Hebrew s’s and t’s: a timeline

A friend asks: what’s the deal with all the different Hebrew s sounds—ס, שׁ, שׂ, ת, צ—historically? How would they have been pronounced by Moses, David, or Ezra?1

Here’s an overview of how these sibilants, and relatedly the plosives ת and ט, were pronounced at different points in time, with some reconstructed example words. I won’t give a detailed argumentation for every reconstruction, but I’ll note the kind of evidence we have for each period.

Source(s): Dude trust me

Each table of reconstructions links to a voice recording.

Proto-Semitic up to the Late Bronze Age

Ancestors of Hebrew probably preserved the Proto-Semitic values of these sounds, which we can reconstruct based on comparison to other Semitic languages, up to the late 2nd millennium BCE. Evidence also comes from transcriptions in Egyptian hieroglyphs and from the way the Northwest Semitic alphabet was borrowed into Greek.

The שׁ mostly goes back to a plain *s sound. Some words with שׁ originally had a *θ as in think. The שׂ was a voiceless lateral fricative, *ɬ. ס was originally an affricate, *ts. The צ derives from the ejective counterparts of the last three sounds: *θ’, *ɬ’, and *ts’. The ת/תּ used to be a plain *t in every position, while the ט was its ejective version, *t’.

Reconstructions ca. 13th century BCE (Moses?):

*yasūḫǝ‘he sinks’
*yaθūbǝ‘he goes back’
*yaɬīmǝ‘he puts’
*yanūt‘he flees’
*yarūθ’ǝ‘he runs’
*yalūɬ’ǝ‘he mocks’
*yats’ūmǝ‘he fasts’
*yatūrǝ‘he travels’
*yayt’ībǝ‘he does well’

First Temple Period

A bunch of mergers and chain shifts take place before we get to Hebrew proper. The *s and *θ merge and then shift back a bit to become a postalveolar *š. The old *ts loses its affrication and becomes a new plain sibilant *s. The corresponding ejectives merge but probably could be pronounced with or without a little t preceding: *(t)s’.

It’s hard to date these changes. I assume they’re reflected in Neo-Assyrian transcriptions but I’m not actually sure about that, would have to check (and it could be hard to see in the cuneiform script). Egyptian might be useful here too, but I don’t recall reading about that kind of evidence either.

Reconstructions ca. 10th century BCE (King David):

*yašūḫ‘he sinks’
*yašūb‘he goes back’
*yaɬīm‘he puts’
*yanūs‘he flees’
*yarūs’‘he runs’
*yalūɬ’‘he mocks’
*yas’ūm‘he fasts’
*yatūr‘he travels’
*yēt’īb‘he does well’

Second Temple Period

At some point, the plosive *t became aspirated: this is consistently reflected in Greek transcriptions of Hebrew, Phoenician, and, well, every Semitic language, really. As argued by Ola Wikander in a paper that I don’t think is available online, the ejectives like *t’ may also have begun to have had a ‘darker’, uvularized pronunciation (as in Arabic) this early already. The lateral fricative and ejective merged with the sibilants at some point during the Second Temple Period, resulting in some variation between שׂ and ס in certain Biblical texts.

Reconstructions ca. 5th-4th century BCE (Ezra the Scribe):

*yāšūḫ‘he sinks’
*yāšūb‘he goes back’
*yāsīm‘he puts’
*yānūs‘he flees’
*yārūs’‘he runs’
*yālūs’‘he mocks’
*yās’ūm‘he fasts’
*yāthūr‘he travels’
*yēt’īb‘he does well’

Roman Period

Another change that is hard to date: when the non-emphatic plosives (*bgdkhphth) follow a vowel, they become fricatives (*vʁðχfθ) at a certain point. This brings us close to the last shared ancestor of the surviving Jewish pronunciations of Hebrew, which can be reconstructed based on its descendants as well as Greek and Latin transcriptions.

