tzere and segol pronunciation

[shmuel.fr...@gmail.com]

I have heard three things on this. 

View 1 might say that Tzere is Ay as in Say. And Segol is Eh as is Bed. And this is the case regardless of whether the syllable is (short and unaccented), or not

View 2 might say that Tzere and Segol are   pronounced short(eh),  when in closed unaccented syllables, and long(ay) otherwise. 

View 3 it's just one sound regardless And the sound is between an Eh and an Ay.

I am wondering 

A)How common each of those views is. 

And

I can see why View 1(segol always eh, tzere always ay), would have two different vowel signs.

B)For those that hold to View 2, that they're pronounced according to the same rule - sometimes long, sometimes short, What'd your answer be to why we have two different vowels for it,  Would it be that Tzere is most commonly long and Segol most commonly short and therefore it justifies two separate vowel signs?   But then since the vowel signs came later, how would they have decided whether to put a Tzere there or a Segol there?

C)For those that hold to View 3, that they're pronounced the same. And a mix between Eh and Ay.  I know they do that in Modern Israeli pronunciation.   Perhaps Sephardi.. Why then would they have had two different vowel signs for it?

D I) Is it the case that View1 (that each can be either long or short), is ashkenazi?     

D II)And is it the case that View2  (that the pronunciation is just based on whether long or short), is ashkenazi?

D III)  I know view 3 is modern israeli pronunciation but Is it also the case that view 3, is sephardi?

[Zev Sero]

On 06/05/2016 03:33 PM, shmuel.fr...@gmail.com wrote:
> For those that hold to View 2, that they're pronounced according to
> the same rule - sometimes long, sometimes short, What'd your answer

> be to why we have two different vowels for it, [...]

> C)For those that hold to View 3, that they're pronounced the same.
> And a mix between Eh and Ay. I know they do that in Modern Israeli
> pronunciation. Perhaps Sephardi.. Why then would they have had two
> different vowel signs for it?

There's no question that in the Tiberian accent they were different sounds.
But none of us "speak" Tiberian. In some accents they are the same sound
and there is no need for two symbols.

--
Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire
z...@sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other
words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even
when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis

[Giorgies E. Kepipesiom]

On Sunday, June 5, 2016 at 3:37:00 PM UTC-4, Zev Sero wrote:

On 06/05/2016 03:33 PM, shmuel.fr...@gmail.com wrote:
> For those that hold to View 2, that they're pronounced according to
> the same rule - sometimes long, sometimes short, What'd your answer
> be to why we have two different vowels for it, [...]
> C)For those that hold to View 3, that they're pronounced the same.
> And a mix between Eh and Ay. I know they do that in Modern Israeli
> pronunciation. Perhaps Sephardi.. Why then would they have had two
> different vowel signs for it?

There's no question that in the Tiberian accent they were different sounds.
But none of us "speak" Tiberian.  In some accents they are the same sound
and there is no need for two symbols.

Sapharadim have forgotten how to say a tzeire, and say it the same as a segol. And Ashkanasim who have been duped by certain political groups have had the tzeireh sound flushed out of their system. As for the rest of us Ashkanasim, we have picked up various changes during our soujourn in European lands. Sometimes we say a tzeire like a segol (pidyon a ben instead of the correct pidyon habein; giving wife a get instead of the correct giving a geit). And sometimes we say a segol like a tzeire (paysach instead of the correct pesach; do you know why it's called paysach? because everything is expensive, and you pay asach).

GEK

[shmuel.fr...@gmail.com]

You could have responded to that question that mentions ashkenazi sephardi and modern israeli,  without bringing politics into it.   Indeed some people mix pronunciations up. 

 

It is still not clear to me which of these views do you subscribe to in your ashkenazi pronunciation?

View 1 might say that Tzere is Ay as in Say. And Segol is Eh as is Bed. And this is the case regardless of whether the syllable is (closed and unaccented), or not

View 2 might say that Tzere and Segol are   pronounced short(eh),  when in closed unaccented syllables, and long(ay) otherwise. 

 ?

