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