James A. Goldman writes from Brooklyn:
“In this holiday season, I have noticed increasingly that one sees printed ‘Shana Tova’ instead of what I remember as ‘Shanah Tovah,’ even though the latter is more in keeping with the Hebrew orthography, which has a heh at the end of each word. I have also seen the two forms mixed together, as in the September 18 edition of the Forward, in which a Macy’s advertisement wished us ‘Shana Tovah.’ My question for you is: Where has the ‘h’ gone and why?”
Since a very large number of Hebrew words, including a high percentage of feminine nouns like shana(h), and an even higher percentage of feminine adjectives like tova(h), end with a heh, Mr. Goldman’s question is far from abstruse. Just to take a few examples from the holiday season he refers to, we have the teki’a(h), or blowing of the shofar on Rosh Hashana(h); the 10 days of teshuva(h), or repentance between Rosh Hashana(h) and Yom Kippur; the Ne’ila(h), or closing prayer on Yom Kippur itself; the sukka(h), in which we sit and eat on the Feast of Booths; the Tora(h) that we start to read again from the beginning on Simchat Tora(h), etc. Obviously, some clear policy is called for.
You may wonder why the question exists at all. After all, you may ask, if such words end with a heh in Hebrew, why shouldn’t we just spell them with a final “h” in English without fretting over it? Yet it’s not as simple as that. Not only are final “h”’s never pronounced in English, but final hehs are not pronounced in Hebrew, either. Why, then, bother transliterating a letter that, like the final “e” in an English word like “give,” isn’t heard in the original language?
Which leads to a second question. If the final heh is silent in Hebrew, too, what is it doing there in the first place? The “e” in “give” was once pronounced in Old and Middle English and is a leftover from those days. Yet, to pronounce a final “h” — try it yourself if you don’t believe me — a considerable effort is called for. Did Hebrew speakers, at some time in the past, actually make that effort?
Probably not, although there is no way of knowing for certain. What we do know is that in ancient, pre-biblical Hebrew, as in its sister Semitic languages, the nouns and adjectives that now end with a heh ended with a taf or what was then a “th” sound (with the “th” as in “thin”). In Ugaritic, for example, the language of the ancient Phoenicians that was very close to Hebrew, the Hebrew word me’ah, “hundred,” was m’ith; the Hebrew word ḥomah, “wall,” was ḥamith, and so on. Hebrew speakers lost this final “th” early on. (Interestingly, though, they retained it in what is known as the construct case. Hence, though 100 is me’ah, “the hundred men” in contemporary Hebrew is me’at ha-anashim; and while a wall is ḥomah, a defensive wall is ḥomat magen.) In place of this lost taf, ancient scribes inserted a heh, either because the taf was first aspirated before disappearing completely, or else to indicate that it was once there, much as the apostrophe in English “ma’am” stands for a missing “d.”
But to get back to Mr. Goldman’s letter, I, too, have noticed a trend in recent years toward dropping the final “h” from transliterated Hebrew words in English. Presumably, this has to do with an overall tendency to simplify contemporary English spelling and writing, as when “light” and “through” are spelled “lite” and “thru,” or commas are omitted from sentences where they once would have been mandatory. Yet Mr. Goldman is right that this trend has been far from consistent. I recently noticed, for instance, that the new, sumptuously produced Koren Siddur has changed the traditional spelling of “Minchah,” the afternoon prayer, to “Minḥa,” while continuing to give us “Torah” rather than “Tora.”
Inconsistency in spelling has little to recommend it. Yet is there any reason, apart from our reluctance to change familiar usage, for not dropping the “h” from final-heh words, Torah included? Actually, there is a very good one. Although this heh is not sounded, it does serve as a stress marker, since nearly every Hebrew word in which it occurs is accented on its final syllable: In grammatically correct Hebrew, one says “Rosh ha-sha-nah,” not “Rosh ha-sha-na,” and “suk-kah,” not “suk-kah.” And even in the Ashkenazic Hebrew of Eastern Europe, where “Rosh ha-sha-nah” and “suk-kah” are the rule, this is eschewed in formal situations such as the recital of prayers or reading from the Torah. In such cases, punctilious Ashkenazim stress the last syllable, too.
And yet if we spell Rosh Hashanah as Rosh Hashana, or sukkah as sukka, the English reader will inevitably accent the next-to-last syllable in conformity with general patterns of English stress. The only way to inform or remind him to stress the last syllable is by the addition to it of the “h,” which encourages him to lengthen it and give it more emphasis. Unless we deliberately wish to give such words their ungrammatical Ashkenazic pronunciation, therefore, the final “h” is a good idea. I wouldn’t — although I plead guilty to not always being consistent myself — give it up.
Questions for Philologos can be sent to philologos@forward.com.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Another good reason is that it's a more faithful transliteration. That has to count for a lot, regardless of whether it is pronounced. This is why I think qof should be written with a 'q', chet should be 'ch', and khaf should be 'kh'. I know this leaves us in a quandary with samekh and t(h)av, but the actual letters in Hebrew do have significance and the transliterated reader should be able to know if that's a chet or khaf they're saying even if modern pronunciation has them be the same.
Oh crud, just when I convinced myself to include the final “h” for linguistic reasons in my Rosh haShana(h) greetings, I learn the trend is going the other way!
Another important reason for the final _heh_ in Hebrew is that it is a _mater lectionis_ or in Hebrew אם קריאה, “mother of reading.” _Heh_, and the letters _alef_, _vav_, _yud_, and _ayin_ are used to represent vowels. These letters are especially important in _k’tiv male_ spelling, used in everyday Hebrew without _niqqud_.
As for English spelling and “final e’s,” English spelling has been long complicated by classicists who preferred to spell words of Greek and Latin origin as they were [presumedly] pronounced in the original language rather than how they are pronounced in English. The preference for “etymological” spelling has been compounded by the fact that the sounds of English have continued to change even after spelling was becoming standardized by printing. The silent final e’s of many native English words were once sounded as a schwa or an unstressed “eh” [as in “bed” or ”red”], not unlike other modern Germanic languages [to which English is more closely related than Latin or Greek]. The sounding of final e’s was present as late as the Middle English period —remember reciting the General Prologue to _The Canterbury Tales_ in high school?
Maybe the simplest explanation is that the final 'h' was in fact originally pronounced, the soft sound naturally evolving into an open vowel over time.
But only in pausal forms: 't' serving before any case ending, when used, back in the proverbial day.
As in colloquial arabic, pausal forms at some point would have become universal--to simplify things for the speaker--except in construct state.
I notice, in a related vein, that my pakistani comrades seem to pronounce ta marbuta as 't' all the time in words they have borrowed from arabic, even without any case ending, and wonder what's up with that.
"my pakistani comrades seem to pronounce ta marbuta as 't' all the time in words they have borrowed from arabic, even without any case ending, and wonder what's up with that"
I'm not sure. But Arabic loan words in Turkish are similar. saat=hour, hürriyet = freedom, etc. And I believe it's also true in Malay and Indonesian although no examples come to mind.