[Giorgies E. Kepipesiom]

On Sunday, June 5, 2016 at 8:39:30 PM UTC-4, shmuel.fr...@gmail.com wrote:

You could have responded to that question that mentions ashkenazi sephardi and modern israeli,  without bringing politics into it.   Indeed some people mix pronunciations up. 

 

It is still not clear to me which of these views do you subscribe to in your ashkenazi pronunciation?

View 1 might say that Tzere is Ay as in Say. And Segol is Eh as is Bed. And this is the case regardless of whether the syllable is (closed and unaccented), or not

View 2 might say that Tzere and Segol are   pronounced short(eh),  when in closed unaccented syllables, and long(ay) otherwise.

What I am saying is that there is no pure pronunciation of segol/tzeire in any dialect spoken today. Sapharadim (real ones, not fake ones) have for the most part lost the distinction, as they have lost the distinctions between the other pairs of long/short vowels that were once prominent features of Sapharadic linguistic tradition. And some Ashkanasim have deliberately copied this for reasons having to do with politics, not tradition.

As for genuine asdhkanasic pronunciation, it has become a mixture. For the most part segol is like 'e' in bed, and tzeire is like 'a' in cave. But ofttime a segol will be read like a tzeire, or a tzeire like a segol. No consitency.

Interestingly, the segol pronounced like tzeire is not merely a mispronounced segol. It has in fact been changed into an actual tzeire. Those who pronounce tzeire like 'ie' in 'pie' (Polish, Galician, Hungarian, etc) will say the mispronounced segols that way. Peyesach; Doovid haMeyelach, etc. I don't know how or why this phenomenon came about, but I have an hypothesis which I am not readty to go public with, pending further evidence.

GEK

[Zev Sero]

On 06/05/2016 08:39 PM, shmuel.fr...@gmail.com wrote:
> It is still not clear to me which of these views do you subscribe to
> in your ashkenazi pronunciation?
>
> View 1 might say that Tzere is Ay as in Say. And Segol is Eh as is
> Bed. And this is the case regardless of whether the syllable is
> (closed and unaccented), or not

There is no question that in Ashkenazish tzeireh and segol are always
distinct sounds, regardless of what kind of syllable they're in. Most
Ashkenazim pronounce tzeireh the way Americans pronounce "say" and segol
as in "bed", but some pronounce segol like "say" and tzeireh like "high".

Whether these are the same sounds the Tiberians made for these two signs
I have no idea.

[Zev Sero]

On 06/05/2016 10:42 PM, Giorgies E. Kepipesiom wrote:
> Sapharadim (real ones, not fake ones) have for the most part lost the
> distinction, as they have lost the distinctions between the other
> pairs of long/short vowels that were once prominent features of
> Sapharadic linguistic tradition.

Were they *ever* part of that tradition? AIUI they were not, and the
difference between a long and short vowel was purely grammatic.

[Mark Symons]

IMHO Ashkenazim think that Sefaradim don't distinguish between between the 2. But I believe it's because they don't know what to listen for, and aren't attuned to picking up the difference in Hebrew. I believe that it's very similar to the difference in English between FERRY and FAIRY, which we do notice quite clearly

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leining" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leining+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lei...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/leining.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon]

Sefardim never had a qualitative distinction between tzeireh and segol (though tzeireh followed by yod is probably a diphthong even for them). What they may have had is a distinction in length, though I am not sure about that.

Jeremy

--

Jeremy R. Simon, MD, PhD, FACEP
Associate Professor of Medicine at CUMC (Emergency Medicine)
Columbia University

[Shmuel Rabin]

There is no grammatical basis for differentiating between tzere with yud and without, as every tzere is considered to have a hidden yud, so a written one makes no difference. As far as I know such a differentiation has never existed until recently, and probably came about due to a lack of knowledge.

Shmuel Rabin

[Zev Sero]

On 06/06/2016 08:13 AM, 'Shmuel Rabin' via leining wrote:
> On Monday, 6 June 2016, 8:07, Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon <jeremy...@nyu.edu> wrote:

>> Sefardim never had a qualitative distinction between tzeireh and
>> segol (though tzeireh followed by yod is probably a diphthong even
>> for them).

