Better handling for u/i vowel length

[DavidRegev]

Schemas: SBL and Brill Academic
Sample text: חֲנֻכָּ֖ה שֻֽׁעָ֖ל דָּוִ֖ד מִנְחָ֖ה

In order to better handle vowel length for i and u, I propose the following algorithm:

1. The default for ◌ִ and ◌ֻ is short: i and u.
2. A mater lectionis (י without its own vowel or וּ) makes the vowel long with a circumflex:
   ◌ִי = î
   ◌וּ = û
3. If there’s no mater lectionis but there is an accent or ga‘ya, the vowel is long: ī or ū.

I’m not sure if this perfectly matches the rules for those schemas, but it should be pretty close. And it would correct the sample text above.

[charlesLoder]

Just some context for myself so I don't forget…

Acc. to §5.1.1.2 (p57) of SBLHS², there are different transliterated values for long/short-hiriq and long/short-qibbuts

If I remember correctly, the difference between a long/short hiriq is the pronunciation as /ɪ/ for the short-hiriq (as in "big") and /i/ for the long-hiriq (as in "pizza"). I don't know if there is a pronunciation difference between long and short-qibbuts.

As for how to differentiate between them, the rules you provided would shake out like this:

Word	Vowel	Transliteration
חֲנֻכָּ֖ה	short-u	u
שֻֽׁעָ֖ל	long-u	ū
מִנְחָ֖ה	short-i	i
דָּוִ֖ד	long-i	ī

What about if the syllable if open but not accented, like in רִאשׁ֥וֹן?

My gut tells me to pronounce it like /ri.ˈʃon/, i.e. with the long-hiriq sound.

Thoughts?

[johnlockejrr]

In the Tiberian Tradition, in the case of רִאשׁ֥וֹן both vowels are long: ʀ̟iːˈʃoːon

• a vowel is always long in an open syllable and when accented.

[DavidRegev]

Yes, I believe that’s correct. In this case, the loss of the א should lengthen the preceding vowel to ī.

So, we could modify step 3 thus:
3. If there’s no mater lectionis but there is an accent, ga‘ya, or unpointed א, the vowel is long: ī or ū.

Regarding the pronunciation of u, yes, there’s a difference between the long and short versions. E.g., book (u) vs. mood (ū).

To be sure, I looked up Khan, and he says, for both i and u (and most of the other vowels): “Long in stressed syllables or open unstressed syllables.” This was my initial proposal on 𝕏, but I changed it because I think it doesn’t perfectly match the SBL-style of transliteration (it’s more correct for the Tiberian schema).

[johnlockejrr]

You are right. Lest not forget: Tiberian Pointing was done for Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition and expects that… other traditions can't exactly match it, only forcibly, not to mention SBL, Brill etc. that are only conventions, they don't take into account the Tiberian Tradition, not to mention Modern Hebrew that is an artificial revived Hebrew (indo-european skeleton language with Hebrew words, Ashkrnazi consonants with Sephardi vowels, imagine that!). Is like (more or less, maybe less) reading Shakespeare with modern flavour, or Latin with French language rules (even though, French is a living not artificial descendant of Latin).

[charlesLoder]

So, we could modify step 3 thus:
3. If there’s no mater lectionis but there is an accent, ga‘ya, or unpointed א, the vowel is long: ī or ū.

That's feeling right. I'm going to research this a little more though, and see if I can find some written consensus on this.

Regarding the pronunciation of u, yes, there’s a difference between the long and short versions. E.g., book (u) vs. mood (ū).

Ah, yeah, forgot about that!

To be sure, I looked up Khan, and he says, for both i and u (and most of the other vowels): “Long in stressed syllables or open unstressed syllables.”

There is a bit of mis-match between how Khan uses the terms in a strict linguistic sense — where "long" and "short" are a matter of vowel quantity — and how more traditional grammarians use the term — where "long" and "short" are a matter of vowel quality (i.e. /ɪ/ vs /i/). SBL's terminology is following the latter usage.

[charlesLoder]

Ok, I have a better understanding now of what SBL/Brill mean by long-hiriq/qibbuts and short-hiriq/qibbuts.

Long = a defectively written hiriq-yod or shureq (written as a qibbuts)
Short = a typical hiriq or qibbuts

SBL also notes special rules for when a short vowel is written "fully" (i.e. with a mater).

All in all, which yields a taxanomy like this:

	Originally malē	Originally ḥaser
Written malē	hiriq-yod (e.g. צַדִּיק)	no specific name (e.g. הוּכָּה, Psa 102:5 instead of הֻכָּה)1
Written ḥaser	long-hiriq (e.g. צַדִּקִים, I Kings 2:32)	short-hiriq (e.g. מִנְחָה)

Now that I have an idea of what SBL even means by long/short, I'll dig a little more to see if the rules above generally cover enough use cases. My gut says yes, but I just want to verify a bit more

Footnotes

1. I could not find an instance of a hiriq written with a yod when it should not be (e.g. מִינְחָה*). Additionally, the image shows i(w) with a w instead of a y so perhaps they intended הִוא to be transliterated as hi(w)ʾ ??? ↩

[charlesLoder]

Also of note, my original distinction between long and short being markers of vowel quality was apparently pulled out of thin air. I have no idea where I first heard that, but I need to erase from my memory

[DavidRegev]

Also of note, my original distinction between long and short being markers of vowel quality was apparently pulled out of thin air. I have no idea where I first heard that, but I need to erase from my memory

You might have been thinking about the distinction between אֹ vs. short אָ. In the original 7-vowel Tiberian system, they’re different vowel qualities (while length/quantity is secondary). In the 5-vowel system, like Qimḥi or SBL, they’re long and short versions of the same vowel.

[DavidRegev]

My gut says yes, but I just want to verify a bit more

I think so too. From my experience, closed unstressed syllables written plene are extremely rare. The only examples I can remember off the top of my head are Biblical Aramaic. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a list somewhere!