Saturday, February 7, 2015

Preliminary tables comparing Haik-Vantoura with traditional cantillation

Here’s a couple of preliminary tables comparing Haik-Vantoura with traditional cantillation. The percentages are summarized from the 16.5% of the Bible that I currently have in my database. 

I have noted which signs are conjunctive and which are disjunctive. No sign appears in both columns.

Next I will work through several examples to see if the traditional ‘explanation’ is better ‘explained’ by the musical scheme of Suzanne Haik-Vantoura. I have never seen such confusion in the online resources. (If you seek pain, compare Mechon-Mamre, Wikipedia, and other sources for cantillation and coding.) I do not believe that this has to be so complex.

This first set of signs is the set for the 21 books. Music will separate the text note by note from the prior text, allowing an accent at the equivalent of a ‘bar line’. Each of the signs to the left changes the reciting note. The music for a verse always returns to the tonic E. The mid-point of most verses cadence on subdominant A. The percentage below is calculated as number of verses in the sample (about 15% of TNK) over the total verses in the sample 2527 poetry + 1276 prose = 3803 total, at present.

per Haik-Vantoura
Usage – 0 means never
Traditional explanation
Unicode (decimal)
Sign
Shape/
Note
Poetry 
%/vs
Prose
%/vs
Disjunctive (level)
Conjunctive serves
1447
Darga
כ֧ c
0
12

tevir
1435
Tevir
ד֛ d
0
29
2/3

1469
Silluq
עֽ e
100
100
1

1445
Merkha
פ֥ f
67
74

silluq, tifcha
1430/53
Tifcha
ג֖ g#
23
87
2


Dehi
ג֭
56
0


1425
Atnah
א֑ A
99
75
1

1443
Munah
ב֣ B
82
68
4?
everybody
1444/34
Mahpach
ך֤ C
21
36

pashta

Yetiv
ך֚
0
6


Traditional cantillation and Haik-Vantoura agree on the importance and the cadences effected for both silluq and atnah. From there on there is little agreement in function apart from the musical accent produced by a change of note or a melisma. For traditional cantillation, the tifcha is a ‘lesser cadence’ (Jacobson 48). For SHV it is the leading tone as a reciting note. It is not a cadence, though it certainly aids pronunciation. Traditional cantillation has no concept of a change in reciting note. This concept is signaled for SHV by the placing of the 8 (or 7 for the poetry) signs below the letters. It is fundamental to her theory.

For the 3 books, drop darga, tevir, add galgal. The remainder of the 7 note poetry scale is identical to the above except sharpen the f. Default mode is E minor but several modes are possible with both sets of signs. The combination of ole-veyored is quite frequent and forms a cadence on the supertonic (in the default mode, an f#).
Unicode (decimal)
Sign
Shape/ Note
Poetry
%/vs
Prose
%/vs
Disjunctive  (level)
Conjunctive serves
1450
Galgal
ד֪ d#
8
0

qarney para pazer gadol
1451+1445
Ole-veyored
ב֫ב֥
67 (often together)
74 (maybe separately)
2

1437+1431
Geresh-revia
ב֝ב֗
75
30
two in a row

Note 1442 ב֢ is exactly = 1450ב֪ . I have no coded examples of 1442 so far. I don’t know why 1442 exists.
Music joins, conjoins and disjoins its libretto in all sorts of ways. These are part of the mystery of language and creation as well as human creativity. The Word of God is meant to be sung so that in the singer it lives.

per Haik-Vantoura
Usage – 0 means never
Traditional explanation
Unicode (decimal)
Sign
Shape
Poetry
Prose

Disjunctive
(level)
Conjunctive serves
1426
Segol
ש֒
0
4

4?

1427
Shalshelet
שׁ֓
1
0.15

4?

1428
Zaqef Qatan
ז֔
0
70

2

1429
Zaqef Gadol
ז֕
0
40

2

1431
Revia
ר֗
76
30

3

1432/54
Zarqa
ז֘
6
0
there is no distinction in these pairs except timing of the melisma and which books they are used in
3


Zinor
ז֮
8
4
3

1433/48
Pashta
ף֙
0
63
3


Qadma
ק֨
11
23
3

1436/7
Geresh
ג֜
0.04
14
4


Geresh Muqdam
ג֝
66
0
4

1438
Gershayim
ג֞
0
6

4

1439
Qarney Para
ק֟
0
0
like horns
4

1440
Telisha Gedola
ת֠
0
3

4

1441
Paser
ף֡
3
2

4

1449
Telisha Qetana
ט֩
0
6


Zarqa
1451
Ole
ל֫
13
0

2

1452
Illuy
י֬
5
0


=Munah Jacobson p 929
1455
Masora Circle
ס֯
not used
0
0







No comments:

Post a Comment