Why aren't there vowels in the hebrew alphabet?

I have my own thoughts on this. I would like to get other people's perspective.

Hi ,

Like most early Semitic alphabetic writing systems, the alphabet has no vowels. People who are fluent in the language do not need vowels to read Hebrew, and most things written in Hebrew in Israel are written without vowels.

However, as Hebrew literacy declined, particularly after the Romans expelled the Jews from Israel, the rabbis recognized the need for aids to pronunciation, so they developed a system of dots and dashes called nikkud (points). These dots and dashes are written above, below or inside the letter, in ways that do not alter the spacing of the line. Text containing these markings is referred to as pointed text.

Most nikkud are used to indicate vowels. The table at right illustrates the vowel points, along with their pronunciations. Pronunciations are approximate; I have heard quite a bit of variation in vowel pronunciation.

Thankyou Prkswllflwr:
I have done and still do a lot of Bible research, some of of it leads me to language syntax And one day I had this epiphany about why it was that the Hebrew language was used in the original transcription of the Bible. And that it may have been used specifically because it had no vowels. I have done a bit of research on vowels and no one seems to know exactly what the vowels do in the English language except for pronunciation. This is the reference from which my question was made. What do vowels do for words in a language.

One thing I've noticed about French people attempting to speak English and me attempting to speak French is that it's the vowels that get us, every time! For my French friends, 'ship' and 'sheep' sound exactly the same. For me, I try to pronounce things accurately and some people don't undestand me at all, because I just can't make all my vowels sound French. Could you pronounce or understand the difference between 'au-dessous' and 'au-dessus'? One means above, and one means below. To the French it's perfectly logical, but I can't even remember the difference.

So I think vowels are essential in providing enough variety in our languages. The number of consonants just isn't enough to give us the variety of vocabulary we need. The vowel changes provide that versatility and variety.

Thankyou flossheal:
That's similar to what I found. The vowels give dimension to the language. But with this benefit there is a drawback. In the English language using a particular vowel in a word, like ‘ sing ‘, limits its uses. Changing the vowel compensates for this limit but creates another. So what would be the benefit of using a language without vowels?

It would only be a written language - it would't work as as spoken one.

Flossheal:
Good point, however Moses was given specific instructions to read it to the congregation every year. So it would have been spoken.

Yes, I assume they added in the vowels as they read it, which is why words like Yahweh and Jehovah get to be pronounced so differently when we try to add our own vowels. They had unwritten rules about how to do it, presumably, just as Americans pronounce words differently to the British (mirror, or tomato for example) - the spellings are the same but common usage dictates how we pronounce them. Anyone looking at them in written form would have very little ability to guess correctly how you or I would pronounce them!

Consonants in hebrew language form the visible body of what is spoken. The vowels are the invisible soul of what is spoken.
In mystic terms, the key to understanding lies in the tetragrammaton: God's name. One must know that it forms not ONLY God's name, the four letters ARE themselves considered God's being as the creator of the universe.
The question is not simply linguistic, but fundamentally theological. For Jews and biblically inspired Christians alike, the hebrew 'alphabet' IS the creating force of life. In that light, it is not completely plausible to compare the hebrew 'alphabet' with any other.
Traditionally, Judeo-Christian scholars study the hebrew text of the Sefer Jetsirah (book of creation) to unravel the mystery.

flossheal and Annv:
What is it about the message of the Torah that makes it unique and cannot be said of any other written message or book?

Elone,

In order to answer that intelligently, one would need to have a balanced understanding of comparable alternative messages.
And what would be the criteria of comparison? Religious notions? Cultural values? Historical significance?
And is it correct to depart from the position that the message (content?) of the Torah is unique in the first place?

My reference above attempts to describe the concept that signifies the hebrew alphabet as unique in its own right. Namely as a key religious element within its own religious doctrine. The comparison should therefor not be made with other (also unique) alphabets, but with other religious doctrines that have appointed a specifically definable alphabet as a key element comparable with the concept as proposed in the Hebrew Sefer Jetsirah.
Regardless of one's desired approach, be it religious, scientific or otherwise, in order to understand the procedure of creation in its authentic Judeo-Christian meaning, one should apply the correct medium of engagement and that happens to be the unique and semi-mystical linguistic working of the hebrew alphabet.

I'll be honest, I'm very uncomfortable with the 'mystical' Jewish and Christian sects (maybe like Kabbalah or the Gnostics) who see hidden messages, which only the initiated will find, in the Torah or any other book.

That may not be exactly what you're taking about here, but my understanding is that there is no 'hidden message' in them, just the straightforward ones which everyone can find - God is not into keeping secrets from the wider populace and creating an elite of the intelligent or super-faithful.

But I'll be interested to see your answer!

BTW, Annv - my reply was to elone, not to you, as we must have been writing at the same time and I didn't read your comment until I posted mine! Thanks for your contribution.

