As far as I know, there is no tradition of Lashon HaKodesh pronunciation in which there is a sound that matches the "ch" (IPA: t​͡​ʃ) of English.

Is there any significance to this omission in Jewish thought? Is this sound somehow less holy (not being part of the Holy language)?

The world was created with Lashon HaKodesh (Rashi to Bereishis 2:23) - would there be any significance to this sound not being a part of the creation process?

A great answer to this question would be if someone corrects my assumption that there is no such sound in any tradition of pronunciation.

  • 6
    I first thought you meant the ח sound. :P
    – Scimonster
    Sep 23, 2014 at 19:47
  • 3
    Why doesn't Hebrew have most of these? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_consonants You are being biased by speaking English. If you were French you'd ask about the J sound (like in Jean or Jacques) which isn't in Hebrew.
    – Double AA
    Sep 23, 2014 at 19:56
  • 1
    @DoubleAA I don't know if Yemenite Gimmel rafeh is English or French J, but the implication of the Get Poshut is that they are considered the same sound. I also have no problem adding letters to the list, but "ch" was the one I know of. If you can rectify my ignorance, please do. Sep 23, 2014 at 20:02
  • 2
    @DoubleAA I don't think mispronunciation counts as "some tradition." Sep 23, 2014 at 20:42
  • 2
    Though I speak as only an arm tschair philosopher, I think that the notion of the world being created בלשון הקדש is not the same as saying that the world was created through human/spoken sounds (if so, one would have to investigate which accented version of Hebrew was the one which created the world). Looking for human understood sounds might be taking the idea too literally.
    – rosends
    Sep 23, 2014 at 21:03

1 Answer 1


I don't think any word in biblical Hebrew does this but technically a ט with a shewa followed by a ש constructs the same sound.

  • 4
    I think this is more of a comment than an answer.
    – MTL
    Sep 24, 2014 at 5:12
  • 1
    Depending on the questioner's intent, it would mean that there is indeed a 'ch' sound in most traditions of pronunciation - with the caveat that it is actually two sounds: 't' and 'sh'.
    – Loewian
    Sep 29, 2014 at 0:48
  • @loewian By "actually" I assume you mean that it is denoted with two radicals. In another sense of "actually" they are the same in that they sound identical.
    – Double AA
    Sep 29, 2014 at 17:28

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .