The Letter Qof (ק)
The letter Qof (ק) is pronounced, among the various Jewish communities, in five different ways. This is testimony to the fact that it’s very difficult to pronounce correctly. Therefore, each person pronounced it however was easiest for him and according to whatever vernacular was spoken in his area. Here are the five pronunciations: The Jews of Europe and America pronounce it exactly as if it were a hard Kaf (כּ). Most of the Jews of Yemen – as if it were our hard Gimal (גּ). Some of the Jews of Yemen*, along with the Jews of Persia and Georgia – as if it were a soft Gimal (ג). Some of the Jews of Morocco and Syria – as if it were an Aleph (א). Most of the Jews of Arab lands pronounce it like the Arabic Qaf (ق).
It just became known to me that the Jews of Malabar/Cochin in Southern India, pronounce the Qof (ק) exactly as if it were a soft Kaf (כ).** I discovered that in their language there is no equivalent to the Arabic Qaf (ق) or the soft Gimal (ג). It seems that this is the reason the Qof (ק) was not transformed into a soft Gimal (ג) among them, as happened with the Jews of Persia and Media, their neighbors (Sic) but it was transformed into a soft Kaf (כ), which is similar to the soft Gimal (ג). Therefore, there are SIX different ways of pronouncing the letter Qaf (ק). Had the Qof (ק) originally been like the Kaf (כ) or the Gimal (ג), then why would the other communities have changed the pronunciation of the Qof (ק) but they didn’t change the pronunciation of the letters Kaf (כ) and Gimal (ג)? Rather, it’s clear that the Qof (ק) is not similar to any of the above letters.
It’s clear, without any doubt, that only one of them pronounces it correctly while the others are mistaken. One need not be an expert linguist in order to know who is mistaken. We have a general rule that no two letters, in the Holy Tongue, are identical in pronunciation. If so, those who pronounce it as a soft Gimal (ג) , or as a soft or hard Kaf (כ), or as an Aleph (א) are clearly mistaken, for they are equating the letter Qof (ק) with another letter. It remains for us to clarify if the pronunciation of the Yemenites, which is the same as our hard Gimal (גּ), is correct, for they pronounce the hard Gimal (גּ) the same as the Arabic Jim (ج) so that their Qof (ק) is not the same as their hard Gimal (גּ). At first glance, their pronunciation is valid.
However, since we established above that the pronunciation of the hard Gimal (גּ) as Arabic Jim (ج) is not correct, if so, we conclude that the hard Gimal (גּ) must be like the letter (hard) G, and they pronounce the Qof (ק) like a (hard) G. It turns out that they pronounce the Qof (ק) as if it’s a hard Gimal (גּ). Therefore, we conclude that the Qof (ק) must be pronounced the same as the Arabic Qaf (ق), for it is not identical to any other letter in the Holy Tongue. This is the same as the pronunciation of most Jews of Arab lands and a respectable percentage of Yemenite Jews as well. We have already spent a lot of time on the evidence for this in my book The Language of Truth, and here I’ll cite them briefly.
In his commentary on the Book of Yesirah, R. Dunash ben Tamim (10th century Tunisia) wrote, Arabic has three letters that The Holy Tongue lacks, and they are Dhad (ض), Tha (ظ) (with diacritical marks) and Jim (ج). Hebrew also has three letters that Arabic lacks, and they are the soft Kaf (כ) and the hard Gimal (גּ) and Pe (פּ). If the pronunciation of the Qof (ק) were like the Sephardic hard Gimal (גּ) (G), then he would have written that Arabic has its Qaf (ق) that we don’t have, and we have our Qof (ק) that they don’t have, and it’s the same as the hard Gimal (גּ) (G). He would not have mentioned the Gimal (גּ) or the Jim (ج), for they are the same according to the Yemenites. Certainly, our Qof (ק) is the same as the Arabic Qaf (ق), and our hard Gimal (גּ) is not the same as the Arabic Jim (ج).
Similarly had the pronunciation of the Qof (ק) been the same as the hard or soft Kaf (כ), or the same as the Aleph (א) or the soft Gimal (ג), then he would have mentioned that we lack the Arabic Qaf (ق). Certainly the Qof (ק) isn’t like any of the above letters, but it is, without doubt, like that Arabic Qaf (ق).
Another proof of this is from the writing style of the Geonim and early rabbis in hundreds of books that they wrote in Hebrew using Arabic characters. They always wrote our Qof (ק) as the equivalent to the Arabic Qaf (ق), and they never used any other Hebrew letter to represent the Arabic Qaf (ق). This is very strong proof that all the hundreds of geonim and early rabbis, in all these generations, wrote this way. For all of them, it was obvious that our Qof (ק) is the equivalent to the Arabic Qaf (ق). If there were any difference between our Qof (ק) and the Arabic Qaf (ق), they would have at least added a diacritical mark to the Qof (ק) to indicate that it differs from the normal Arabic pronunciation – just as they did with every letter where there’s a doubt or deviation, even the smallest one, from the corresponding Arabic letter.
For example, this is what they did with the letter Gimal (ג) when used to represent the Arabic letter Jim (ج). It is always written with a dot to show that its pronunciation is not the same as Hebrew Gimal (ג), but like the Arabic letter Jim (ج). Similarly, with the Teth (ט) and Sadi (צ), which come with a dot when they represent the Arabic letters Tha (ظ) and Dhad (ض). When they represent the regular Arabic letters Ta (ط) and Sad (ص), they’re written without a dot. In that case, they’re the same as Arabic Ta (ط) and Sad (ص). Similarly, the letters Lam (ל), Mim (מ), Nun (נ), Semakh (ס) and ‘Ayin (ע) are always written without a dot, for they are always the same as their corresponding Arabic letters. Hence, any letter that has any sort of doubt about its pronunciation was written with a dot to show that its pronunciation deviates from the norm, or that its pronunciation is soft. However, a letter whose pronunciation is, without any doubt, equal to its Arabic equivalent was written without any diacritical marks. Therefore, the fact that the Qof (ק) never comes with any diacritical marks or dot is proof for the whole world that its pronunciation is the same as the Arabic letter Qaf (ق). This also is the tradition of most Jews who lived in Arab lands.***
*This is a mistake; none of the Yemenite Jewish communities pronounced it as a soft Gimal (ג). Some pronounced it like Arabic (Qaf (ق) and others pronounced it as a hard (non-Yemenite) Gimal (גּ).
**I’m the one who informed him of this. I’ll add that, except for the Yemenite dialect, all of the Middle Eastern/African dialects of Hebrew are close to being extinct in Israel; little to no effort was made to teach them to younger generations, and the younger generations are, generally speaking, completely ignorant of them. The Yemenite dialect, though great efforts were made to pass it on, is also compromised, with the younger generations having only partial knowledge of it.
***I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that even classical Arabic had some variation in the pronunciation of this letter. The standard, most common, pronunciation is described as a “voiceless uvular plosive [q]” and this would probably also apply to Hebrew. However, there were probably regional variations among all Semitic populations, including the Jews.
