July 18[edit]

I'm writing a musical setting of Psalm 117 using the Hebrew words (see s:he:תהלים קיז), so I'd like to confirm the pronunciation. I'm going for a relatively careful Standard Israeli Hebrew pronunciation, appropriate for singing. The words are:

הַלְלוּ אֶת יְהוָה כָּל גּוֹיִם, שַׁבְּחוּהוּ כָּל הָאֻמִּים. כִּי גָבַר עָלֵינוּ חַסְדּוֹ וֶאֱמֶת יְהוָה לְעוֹלָם. הַלְלוּ יָהּ

As far as I can determine, the pronunciation is:

[halɛˈlu ʔɛt ʔadɔˈnaj kɔl ɡɔˈjim, ʃapˈxuhu kɔl haʔuˈmim. ki ɡaˈvar ʔaˈlɛjnu xazˈdɔ vɛʔɛˈmɛt ʔadɔˈnaj lɛʔɔˈlam. halɛˈlu ˈja.]

Anyone who knows both Hebrew and IPA: does that look right to you? Any corrections to make? Thanks! —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a native speaker of Hebrew but my Hebrew professor was Israeli and a native speaker of a Mizrahi dialect. I would use [ħ] for ח and [ʕ] for ע. While these pronunciations are heard less and less in generic conversational Standard Israeli Hebrew, they are nonetheless used in Standard Israeli Hebrew by Mizrahi, educated Sephardim and even some Ashkenazi, especially in careful liturgical readings. Also, I think שַׁבְּחוּהוּ should sound more like [ʃabᵊˈħuhu] but a native speaker should double check that.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 11:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! Since the people who will be singing this piece are native speakers of English and German, I think it would be asking too much for them to produce /ħ/ and /ʕ/. That's why I went for the more conventional Ashkenazi /x/ and /ʔ/. The coverage at Shva#Pronunciation in modern Hebrew is what led me to believe שַׁבְּחוּהוּ is a three-syllable word in SIH, although of course it was four-syllable /ʃabbəˈħuːhuː/ in Tiberian Hebrew. I hope a native or near-native Israeli speaker can help out. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the glottal stop is phonemic in Modern Israeli only in narrow contexts like [lirʔot] "to see" vs. [lirot] "to shoot" (and I'm not too sure how often that distinction is maintained in ordinary casual speech). AnonMoos (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AnonMoos: OK, but even if it's not phonemic, is it there phonetically at the beginning of a vowel-initial word and in vowel hiatus? In other words, even accepting that וֶאֱמֶת יְהוָה is phonemically /vɛɛˈmɛt adɔˈnaj/, is it still phonetically [vɛʔɛˈmɛt ʔadɔˈnaj]? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would only phonetically be there in very careful speech. Last time I was in an Israeli synagogue, they didn't pronounce [ʔ] in these environments. The same applies to [h] by the way. --82.24.249.51 (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks! —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Angr -- even when it's pronounced in those contexts, the situation wouldn't be too different from standard German, which is not usually considered to have a glottal stop phoneme... AnonMoos (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Angr: A native Hebrew speaker is here.

1. The Israelis regard the Bible as an originally Oriental text (BTW, Mizrahi means Oriental), so an Israeli professional reader tends to prefer the Mizrahi accent when reading Biblical verses (Synagogues are an exception, where the local tradition is usually preserved, depending on whether the worshipers in the local synagogue are Ashkenazi or Mizrahi). However, the Ashkenazi accent is more common even when reading Biblical verses, although it's regarded as less professional (when reading Biblical verses).
2. In professional Biblical liturgical readings, the ʔ for א (when not being a vowel) is much more preferable (from a professional viewpoint), yet not necessary (mainly in fluent speech).
3. The same is true for /ħ/ and for /ʕ/: it's always preferable to pronounce the ח and the ע (respectively) this way (from a professional viewpoint) when reading Biblical verses, yet it's not necessary to pronounce them this way, mainly when the reader prefers the more common pronunciation to the more professional one.
4. As for /ʃabbəˈħuːhuː/ for שבחוהו: This pronunciation is considered to be more professional, hence more stylistic in liturgical readings, so it's preferred when reading Biblical verses, but /ʃabˈħuːhuː/ (or even /ʃabˈxuːhuː/ in the Ashkenazi version) is acceptable as well. However, replacing an original /b/ by /p/ before a voiceless consonant, is regarded as an informal colloquialism (something like /ɑ:v'binðɜə(ɹ)/ in English instead of /aɪhæv'binðɜə(ɹ)/ in a very formal speech), so most Israelis try to avoid this informal replacement in liturgical readings.
5. The same is true for replacing /s/ by /z/ before a voiced consonant, so the word חסדו should be pronounced with /s/ rather than with /z/, when reading Biblical verses.
6. /ʕaˈlɛnu/ (or /ʔaˈlɛnu/ in the Ashkenazi version), is the "correct" pronunciation of עלינו in Biblical readings (because the Yod is never pronounced when following /ɛ/ in Classical Hebrew), and is preferred by professional readers of liturgy and of the Bible. However, in non-professional readings, native Hebrew speakers (mainly Ashkenazi speakers) may use the diphthong /ei/ (when a Yod follows /ɛ/), including in liturgy.
7. /halɛluˈjah/, is written and pronounced as one word, that ends with /h/, which may be omitted in fluent speech only, as well as in non-professional readings.

