Talk:Ashkenazi Hebrew

please x 3

Please please please! Add references and sources! Mostly in the last paragraph.

Ashkenazi pronunciation and Yiddish

It would be interesting to explore the reasons for the similarity of Ashkenazi and Yiddish pronunciation, as well as other linguistic relationships. Does this support the theory that Ashkenazi arose in Europe in medieval times?

It would be great if someone took such an exploration project on! Dori1951 (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

liturgy and everyday speech

This article takes about Hebrew used liturgically.

I've always been under the impression that there is also a type of Ashkenazi Hebrew used by Ashkenazim in everyday speech. Gringo300 10:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

loshen kodesh

Hebrew was considered the "loshen kodesh" among Ashkenazi Jews, and therefore only used in liturgy and, infrequently to converse with a non-Yiddish-speaking Jew (at the time, most Jews knew Hebrew)

I've done some research on Yiddish, but nowhere near as much as i have on Hebrew. Gringo300 06:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, i've done nowhere near as much research on Hebrew as i have on Arabic. Gringo300 23:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

language?

The title of this article says it is a "language", but the content speaks only about pronunciation. If it is considered as a distinct language then there had better be some differences in vocabulary and grammar!!! If not, I suggest changing the title of this article. --Keeves 21:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I happened to read this article again today, and I had the exact same reaction as I did 3 months ago when I posted the above comment! Okay, if no one can come up with a good reason to leave the word/concept of "language" here, I'm going to change it in the next few days! --Keeves 14:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Felt a need to reread that little itty-bitty article again eh? I think you're concentrating on the wrong word when you're reading the name of the article. The important word is "Hebrew", not "language". There are, however, differences in vocabulary and grammar between Ashkenazi Hebrew and other varieties of Hebrew, although I don't think anyone would say they're sufficient on their own to qualify Ashkenazi Hebrew as a language distinct from other Hebrew varieties. That said, in conjunction with its penchant for changing primary word stress from the ultimate or penultimate to the initial syllable, it is the best candidate of all Hebrew varieties for the status of "separate language". All of this notwithstanding, your initial comment above was particularly useless: saying "I suggest changing the title" amounts to little more than kibbitzing. You have yet to make a suggestion for what the article should be renamed for people to comment on. I assume that your recommendation would be to drop the word "language" from the name, a move I would support strongly. In fact, most of the Jewish language articles were "bold"ly "helpful"ly and "neutral"ly moved several months ago to the -" language" titles, on the grounds that they discussed languages, totally ignoring Wikipedia's naming convention that has been used time and again to keep Latin where it is, instead of at Latin language. It's just that nobody besides me has felt like pointing out that the moves were ill-conceived, and nobody at all has taken the time to change the articles back to their proper places. Tomer^talk 05:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Felt a need to reread that little itty-bitty article again eh? -- Yeah, well, if you click in the Toolbox to the left, on "What links here", you'll see that there are a lot of articles which link to this one. One of them, for example, is Mishnaic Hebrew language, which lists some distinct rules of grammar which distinguish it from other Hebrew languages. I looked at three random articles there (namely Hebrew language, Knaanic language, and Mishnaic Hebrew language) and all three referred to Ashkenazi Hebrew language as a dialect. Therefore, I am now going to follow your advice that I make a suggestion for what the article should be renamed for people to comment on, and that my proposed new title for this article is Ashkenazi Hebrew dialect. --Keeves 13:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

As I think I've already made clear, I'd prefer it just be called Ashkenazi Hebrew. Tomer^talk 22:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I've taken the bull by the horns and moved it. Tomer^talk 07:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I've always wondered about this too: the articles on "Sephardi Hebrew language", "Mizrahi Hebrew language" etc. all seem to refer to the pronunciation of Biblical and liturgical Hebrew by different groups, rather than to any speech or writing actually generated by them. I don't think we are dealing with distinct languages, or even dialects; rather, with different traditions for how one pronounces, analyses and understands one and the same language. (Similarly I don't like the description "offshoot").

Where one could legitimately speak of an "Ashkenazi Hebrew language" would be in showing how French, German etc. turns of phrase entered the Hebrew of Ashkenazi rabbinic writings such as responsa; but I'm not sure if any of us has enough knowledge to address this. (The only example I can think of is the persistent use of "rotzeh lomar" for "means", as in the French "veut dire"; but I don't know whether Hebrew or French got there first.) --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 10:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing in the article that suggests Ashkenazi Hebrew is a language. Unless something like this is incorporated, Ashkenazi Hebrew is a pronunciation system, or rather a set of regional pronunciation systems. The article is deficient in not distinguishing various regional pronunciations. --Redaktor 16:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Kametz Gadol ʌ as an allophone for ɔ

It is my experience that in (at least) New York and Rockland county, the kamatz gadol (perhaps influenced by General American phonology) is frequently unrounded (in all or almost all positions, sometimes) from ɔ to ʌ among yeshivish (more so than hasidic) speakers. Thinking of including it in the article, but as it's purely original research... Thoughts? Nzk10 (talk) 12:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

A Transliteration Request

Please repost the following spellings below if you think that "ou" is a reasonable transliteration for אוֹ as [au] (e.g. out).

segoul for אֶ

chouloum for אוֹ (assuming it was spelled חוֹלוֹם, which I know it isn't; it's a long story)

I am asking because I would feel more comfortable adopting these spellings if you did so.

Thanks in advance, but please do respond.

segoul for אֶ

chouloum for אוֹ

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8601:8448:89CF:4EE8:E4A9:4CC0 (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Why "T" pronounced as "S"?

Is it included in the article why "T" is pronounced as "S"? If not, can this information be added? 173.88.241.33 (talk) 01:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Any answer is necessarily speculative. The most likely explanation, if Arabic is anything to go by, is that the older sound was "th" as in "think". People who can't pronounce it are equally likely to change it to "t" and "s", and which they go for will be a matter of dialect.

There may of course have been a still older phase in which all the letters were pronounced hard and intervocalic softening only came later. Both Spanish and Irish provide examples of this. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 12:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Arabic not required...Yememite Hebrew pronounces the dotless taf "th" as in "think". In modern Hebrew it is 't' and in Ashkenazi it is 's'. The taf with dot in the middle is pronounced 't' by all. Many people believe that Yemenite pronunciation is the authentic version (see also History and Features in the main article) Dori1951 (talk) 12:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)