Difference Between Sephardic And Ashkenazi

Image by Getty Images

Many people believe that when information technology comes to the Hebrew language, the Sephardic pronunciation is the right one. Information technology's common to hear that this is the reason that modern Israeli Hebrew pronunciation is based on the Sephardic ane. People have told me for instance that the phonetics of the Sephardic spoken language is closer to the pronunciation used in the biblical catamenia.

And all the same, none of this is accurate. The first assertion is senseless from a linguistic point of view. The 2d one is partly incorrect. And the third one is speculative.

In dissimilar times and regions, the acceptable norms of pronunciation can vary, every bit you tin can easily see past comparison the speech of a person from Leeds, England with that of a person from, say, Lubbock, Texas, or if you compare the English of Chaucer and Shakespeare. Whatever assertions about "correct" or "incorrect" pronunciations (or spellings, morphologies or syntax, for that thing) of a language makes sense only within gear up boundaries of time and or space.

So, a person from Lubbock tin of form incorrectly employ the English linguistic communication, but he cannot be less correct by comparing with a person from Leeds – simply by comparison with other Lubbockians.

This is true of the historical linguistics of Hebrew. It does not bargain with "correctness," but rather with kinship. This means that to accost the question of whether Ashkenazic or Sephardic pronunciations are more historically correct, we need to discuss the degree of kinship between the systems of pronunciation of Hebrew in ancient times, also as by Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews centuries later and today in State of israel.

Information technology was certainly the intention of the creators of modern Israeli Hebrew to follow the Sephardic pronunciation. And on the surface, this idea seems to be fully realized: Israeli Hebrew follows the Sephardic norms for the near salient phonetic differences between Ashkenazic and Sephardic pronunciations, such as pronouncing the letter of the alphabet ת at the end of the word and certain other positions equally "t" rather than "s." Compare the Ashkenazic pronunciation Shabbos for Sabbath, versus the Sephardic (and Israeli) pronunciation Shabbat.

For vowels, too, Sephardim and modern Israelis pronounce identically the vowels designated in vocalized Hebrew texts by the diacritical signs patach (תַ) and qamatz (תָ). The same is true for the vowels corresponding to the diacritical signs tzere (תֵ) and segol (תֶ).

In addition, modernistic Hebrew places stress on the final syllable, while Ashkenazim traditionally stress the 2d-to-terminal syllable.

And in the stressed position, the diacritical signs corresponding to the 2 pairs mentioned above yielded for Ashkenazic Jews two different sounds. Compare, for instance, the phonetic forms of such biblical names as Khane (patach) for Channah versus Borukh (qamatz) for Baruch, Leyo (tzere) for Leah versus Perets (segol).

Today in Israel, Ashkenazic pronunciation is considered "incorrect" according to the formal norms. But there are exceptions. The sound known in Hebrew grammar as the mobile shewa is often non-pronounced, such equally in the pronunciations "zman" rather than "zeman" for time, which corresponds to the Ashkenazic tradition. Likewise, the sound "ts" rather than "due south" for the Hebrew consonant tzadi (צ) again fits Ashkenazic and not the Sephardic traditions.

These major features are hands explained by the fact that Ashkenazim from Eastern Europe heavily influenced modern Israeli Hebrew. Globally speaking, all sounds nowadays in Israeli Hebrew were as well known in Yiddish, an Ashkenazic language. Yet sure guttural sounds known in Sephardic communities (especially those from the areas where the majority has been Arabic-speaking Muslims) are unknown in Israeli Hebrew.

Both Sephardic and Ashkenazic phonetic systems took shape in the Centre Ages. Only Ashkenazic pronunciations changed more than Sephardic ones. The procedure was influenced by the wish to take different sounds for unlike Hebrew diacritical signs and the existence of such sounds in the German-based vernacular language, the ancestor of mod Yiddish. In this sense, the Sephardic pronunciation of vowels is more than primitive.

Information technology is striking that this "archaic" pronunciation shared in the Middle Ages by all Jews from Western Europe utilized different diacritic signs for vowels pronounced identically.

The explanation of this strange miracle comes from the consideration of the inception of the system of Hebrew diacritics for vowels, nekudot. During the last thousand years, Jews used this organisation all around the world. Yet there was a flow in the by when information technology was only one of at least 3 competing systems: the mod "Tiberian" organization was rivaled by the "Palestinian" and "Babylonian" systems. These iii systems were devised by Jewish scholars during the 7-ten centuries in Galilee, Judea and Babylonia. Notation that this period followed a phase in the history of Hebrew I addressed in a previous piece. During the stage in question (the 3-half dozen centuries), Hebrew was absent-minded from all Western Diaspora. In the Middle E during this period of time, the Talmud was compiled. Its authors knew Hebrew perfectly well; these scholars were studying and discussing a bulk of Hebrew texts including those of the Mishnah and the Bible, simply even for them, we do not take any information almost Hebrew's use in colloquial speaking or in writing.

The "Babylonian" pronunciation gradually disappeared from the region where it was used. For all early medieval traditions from Western Europe, their bequeathed dialect corresponds to the one that served as footing for the "Palestinian" organisation of Hebrew diacritics. Among the phonetic traditions that would direct inherit Hebrew from the "Tiberian," dialect none survived today: Jews have only universally accepted its graphic elements. This credence did not provoke changes in the Sephardic pronunciation of Hebrew. Simply information technology did impact the Ashkenazic pronunciation. Every bit a result, the Ashkenazic pronunciation of Hebrew is heir to ii different dialects of Hebrew in Late Artifact / Early on Middle Ages: "Palestinian" and "Tiberian".

Which ane of the three ancient dialects, "Tiberian", "Palestinian" or "Babylonian," did Jews speak during the fourth dimension of Male monarch David?

We have no information to help the states definitively respond the question. Merely even during the fourth dimension of King David, Jews in different parts of the Country of Israel might have pronounced Hebrew differently — and "the Forrard" was not yet effectually to teach them the right way to do it.

Alexander Beider is a linguist and the writer of reference books about Jewish names and the history of Yiddish. He lives in Paris.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are the writer's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Forward. Discover more perspective in Opinion.