> There is no grammatical basis for differentiating between tzere with
> yud and without, as every tzere is considered to have a hidden yud,

Says who? If one pronounces it exactly the same as segol, where's the
yud? And what's the justification for *not* pronouncing the yud that
is actually there after it?

[Shmuel Rabin]

Say all sifrei dikduk that conform to the tenuah gedolah-ketanah system. Every tenuah gedolah has a hidden letter, which is sometimes written and sometimes not. It's no different than cholam malei vs. cholam chaser.

If tzere with yud were to be pronounced differently, the yud would no longer be "hidden", and BGDKP"T ought to always have a dagesh kal following it - "b'nei vinyamin" ought to be "b'nei binyamin."

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leining" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leining+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon]

So you think Sefardim pronounce the word for "sons of" the same as if it were spelled with a segol and heh rather than a tzeirei and yod?

Jeremy

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leining+u...@googlegroups.com.

[Shmuel Rabin]

As far as I know, yes. There may be some subtle difference between tzere and segol in general, but whether yud is written is not a factor.

[shmuel.fr...@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 1:13:57 PM UTC+1, Speretz wrote:

There is no grammatical basis for differentiating between tzere with yud and without, as every tzere is considered to have a hidden yud, so a written one makes no difference. As far as I know such a differentiation has never existed until recently, and probably came about due to a lack of knowledge.

Shmuel Rabin

And do you mean likwise with segol, always "Eh". never Ay. Even if it's in an open syllable segol is Eh.

[Shmuel Rabin]

Yes, there is no dispute regarding that.

I have never heard of changing values of tzere-segol based on syllables. Could you elaborate?

[Meir]

     Not only is there no difference in the pronunciation of segol between an open and a closed syllable; there is also, apparently, no difference even if there is a yod following the segol.  Does anyone pronounce the segolim in "tz'ena ur'ena" any differently than any other segol?  

Meir

---

From: lei...@googlegroups.com <lei...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of shmuel.fr...@gmail.com <shmuel.fr...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 11:24 AM
To: leining
Cc: baal...@yahoo.co.uk
Subject: Re: [leining] tzere and segol pronunciation

 

--

[Giorgies E. Kepipesiom]

On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 12:15:06 PM UTC-4, meir b. wrote:

> Not only is there no difference in the pronunciation of segol between an open and

> a closed syllable; there is also, apparently, no difference even if there is a yod

> following the segol.  Does anyone pronounce the segolim in "tz'ena ur'ena" any

> differently than any other segol?

I have always wondered about this. When an yood with no vowel or schvo follows a vowel it usually changes the pronunciation of that vowel. Such yood following komatz changes the komatz to 'oy' as in Adonoy, Soroy or loylo. Following patoch it changes the patoch to 'ay', as in laylo, eilay, Soray. After shooruk it changes the shooruk to 'ooy' as in heosooy, v'tzipooy, kolooy etc. Why then after segol does such yood not change the pronunciation of the segol (chyecho not chayeycho; apecho not apeycho; v'sechezeno not v'sechezeyno).

GEK

[Art Roth]

Giorgies wrote:
I have always wondered about this. When an yood with no vowel or schvo follows a vowel it usually changes the pronunciation of that vowel. Such yood following komatz changes the komatz to 'oy' as in Adonoy, Soroy or loylo. Following patoch it changes the patoch to 'ay', as in laylo, eilay, Soray. After shooruk it changes the shooruk to 'ooy' as in heosooy, v'tzipooy, kolooy etc. Why then after segol does such yood not change the pronunciation of the segol (chyecho not chayeycho; apecho not apeycho; v'sechezeno not v'sechezeyno).

       IMHO, a "bare" (no niqud) yud after a qamatz, patax, or shuruq does NOT change the pronunciation of the vowel --- these vowels are pronounced as always, followed by a "y" sound for the yud (which is just an ordinary consonant in such cases).  To take some of GEK's examples, saray = sara + "y", tzipuy = tzipu + "y", the first syllable of layla is la + "y", and similarly for all the rest of GEK's examples cited above for qamatz, patax, and shuruq.  

      SYSTEMATIC EXCEPTION: The suffix yud-vav, as in torotav and eilav, has a silent yud that is neither a consonant nor a vowel.  This is an exception both to my claim that such yuds are consonants and to GEK's claim that such a yud changes the pronunciation of the preceding qamatz. I'm pretty sure that everybody pronounces these words as if the yud were not there at all --- or to put it another way, the yud does not alter the pronunciation of the qamatz.  I'm not particularly troubled that there's a systematic construct containing a silent letter that all Hebrew speakers know to ignore.  It's conceptually no different from the fact that English speakers know to ignore the g when pronouncing words that begin with gn (such as gnome and gnarl) and the k when pronouncing words that begin with kn (such as know and knight). Such systematic constructs that constitute exceptions to the usual rules are found in virtually every language. 

     On the other hand, following a tzeire or xiriq, a "bare" yud is part of the vowel itself --- not a consonant.  I think that I can prove these assertions by looking at the behavior of BGDKFT letters that follow yuds after   qamatz/patax/shuruq as opposed to yuds after tzeire/xiriuq. I'll provide one example on each side of the coin.

     1. Vatomer eilay tavo (B"reishit 30:16) --- the tav in tavo has a dageish because the preceding yud is a consonant (not a vowel).

     2. As pointed out earlier in this thread, it's b"nei vinyamin (not b"nei binyamin).  This shows that the yud in this situation is part of the vowel.

Note that regardless whether the yud is a consonant or part of the vowel, the pronunciation of the vowel remains unaltered by the yud.  The segol and tzeire are pronounced the same regardless whether or not there's a yud that's part of the vowel.  The qamatz, patax, and shuruq are also inherently unaltered by an ensuing yud --- the yud is simply a consonant that behaves no differently from any other consonant that might immediately follow such vowels. 

     Now I'm able to address Giorgies' question about a "bare" yud following a segol.  Off the top of my head, the only words I can think of with a segol followed by a "bare" yud involve either the suffix segol-yud-khaf-qamatz (as in eilekha or mizvotekha) or the suffix segol-yud-nun-qamatz (sometimes with a silent hei after the final qamatz).  This latter suffix can occur in either atid (as in v"texezena) or tzivuy (as in tz"ena ur"ena).  These three words all have a final hei --- an example without a final hei is vatishtaxavena (B"reishit 33:6 and 37:7).  [NOTE: I have little doubt that people will jump all over me with examples that don't involve one of these suffixes --- in which case, we'll have to analyze those examples to see where they fit in.]  Since the segol-yud never comes at the end of such suffixes, there are no relevant examples of BGDKFT letters following segol-yud to help provide any insights.  But my own (unsubstantiated and unproven) hypothesis is simply that the suffixes segol-yud-khaf-qamatz and segol-yud-nun-qamatz(-hei) are in the same category as the suffix yud-vav discussed above.  They are nothing more than systematic constructs of the Hebrew language which contain a silent yud that all Hebrew speakers know to skip when pronouncing such words verbally.  This would certainly explain why a yud after a segol is treated differently in pronunciation than a yud after a patax or a shuruq --- but is this really any different from the yud after the qamatz in the suffix yud-vav?

Xodesh Tov,

Art

[AMK Judaica]

I have nothing of substance to add to what has already been said. but in the context of this whole discussion I chuckled this morning when my daughter stopped in the middle of aleinu to ask me why the same word appears twice in succession (אל אל)


****************
Ari Kinsberg
Brooklyn, New York

[Giorgies E. Kepipesiom]

On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 1:31:16 AM UTC-4, Art Roth wrote:

       IMHO, a "bare" (no niqud) yud after a qamatz, patax, or shuruq does NOT change the pronunciation of the vowel --- these vowels are pronounced as always, followed by a "y" sound for the yud (which is just an ordinary consonant in such cases).  To take some of GEK's examples, saray = sara + "y", tzipuy = tzipu + "y", the first syllable of layla is la + "y", and similarly for all the rest of GEK's examples cited above for qamatz, patax, and shuruq.  