Reconstructions ca. 2nd century CE (Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi):

*yāšūaḥ‘he sinks’
*yāšūv‘he goes back’
*yāsīm‘he puts’
*yānūs‘he flees’
*yārūs’‘he runs’
*yālūs’‘he mocks’
*yās’ūm‘he fasts’
*yāθūr‘he travels’
*yēt’īv‘he does well’

Tiberian Hebrew

Jews that spoke Arabic in their daily lives, which includes the Tiberian Masoretes, used the Arabic realization for the original ejectives: *s’ and *t’ become *sʶ and *tʶ. For the reconstruction of Tiberian Hebrew pronunciation, see Khan (2020; Open Access).

Reconstructions ca. 10th century CE, Tiberias (Aaron ben Moses ben Asher):

*yɔ̄šūaḥ יָשׁוּחַ‘he sinks’
*yɔ̄šūv יָשׁוּב‘he goes back’
*yɔ̄sīm יָשִׂים‘he puts’
*yɔ̄nūs יָנוּס‘he flees’
*yɔ̄ʀūsʶ יָרוּץ‘he runs’
*yɔ̄lūsʶ יָלוּץ‘he mocks’
*yɔ̄sʶūm יָצוּם‘he fasts’
*yɔ̄θūrʶ יָתוּר‘he travels’
*yētʶīv יֵיטִב‘he does well’

Many pronunciations from the Arab world realize ת as t instead of θ (Yemen is a notable exception), I guess because their dialects of Arabic shift θ to t too.

Ashkenazi Hebrew

Similarly, the Ashkenazi pronunciations were shaped by the sounds of Yiddish. As no θ was available, s was used as the next best thing. The ejectives lost their ejectivity, with the t of the *(t)s’ becoming mandatory.

Reconstructions ca. 10th century CE, Ashkenaz (Rabbeinu Gershom):

*yɔ̄šūaḫ יָשׁוּחַ‘he sinks’
*yɔ̄šūv יָשׁוּב‘he goes back’
*yɔ̄sīm יָשִׂים‘he puts’
*yɔ̄nūs יָנוּס‘he flees’
*yɔ̄rūts יָרוּץ‘he runs’
*yɔ̄lūts יָלוּץ‘he mocks’
*yɔ̄tsūm יָצוּם‘he fasts’
*yɔ̄sūr יָתוּר‘he travels’
*yeitīv יֵיטִב‘he does well’

And thats it’!

  1. I’m going to provide Biblical and Jewish celebrities as a reference for each reconstruction given below. Especially for the older ones, this isn’t meant to endorse the way the Bible depicts them as 100% historical. ↩︎

19 responses to “Hebrew s’s and t’s: a timeline”

  1. sansdomino Avatar

    Are there reasons to think there was a stage of Semitic without aspiration in *p *t *k? Some aspiration seems like the typologically normal situation for voiceless stops that contrast with both a voiced *D and an ejective *Tʼ series.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Benjamin Suchard Avatar

      Yes! The relevant letters were borrowed for Greek pi, tau, kappa (and not for the aspirates). Although this could be explained by a third, intermediate labguage. Much earlier, Akkadian stops in 3rd-millennium Sumerian loanwords are borrowed with unaspirated stops (e.g. *tamkār- > damgar ‘merchant’, with the Pinyin-like for /t k/ in transcription of Sumerian). Akkadian apparently started to aspirate them around 2000 BCE. (Did the Neo-Assyrians spread this west?)

