Biblical Hebrew Forum

["YODAN" <yodanco AT yodanco.com>]

I think that I (kind of) agree with you. The KK certainly has an important
function - it preserves the ancestral /U/ vowel, which developed into /O/
but sometimes a shortened form of /O/ is needed -- and that's the KK.  The
Hataf-Kamatz is a shortened from of Holam and is "close" (like a "relative"
of) to KK rather than to KG.

I'm not sure with which assumption in what I wrote there's a problem. Can
you please clarify?

Thanks,

Rivka Sherman-Gold


-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Yigal Levin
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 4:06 PM
To: b-hebrew
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Kamatz katan

The problem with this assumption, is the plain fact that the kamatz katan
fulfills a perfectly valid function. Every vowel in Hebrew has a long and
short form: Tsere and segol for E, hiriq with or without a yod for I, shuruq
and qubutz for U, and also Kamatz (gadol) and Patah for A. Since the "vav"
of the Holam is fairly arbitrary and does not effect pronounciation, there
would have to be a symbol for the short O, to be used whenever a short vowel
is called for. This is especially true of  the Hataph-kamatz. In all other
cases the Hataph only goes with a short vowels - Hataph patah and hataph
segol. Just as there is no such thing as a hataph-tsere, the fact that there
is a hataph-kamatz shows that the kamatz is meant to be a "shorth" one.

Yigal Levin
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: YODAN 
  To: leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il 
  Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 8:20 PM
  Subject: RE: [b-hebrew] Kamatz katan; Ashkenazi pronunciation;was:
Translating


  I believe that it is well established that the Masoretes used an identical
pronunciation for what grammarians later classified as two types of Kamatz
vowels.  The Masoretic pronunciation is believed to be like the English "au"
or "aw" similar to that of traditional Ashkenazi and Yemenite pronunciations
of these vowels (which are pronounced identically in these two
pronunciations).  

   

  The fact that the original symbol of kamatz (see the Leningrad Codex and
Aleppo Codex) was not like a T letter (which is the current symbol of both
Kamatz vowels) but, rather, as a horizontal line under which there is a dot.
This is believed to reflect the pronunciation of kamatz by the Masoretes -
as something in between Patah (ah) and Holam (oh) - which is how au or aw is
pronounced.

   

  The Sephardi pronunciation, which did not develop from the Masoretic
pronunciation but, rather, from the other Israeli pronunciation (called
sometimes "Palestinian" Hebrew, reflecting the name of the Land of Israel
during the Roman period and beyond. having nothing to do with the current
use of "Palestinian") had two different pronunciations for what the
Masoretes had a single pronunciation.  The Sephardi pronunciation for kamatz
that developed from an original long AH is kamatz gadol (or Rahav) and is
pronounced by Sepharadim (and now also in Israeli Hebrew) like Patah,
whereas the kamatz that developed from an original UH vowel is called kamatz
katan (hatuf) and is pronounced in Sepharadi and Israeli Hebrew as OH (like
Holam).  In practically all cases of kamatz katan there is an underlying
word with kubutz or shuruk (UH) or holam (OH) vowel, and this is a useful
way to recognize kamatz katan, particularly in cases where applying kamatz
katan rules is not straightforward 
 (especially when it's difficult to decide if a shva is naH or nA).

   

  Rivka Sherman-Gold

  Yodan Publishing

   

  -----Original Message-----
  From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of
leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il
  Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 6:18 AM
  To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Kamatz katan; Ashkenazi pronunciation;was:
Translating

   

  I think that the real question about the Kamatz katan is not when its

  pronounced - the rules are pretty clear, though there are different

  customs. The real question is, why the mesoretes used the same symbol for

  two different (albeit related) vowels: the long a and the short o. Could
it

  be that THEY pronounced them both the same? If so, how, as a long a or as
a

  short o?

   

  Yigal Levin

   

  Original Message:

  -----------------

  From: Vadim Cherny VadimCherny AT mail.ru

  Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 10:36:51 +0300

  To: yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

  Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Kamatz katan; Ashkenazi pronunciation;was:

  Translating

   

   

  From: "Yitzhak Sapir"

  > Why is this so?  My working explanation is starts with the fact that

  > among the many situations in Semitic that later developed to a qamatz

  > in Hebrew, is a large class of instances that had a long "a".  Hebrew

  > Phoenician, and Canaanite developed long "a" into "o".  Aramaic and

  > Arabic did not.  The qamatz was part of this "long a to o" change.  This

  > is the point where the Massoretes codified the vowels, so this is the

  > stage the vowels represent.  It appears to me, that later, probably
under

  > Arabic influence (which did not have the long a to o change), the words

  > which had Arabic parallels with a long a, were reread with the qamats

  > signifying "long a" again.  In non-Arabic speaking countries, this did
not

  > happen.  This change is one of the basic differences between "Ashkenazi"

  > pronunciation and "Sefardi" pronunciation, Sefardi signifying spain and

  > Arabic speaking countries, while Ashkanzi signifies other European

  > countries.  However, the Massoretes also used a qamats in situations

  > that originally developed from other "non long a" cases.  The Arabic did

  > not have a "long a" in those cases and so did not influence the reading
of

  > Hebrew.   Those are the situations of "qamats qatan", where the original

  > qamats sound of "ow" remained.  This is one such case.  The original

  > Semitic root behind this word is ")ukl", and this developed in Biblical

  > Hebrew, without a suffix, as ")okel".  Here, because of the suffix, the

  "o"

  > in ")okel" apparently became the "ow" of a "qamats".

   

  The difference between kamatz and kamatz katan is rather simple.

  Kamatz becomes katan in closed unaccented syllables.

  Long a shortens to short o. [Long a elongates to au - long o. Similarly,

  short a + u produces short o.]

   

  The difference between Sephardi and Ashkenazi is also clear. It relates to

  Germanized initial stress shift.

  davAr - dAvar (initial stress shift of Germanized pronunciation) - dA:var

  (elongation of open stressed vowel) - dOvar (a: - au - o) - dOv'r

  (post-tonic vowel reduced without gemination). Now, there appears a
problem

  that two similar kamatz in davar are read differently. To solve that, open

  stressed syllable is closed with iod which protects the next vowel, dOv'r
-

  dOivor. First o is long, the second is short.

   

  I discuss those transformations at the end of

  http://vadimcherny.org/hebrew/protohewbrew_single_vowel.htm

   

  Vadim Cherny

   

  _______________________________________________

  b-hebrew mailing list

  b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

  http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

   

   

  --------------------------------------------------------------------

  mail2web - Check your email from the web at

  http://mail2web.com/ .

   

   

  _______________________________________________

  b-hebrew mailing list

  b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

  http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew