Talk:Revia (Hebrew cantillation mark)

Bad transliteration in title of article and throughout
The transliteration of the cantillation mark of this article (including the title itself of the article) as "rivia" is essentially wrong. It should be "revia". Toddcs (talk) 01:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Meaning of "revia"
About: The Hebrew word רְבִ֗יע‬ means fourth. It is therefore represented by a diamond-shaped mark.

Sorry, but that is just plain wrong. Firstly, the word "revia" is Aramaic, not Hebrew. And secondly, the meaning "fourth" given in the article is based on a misconception that has persisted for indeed a long time (I don't know how long exactly, but I am thinking that a century or two would be a rather conservative estimate).

The cantillation name "revia" has nothing to do with the number four, or a fourth, or a quarter, or anything along those lines. Rather, "revia" is an Aramaic word meaning "lying down" (i.e., horizontally positioned). This can be very clearly seen in the Targum of Onkelos at Shemot 23:5, where the Hebrew רֹבֵץ תַּחַת מַשָּׂאוֹ (referring to a donkey brought low by its burden) is translated to Aramaic as רְבִיעַ תְּחוֹת טֻעְנֵיהּ. That a cantillation mark would have such a name is entirely consistent with the names of various other marks in the same list that are also Aramaic (or of apparent Aramaic derivation), and have meanings that refer to the position of a body at rest or in motion. E.g., "pashta" (stretched out), "qadma" (advancing), "mahpach" (turning, or turned), "munach" (resting). And so, then, "revia" -- lying down.

This error is compounded yet further in the great multitude of chumashim -- many very highly regarded (by the masses, at least) for accuracy -- in which the cantillation mark "revia" (in the list of cantillation marks that appears at the front or the back of the chumash) has been renamed "revi'i". What happened, evidently, is that the proofreaders or printers, many (or most?) of whom knew Hebrew reasonably well, but knew little or no Aramaic, "corrected" what they considered an error, "revia" (a very unfamiliar Aramaic word) to what they imagined it was supposed to be, "revi'i" (a very familiar Hebrew word). And so the misconception and the error have been perpetuated down to our day, even in some of the "best" chumashim -- and show little hope of being rectified any time soon. Toddcs Toddcs (talk) 01:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Now fixed. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)