      SYSTEMATIC EXCEPTION: The suffix yud-vav, as in torotav and eilav, has a silent yud that is neither a consonant nor a vowel.  This is an exception both to my claim that such yuds are consonants and to GEK's claim that such a yud changes the pronunciation of the preceding qamatz. I'm pretty sure that everybody pronounces these words as if the yud were not there at all --- or to put it another way, the yud does not alter the pronunciation of the qamatz.  I'm not particularly troubled that there's a systematic construct containing a silent letter that all Hebrew speakers know to ignore.  It's conceptually no different from the fact that English speakers know to ignore the g when pronouncing words that begin with gn (such as gnome and gnarl) and the k when pronouncing words that begin with kn (such as know and knight). Such systematic constructs that constitute exceptions to the usual rules are found in virtually every language. 

     On the other hand, following a tzeire or xiriq, a "bare" yud is part of the vowel itself --- not a consonant.  I think that I can prove these assertions by looking at the behavior of BGDKFT letters that follow yuds after   qamatz/patax/shuruq as opposed to yuds after tzeire/xiriuq. I'll provide one example on each side of the coin.

     1. Vatomer eilay tavo (B"reishit 30:16) --- the tav in tavo has a dageish because the preceding yud is a consonant (not a vowel).

     2. As pointed out earlier in this thread, it's b"nei vinyamin (not b"nei binyamin).  This shows that the yud in this situation is part of the vowel.

Note that regardless whether the yud is a consonant or part of the vowel, the pronunciation of the vowel remains unaltered by the yud.  The segol and tzeire are pronounced the same regardless whether or not there's a yud that's part of the vowel.  The qamatz, patax, and shuruq are also inherently unaltered by an ensuing yud --- the yud is simply a consonant that behaves no differently from any other consonant that might immediately follow such vowels. 

     Now I'm able to address Giorgies' question about a "bare" yud following a segol.  Off the top of my head, the only words I can think of with a segol followed by a "bare" yud involve either the suffix segol-yud-khaf-qamatz (as in eilekha or mizvotekha) or the suffix segol-yud-nun-qamatz (sometimes with a silent hei after the final qamatz).  This latter suffix can occur in either atid (as in v"texezena) or tzivuy (as in tz"ena ur"ena).  These three words all have a final hei --- an example without a final hei is vatishtaxavena (B"reishit 33:6 and 37:7).  [NOTE: I have little doubt that people will jump all over me with examples that don't involve one of these suffixes --- in which case, we'll have to analyze those examples to see where they fit in.]  Since the segol-yud never comes at the end of such suffixes, there are no relevant examples of BGDKFT letters following segol-yud to help provide any insights.  But my own (unsubstantiated and unproven) hypothesis is simply that the suffixes segol-yud-khaf-qamatz and segol-yud-nun-qamatz(-hei) are in the same category as the suffix yud-vav discussed above.  They are nothing more than systematic constructs of the Hebrew language which contain a silent yud that all Hebrew speakers know to skip when pronouncing such words verbally.  This would certainly explain why a yud after a segol is treated differently in pronunciation than a yud after a patax or a shuruq --- but is this really any different from the yud after the qamatz in the suffix yud-vav?

You have convinced me. I would add the following: these yoods that seem to alter the pronunciation of the previous vowel appear as the final letter of the word. They are not really bare yoods; there is an implied schvo noch under these yoods. Whenever the final letter of a word is a pronounced consonant, there is an implied schvo that is not actually wriiten (occasionally it is written, such as with a final choff, final koff, final tov, final dotted doled,, or when there are two successive schvo's at the end). So eilay, eiloy, Soray, Soroy etc have a regular komatz or patoch, followed by a pronounced (implied schvo) yood. Laylo and loylo have actual schvo's under the yood, as do vaychi and hoyso. Similarly words ending is shooruk followed by yood, such as koluy, there is an implied schvo. Eilov, like v'sechezeno, has no shvo under the yood, neither explicit nor implied.

