, respectively, in sibbòlÆμ this name is yt≠ ‘save’), which has been preserved ִס ֗בֹּ ֶלת the Bible). In Judg. 12.6 the form occurs as well, alongside the standard form of on a seal found at Tell el-≠Umeiri, and which .’ba≠≥lìs ‘Baalis ַבּ ֲﬠ ִ ֣ליס the noun. The use of both forms in this verse appears in Jer. 40.14 as is prime evidence for the existence of regional That is to say, two neighboring Transjordanian dialects in ancient Hebrew, at least in the realm dialects, Gileadite and Ammonite, share the of phonology (in this case, a dialectal difference isogloss of retention of proto-Semitic /μ/ [θ], in between Ephraimites and Gileadites), even if contrast to Cisjordanian (and other Canaanite?) scholars do not agree on the details. dialects, in which /μ/ [θ] merged with /š/ [ ∫]. The story in Judg. 12.1–6 describes a battle Swiggers and Rendsburg’s explanation, how- between the tribe of Ephraim in Cisjordan and ever, has not won universal acceptance. The the people of Gilead in Transjordan. The latter main objection to the theory outlined above is seized control of the fords of the Jordan River, the lack of any cognates within Semitic to the and whenever an Ephraimite attempted to cross proposed tibbòlÆt ‘flow, stream, torrent’. Thus, the river in order to retreat homeward, the men for example, Faber (1992), Hendel (1996), of Gilead asked him to pronounce the word and Woodhouse (2003) have all proposed dif- šibbòlÆμ. Typically he was unable to do ferent articulations of the underlying sibilant ִשׁ ֜בֹּ ֶלת sibbòlÆμ, thus reveal- phonemes, especially /š/, in order to explain the ִס ֗בֹּ ֶלת so and instead said ing his Ephraimite identity. statement recorded in Judg. 12.6. © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 sibilant consonants 557 The word shibboleth passed into English 1. Proto-Semitic beginning in the mid-17th century (cf. The Oxford English Dictionary), most likely All Proto-Semitic (PS) consonants, including through the influence of the King James Bible sibilants, could be geminated. The consonant (1611), with the meaning of “a peculiarity of inventory of PS is characterized by conso- pronunciation, behavior, mode of dress, etc., nant triads of voiceless, voiced, and ‘emphatic’ that distinguishes a particular class or set of members. Sibilant triads that have been recon- persons; slogan, catchword” (American Heri- structed for PS are (Huehnergard 2004): tage Dictionary of the English Language). (a) the affricates /ts, dz, ts’/ (traditionally tran-

References scribed *s or s3, *z, *ß); Faber, Alice. 1992. “Second harvest: Šibbolεθ revis- (b) the laterals /, l, ’/ (traditionally *« or s2, ited (yet again)”. Journal of Semitic Studies 37:1– *l, *ð or * ); 10. ( «) Hendel, Ronald S. 1996. “Sibilants and šibbòlet (c) the interdentals /θ, ð, θ( / (traditionally *θ, (Judges 12:6)”. Bulletin of the American Schools *ð, *θ( ); of Oriental Research 301:69–75. (d) single /s/ (traditionally *š or s1). Rendsburg, Gary A. 1988a. “The Ammonite phoneme /T/”. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 269:73–79. The idea that the PS consonants tradition- ——. 1988b. “More on Hebrew šibbòlet”. Journal ally transcribed as *s, *z and *ß were in fact of Semitic Studies 33:255–258. the affricates *ts, *dz, and *ts’ (the ‘affricate ——. 1992. “Shibboleth”. Anchor Bible Dictionary 5:1210–1212. hypothesis’) seems to have been accepted by Speiser, E. A. 1942. “The shibboleth incident (Judges most scholars (Streck 2006). This is based on 12:6)”. Bulletin of the American Schools of Orien- internal evidence from Akkadian and other tal Research 85:10–13. languages (Faber 1981; 1985), as well as evi- Swiggers, Pierre. 1981. “The word šibbòleμ in Jud. XII.6”. Journal of Semitic Studies 26:205–207. dence from transcriptions of Semitic words Woodhouse, Robert. 2003. “The biblical shibbo- into other languages (e.g., Egyptian; Hoch leth story in the light of late Egyptian percep- 1994). Alternation of *ß with *z and *s is tions of Semitic sibilants: Reconciling divergent well attested in the Semitic languages (Steiner views”. Journal of the American Oriental Society 123:271–289. 1977:118; 1982:44, 84) and may even have existed in Proto-Semitic (Steiner 1982:84, Gary A. Rendsburg n. 144). Most of the attested Semitic languages (Rutgers University) underwent deaffrication of *ts and *dz. The retention of *ts’ as an affricate is seen as a pos- sibility by Steiner (1982), due to the fact that Sibilant Consonants its glottalic articulation made it immune to deaffrication. In Tiberian Hebrew, it has been Fricative consonants in Hebrew can be subdi- argued based on descriptions in the Palestinian vided into two classes: bgdkpt and sibilants. Hidàyat al-qàri ‘guide for the reader’ that there In the latter class of sounds “the principal existed an emphatic allophone of *z, so-called source of the sound is the turbulent airstream zày makrùú (Eldar 1984–1985:32; “[Ω]” in produced when the jet of air created by the Khan 1997). dental or alveolar constriction strikes the teeth, PS *« and *«) represent the laterals // and /’/ which form an obstacle downstream from the (Cantineau 1941; Steiner 1977). An illustrative constriction itself” (Ladefoged and Maddieson example of the evidence supporting this idea is 1996:145). The constriction is formed by the Greek βάλσαμον from Semitic *b«m ‘balsam-oil’. tongue by forming a tongue hollowing or dome The laterals underwent drastic changes in most and results in high frequency frication (> 3000 Semitic languages, though // is still a phoneme Hertz). The Hebrew class of sibilants consists in the Modern South Arabian languages, and and has been was preserved in early stages of Akkadian and » שׂ š, and שׁ ,ß צ ,s ס ,z ז of characterized in Tiberian Hebrew as the class Arabic (Huehnergard 2004). In Hebrew, the of rilled consonants by Malone (1993:28–30) phoneme // (*«) remained distinct during the (i.e., [+ril]). classical period, but was written with the same