Hope this helps. 185.46.77.25 (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does, thanks! The piece will be performed in an Anglican church service, so it will be a liturgical setting, but not a Jewish one. So I'm looking for a balance between a relatively formal pronunciation (as befits sacred music in general) and avoiding sounds that native speakers of English and German won't be able to manage (/ħ/, /ʕ/, and word-final /h/). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When will the piece be performed? Btw, if you give up the /ħ/ and the /ʕ/, then you can give up the glottal stop as well, because it's less common than them. 185.46.77.25 (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know when it'll be performed yet. Sometime in October or November, probably. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. 185.46.77.25 (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What does "Auslander Bonzen raus" mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clipname (talk • contribs) 12:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It must be "Ausländer-Bonzen raus"; it means "foreign capitalists, get out!" It's hard to tell if it's a right-wing or a left-wing slogan, since the German right wing would only be interested in getting foreigners out (regardless of whether they're capitalists or not), and the German left wing would only be interested in getting capitalists out (regardless of whether they're foreign or not). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the culprits are left-wing radicals protesting against the gentrification of Berlin-Kreuzberg: https://www.morgenpost.de/berlin/article209800933/Kommentar-Kreuzberg.html. Marrakech (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, German Bonze, which seems to be a disparaging word for rich people, seems to be cognate with bonze, who are ascetic Buddhist monks (though the term is somewhat dated; it particularly calls to mind Thích Quảng Đức, whose self-immolation played a major role in the start of the Vietnam War). --Trovatore (talk) 05:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. The German wiktionary says: "von japanisch 坊主 () → ja [ˈbɔːzu] „buddhistischer Mönch, Priester“, über portugiesisch bonzo → pt [ˈbɔ̃zu] und französisch bonze → fr [bɔ̃z]; das Wort ist im Deutschen seit dem 16. Jahrhundert belegt, in der neuen Bedeutung (Funktionär) seit dem 18. Jahrhundert." Marrakech (talk) 06:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionally, in German "Bonze" means rather a mighty apparatchik, anyway the functionary of a mighty institution abusing his power and not doing any good. The shift to rich persons in general is indeed typically left-wing, however there are many modern right-wing extremists practicing Querfront (~Third position) - absorbing left-wing positions and terminology. --KnightMove (talk) 09:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, though, it makes very little sense to me. Buddhist monks are neither wealthy nor conventionally powerful. I tried reading the German article, both in the original and through Google Translate, and I really couldn't find any explanation. Can anyone provide any insight as to how this got started? --Trovatore (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the development it went through was "Buddhist monk" > "priest" > "hypocritical priest" > "hypocritical influential man" > "rich man". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In French as well, "bonze" has a secondary meaning of "big shot". The meaning seems to have gone through the changes described above, from "Buddhist monk" to "exceedingly serious person" to "someone who pontificates and thinks highly of himself" to simply "big shot". See here [1]. --Xuxl (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I guess that's sort of followable. I still think the final outcome is pretty incongruous, though. --Trovatore (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't incongruity one of the characteristics of semantic change's outcome? (when it has become final remains unclear) Compare with pejorations in English such as villain ("inhabitant of a farm > peasant > churl > boor > clown > miser > knave > scoundrel"), or lewd (nonclerical > unlearned > uneducated > coarse, vile, lustful), or silly (happy > blessed > pious > > innocent > harmless > pitiable > weak > feeble in mind, lacking in reason, foolish). ---Sluzzelin talk 01:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, the spelling "Auslander" hints at an English background. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning could be translated with "Alien fat cats get out!" Political background: German urban real estate prices rised during the last years while the rural real estates with no tourism lost value. Also some Greek tax exiles acquired estates in Berlin making the prices rising. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 11:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]