      Liked by 1 person

      1. David Marjanović Avatar
        David Marjanović

        Ah, yes, I do keep forgetting these somehow. However…

        On the Greek side, the fact that Q was (sparingly, inconsistently) used for back allophones of /k/ – Qorinth kept it on its qoins for centuries – suggests that Phoenician had already gone through the whole “emphatic” shift seen in Arabic. That would mean aspiration wasn’t needed so much anymore, and could be relaxed. This may be where the fact kicks in that aspiration isn’t either/or. Most Englishes aspirate initial /p t k/, but kitty got into Navajo as gídí (“cat”) because its /k/ isn’t aspirated enough to be noticeable by Navajo standards. Maybe the Greek aspirates, as of 800 BCE, were much more loudly aspirated than the contemporary Phoenician ones or the modern Arabic ones. Similarly, I would expect that the Sumerian aspirates were louder than any East Semitic ones because the latter contrasted with a voiced and an ejective series, not with a plain voiceless one as seems to have been the case in Sumerian.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Benjamin Suchard Avatar

          Very good points, possibly enough to warrant reconsidering this. Thank you!

          Like

          1. David Marjanović Avatar
            David Marjanović

            The IPA actually once distinguished῾ and ʰ for lightly vs. heavily aspirated, but then abandoned this, probably because ῾ is graphically horrible and because no language seems to distinguish degrees of aspiration phonemically (the “International Phonemic Alphabet” strikes again).

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Benjamin Suchard Avatar

              So, thinking about this again: what would have changed for Greek to first borrow כפ״ת as κπτ, but then transcribe them with χφθ (later) in the first millennium? Doesn’t that seem like an increase in aspiration on the Semitic side?

              Like

        2. sansdomino Avatar

          Or at least some part of that shift: from just Semitic it would tend to look like kʼ >> q comes thru a *kʶʼ step and so implies also *tʼ > tʶ, but this is not the only option. Cushitic provides a few interesting examples like Konso (kʼ > ʛ) or the Rift languages (*kʼ > q ~ qʼ), and besides these also several instances of *kʼ > q with no trace anywhere of a *tʼ > **tʶ shift (though then in almost all of them coronal ejectives may have already been lost in other ways at the time).

          I wonder if Hausa or Oromo have aspiration in their voiceless stops? This detail usually doesn’t get reported for less well-documented languages, but at least these are big enough that I’d expect this to be known. (Out of other major non-Semitic AA languages, Somali definitely has aspiration in /t k/.) OTTOM reading stack, Schuh in his Chadic Cornucopia has one passing mention about “aspiration typical of Chadic in general for voiceless obstruents”, while discussing a *D > Tʰ shift in Goemai (seems to me that’s more likely thru *Dʰ though). And also, maybe the aspiration tendency no longer holds as much once a language has also implosives and can organize its stops in a 2×2 voiced/voiceless, glottalic/nonglottalic arrangement.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. David Marjanović Avatar
            David Marjanović

            Interesting.

            Like

  2. David Marjanović Avatar
    David Marjanović

    At some point, the plosive *t became aspirated: this is consistently reflected in Greek transcriptions of Hebrew, Phoenician, and, well, every Semitic language, really.

    …so this should probably be reconstructed for Proto-Semitic already; it’s also said to be present to some extent in extant Arabic (I haven’t heard enough Arabic to tell).

    In the Caucasus region, it is normal for every plosive to be either voiced or aspirated or ejective (some languages add a fourth category, which seems to be plain but long). The closest to “plain” are not the aspirates, but the ejectives; the ejection is often barely audible. This contrasts with, say, Navajo, where the three kinds of plosives are plain, aspirated and ejective, with the ejectives being even louder and longer than the aspirates (which are already more aspirated than in English).

    Aspirates getting exaggerated into affricates and then fricatives is of course unremarkable; aspiration is often blocked when a plosive or fricative precedes, as in Grimm’s Law and the High German Consonant Shift.

    It is also unremarkable for ejective affricates to survive much longer than all other affricates. Ejective fricatives are known from a few languages today (“T”lingit and Kabardian come to mind), but they’re very rare globally because they’re simply difficult to articulate, requiring a lot of air pressure (I notice you didn’t try); ejective affricates are much more common, even in languages that have few or no other affricates.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Benjamin Suchard Avatar

      On the aspiration, see my reply to sansdomino.

