October 20, 2004

FRICATIVES.

Martin of bloghead (if that is indeed the blogtitle; it may be "monochrome mondrian") ruminates about stops and fricatives in English, Spanish, and Hebrew. Interesting stuff, but is it true that Modern Hebrew turns /t/ into [θ] after vowels ("'Ruth' is pronounced [ruθ]")? I never heard that. (Via pf, who is back from moving-induced hiatus and linking away like a madman.)

Posted by languagehat at October 20, 2004 10:24 AM
Comments

If it's worth anything, my roommate's parents called her Ruth when they spoke in Hebrew. But in general, I'm not sure that this is true: I've never heard it called Shabbath.

It is generally true that fricatives are in a sort of complementary distribution with stops, but it's more morphological than phonological (I was taught this, anyhow; I believe it's a semi-remnant from Biblical Hebrew). It's also generally true that fricatives don't occur word-initially, but a lot of Modern Hebrew speakers use them in borrowings from English.

Posted by: wolfangel at October 20, 2004 11:55 AM

No variety of Modern Hebrew that I have heard does this. Many native Hebrew-speakers have enormous trouble with the interdental fricatives; my mother, for example, still says [tam] for "thumb" and [diz] for "these" after 53 years in the US.

My uncle's sister is ['Ruti] to her friends and [Rut] in formal situations. ([R] is the uvular trill.)

But I am not a native Hebrew speaker. This matter should be considered unsettled until we find one to ask about it.

Posted by: ACW at October 20, 2004 04:21 PM

What about the Hebrew spoken by the old Sephardi? Is it also the case that the th is pronounce "t"? I think they mostly spoke Ladino, but how was the Hebrew when they did speak it?

Posted by: jean-pierre at October 21, 2004 01:17 AM

I'm not a native Hebrew speaker either, but my wife and children all are. Standard Modern Hebrew changes /b/ /k/ and /p/ into [v] [x] and [f] after vowels but leaves /g/ /d/ and /t/ unchanged.

Posted by: Simon at October 22, 2004 12:31 AM

Simon's comment cannot be the whole story. Consider /mda'beret/, "she speaks"; /mdab'rim/, "they speak". Here we have a postvocalic /b/ that is not lenited.

Also consider /kfar/, "village", which shows a lenited /p/ that is not postvocalic. (All occurrences of /f/ in Hebrew are lenited /p/'s.)

The most you can say quickly is that word-initial consonants are never lenited, and word-final ones always are; but the lenition of word-medial consonants is at least partly governed by morphology. There are minimal pairs that differ only in lenition. I may have this example wrong in detail, but it's something like /da'bar/ "he spoke" and /da'var/ "thing, matter, case".

Posted by: ACW at October 22, 2004 09:20 AM

ACW is right: my previous comment wasn't the whole story. I should have said "single /b/ /k/and /p/". When the consonants are doubled, as they are in some verb forms like /mədabberet/ or /mədabbərim/ (as I would transcribe them), there is no lenition, and similarly when they are doubled because of the assimilation of another consonant, e.g. after the definite article: "spoon" is /kaf/ but "the spoon" is /hakkaf/, not /haxaf/.

/kfar/ on the other hand is not a counter example. Two consecutive consonants never occur at the beginning of a word in Hebrew, and here there is a 'mobile schwa' between the /k/ and the /f/, /kəfar/. It's common in modern Hebrew speech to swallow such a schwa, but it still functions as a vowel by causing lenition in a following consonant.

This is *still* not the whole story, but I hope it will do to be going on with.

Posted by: Simon at October 23, 2004 01:12 AM