..the great simultaneous trick, Floss... its funny that, albeit not in total agreement, we were using similar terms.
I share your discomfort with certain sects, but I think that the mystic side of religion can sometimes add to its celebrational value. Without advocating its denomination, I have always been attracted to Catholicism for that very reason (must be my Irish background).
I also think that if you deny the mystical part of a religion, you would run the danger that you would deny part of its beauty too.
Perhaps it is not a matter of 'hidden messages for initiated worshippers', but more a case of study and search for meaning. In metaphoric terms: one cannot expect to be able to play one of Bach's glorious but very complicated fugue's for harpsichord by denying the need to study the script of music notes. Still, those notes contain for many 'non-initiated' people strange and hidden messages (and in Bach's case, even the very much initiated are often overwhelmed by the mystique). The study of the composition's meaning will ultimately provide the unique opportunity to reveal it's stunning beauty. One could decide to become only the listener.
However, in religious terms, being a listener requires trust in those who have studied and share (priests, scholars). The obvious problem there is that that trust has been often abused, as history shows.
With respect, Floss, I do not have your level of trust in God (as you might have noticed before) and that prevents me from sharing your view that 'God is not into keeping secrets from the wider populace and creating an elite'. Under the assumption that God is reality; the secrets seem many.

Thanks, annv. I admit I was concerned about my use of the word 'mystical' - it did convery what I wanted to mean, but in its other use, as you descibe it, I'm all for it. Worship which is either all 'fact' or all 'emotion' does not appeal to me - we have a mystical element which God has placed in us and the place for simple participation in something we can't completely comprehend is very real.

I agree with you that there are things about God that we can't understand. There are 'secrets' which I assume we can't comprehend with our limited human understanding. The analogy to music is good.

But what I reject is the idea that an elite can become initiated into these mysteries to the detriment of the majority. One of the things that really attracts me to my Protestant history is the idea of the 'universal priesthood of believers' - a Biblical notion which my otherwise non-theological mother instilled into me. That, combinded with the beauty of celebrational worship which you advocate in Catholicism, sounds like 'worship in Spirit and in Truth', which is what God promised his followers.

I agree very much with your rejection of such an elite culture in religion, Floss. There might be a lesson in the notion of 'elitist power through knowledge' in relation with the 'missing' vowels perhaps. But now I am treading on very thin ice!
So Elone, might there be a possibility that the answer could include 'interest of power'? Something like 'the Latin Mass' in the Catholic Church? After all, the Sefer Jetsirah was only written in the third century AD. A time of severe religious power strugles.

I’m not talking about anything mystic. What I found is that vowels give tense to a word. If you take the English consonants ‘sng’ and add the vowel ‘a’, (sang) it is talking in the past tense, not in the present or future. With the vowel ‘i’ (sing) the tense is present and future but not the past. With ‘u’, (sung) the tense is future, not present or past. A language with vowels in its alphabet puts a limit on when the message is suitable and valid.

Using a language without vowels eliminates this limitation. It applies to the past and the present and the future, all at the same time. So by using the Hebrew language for its transcription, the Torah and its messages are valid beyond the constraint of time.

What do you think?

Very interesting Elone! And factual in its own right, without dispute! I would be curious if your idea can be backed up academically.
However, I think that the workings of written script that contain vowels could achieve timelessness too. To my knowledge, experimentation with timelessness in literature started with modernism (Joyce, Becket, Mulisch). In order to achieve this, it is important that the reader should be allowed to have an awareness of the writer during the moment of writing, and the writer should be aware of the reader's ability to imagine the contents of the narrative. For example: I write this sentence down now. But I wrote the word 'now' about two-seconds ago. And you read the word 'word' about one-second ago. I am sitting on a comfortable chair by the open fire with my laptop on my knees. But when you read 'this', I do not know where I will be -or should I say: where I am now. When you read this, I wrote this, but I am writing it now. Do you see what I mean? I do not even have to write in complicated terms like: 'will you see what I am meaning?' nor: ' D why S WHT * MN?' to make this work. We have not only ruled out the time gap between me writing this and you reading it, we also defeated space. You might be reading this centuries from now on Mars. Or might be reading this while I have changed my mind about everything I have said.

Annv:
A very interesting an valid point!

Initial thoughts: in French the tenses (which I am very bad at) are controlled by vowels and consonants together.

I give - je donne
I gave - j'ai donne (oops, can't do accents here but that has an accent on the final e and is prounounced 'donnay' as I'm sure you know)
I will give - je donnerai (donneray) - note the 'r' needed to show it's in the future tense.

Sometimes entire new words (auxillary verbs) are needed to show the tenses, which are composed of vowels and consonants.

So the idea is interesting and significant, but does it actually work in all languages?

Im still thinking about Annv's comments and rearranging them in my thought process.

I really enjoy this kind of conversation where we can share what we know and learn from it in a constructive manner.

It would be interesting to see if it applies to other languages.