      Like

    2. Benjamin Suchard Avatar

      On the affricates, yes, it’s thought that the ejective fricatives were automatically affricates. Also note that in South Ethiosemitic, *s’ > t’. But I do think I’ve heard some really fricative /s’/s from Tigrinya speakers.

      Like

  3. theophiletos Avatar

    I trust you (as your “Source(s)” statement said), but it would be useful to me if I could get a citation for שׁ pronounced as a plain sibilant /s/ in the late Bronze Age. Do you have anything off the top of your head?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Benjamin Suchard Avatar

      It’s kind of by default, as there wouldn’t have been any other sibilant. But it may have already been pronounced pretty far back: Kogan’s chapter on Proto-Semitic phonetics and phonology tells me that LBA Egyptian loanwords from Northwest Semitic mostly use š for this sound (besides one example of s).

      Liked by 1 person

      1. theophiletos Avatar

        Perfect! Thank you! I suppose another example is the name of Moses (Hebr. Mosheh), from Egyptian /ms/.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Benjamin Suchard Avatar

          If that was borrowed in the LBA, yes, but that’s opening a whole new can of worms.

          Like

      2. David Marjanović Avatar
        David Marjanović

        Languages with sibilants at only one place of articulation tend not to have laminal-alveolar ones, but either apical ones (Dutch, most of peninsular Spanish) or retracted laminal ones (Greek; I’m not sure about Finnish). People with a /s/-/ʃ/ contrast tend to get confused by such sounds, and on top of that there’s often allophony afoot (I’ve heard phenomena more like [ʂʷ] next to /u/ in both Spanish and Greek – it took me quite a while to identify the latter as Greek because it was so confusing).

        This is in fact why e.g. French pousser was borrowed into English as push: English already had a /s/-/ʃ/ contrast, but French didn’t yet because its ch was still [tʃ] at the time, so the French /s/ of the time was at least sometimes heard as closer to the English /ʃ/ than the English /s/.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. Benjamin Suchard Avatar

      Reading on, El Amarna letters from Jerusalem specifically seem to use S-signs for Canaanite names with *s, like ú-ru-sa-lim, É sa-a-ni (Beth Shean), l[a-k]i-si. That’s not a direct ancestor of Hebrew, but still an interesting coincidence.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. theophiletos Avatar

        This raises the question: how do you understand the Shibboleth story in Judges 12:6? Were the Ephraimites (as depicted, not endorsing historicity) preserving an older pronunciation which the author of judges labels not right (וְלֹ֤א יָכִין֙ לְדַבֵּ֣ר כֵּ֔ן), or were Ephraimites introducing an affricate sound where Jephthah’s side did not, or can we not tell because of subsequent sound-shifts?

        Like

      2. Matthew Saunders Avatar
        Matthew Saunders

        Excellent point. The sibilants in Western Peripheral Akkadian dialects more broadly are a mess, often described in terms of Assyrian influence or as confused forms. I’ve wondered if we can use this as evidence that *s > š occurred at different times in the history of Akkadian and Northwest Semitic, and if so, whether one influenced the other. But how to go about sorting this out in the LBA is unclear (at least to me), since the cuneiform script is often ambiguous (for example, Rainey reads the SA in Jerusalem as ša10, etc.). To take just one example from the Amarna letters, “heaven(s)” is spelled as both sa-me-ma (e.g. EA 223 from Akshaph) and ša-me-ma (e.g. EA 264 from Ginti-Kirmil), both Canaanite sites. While there’s more work being done on studying the individual sub-corpora of the Amarna letters, especially from the perspective of scribal communities, the mobility of scribes, etc., I don’t know of anyone has reevaluated the potential phonological implications from this lens. (I’m currently working on a couple similar projects related to the Canaanite shift and the suffix conjugation during this period.)

        Like

Leave a comment

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started