Thank you for setting me straight on something I have long wondered about, having been on the wrong track all along.

GEK

whiching good chodesh and kabbolas haTorah to all.

[Meir]

     Other appearances of segol-"bare" yod, in addition to chaf-kamatz and nun-kamatz, are (a) hei-kamatz (e.g., "baneha") and (b) alef ("kol geh yinasei," in Yeshayahu 40:4).

Meir  

---

From: lei...@googlegroups.com <lei...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Art Roth <artj...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 1:31 AM
To: leining

Subject: Re: [leining] tzere and segol pronunciation

--

[Avram Herzog]

Hi Gershon,

While I too think you're wondering about a tzeirei malei and chaseir (and segol too) not being pronounced differently makes sense, I'm not convinced that the segol would change to "ey" as you have it (I spell it "ei"), because then a segol followed by yud would be pronounced the same as a tzeirei. 

Also, we don't hear of segol malei and chaser or tzeirei malei and chaser.  Perhaps that alone indicates that there's no difference in pronunciation, or perhaps the reason we don't have such designations is that the difference in pronunciation was lost.  Who knows?

Avi H

 

 

 

On 06/06/16, Giorgies E. Kepipesiom<kepip...@hotmail.com> wrote:

 

On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 12:15:06 PM UTC-4, meir b. wrote:

> Not only is there no difference in the pronunciation of segol between an open and

> a closed syllable; there is also, apparently, no difference even if there is a yod

> following the segol.  Does anyone pronounce the segolim in "tz'ena ur'ena" any

> differently than any other segol?

I have always wondered about this. When an yood with no vowel or schvo follows a vowel it usually changes the pronunciation of that vowel. Such yood following komatz changes the komatz to 'oy' as in Adonoy, Soroy or loylo. Following patoch it changes the patoch to 'ay', as in laylo, eilay, Soray. After shooruk it changes the shooruk to 'ooy' as in heosooy, v'tzipooy, kolooy etc. Why then after segol does such yood not change the pronunciation of the segol (chyecho not chayeycho; apecho not apeycho; v'sechezeno not v'sechezeyno).

GEK

[Zev Sero]

On 06/07/2016 08:45 AM, AMK Judaica wrote:
> I have nothing of substance to add to what has already been said. but
> in the context of this whole discussion I chuckled this morning when
> my daughter stopped in the middle of aleinu to ask me why the same
> word appears twice in succession (אל אל)

Where in Alenu does that combination occur?

--
Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire

z...@sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other

[Giorgies E. Kepipesiom]

On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 1:15:53 PM UTC-4, Zev Sero wrote:

On 06/07/2016 08:45 AM, AMK Judaica wrote:
> I have nothing of substance to add to what has already been said. but
> in the context of this whole discussion I chuckled this morning when
> my daughter stopped in the middle of aleinu to ask me why the same
> word appears twice in succession (אל אל)

Where in Alenu does that combination occur?

Umishtachavim el Eil lo yoshi'a. This phrase is not found in most nosach Ashkanaz siddhurim, nor in the Habad version of nosach hoAriZ"L.

GEK

[Avram Herzog]

Art,

This is very well thought out.  But I have one question.  Yud, as a consonant, is genrally pronounced like the letter "y": Y'rushalayim, yeish, vayomer, etc.  In the cases of shuruk-yud and cholam-yud, kamatz-yud, and patach-yud, you're assuming that the yud is consonantal, even though it's not pronounced like "y"; it's not pronounced like it normally is.  To the contrary, it would have a long "e" sound as in sheep, beep, etc.  IOW, absent the vowel before the yud (shuruk/cholam/kamatz/patach), you're left with "ee".  But this is not how a yud is pronounced.

So Art, I hear your argument, and it sounds solid and accurate, except for this one detail which leads me to think that maybe your theory may not hold up after all.  Alternatively, can you provide insight re. my comments?  I truly want to be convinced that you're correct.

KT,

Avi H

 

 

 

On 06/07/16, Art Roth<artj...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

Giorgies wrote:
I have always wondered about this. When an yood with no vowel or schvo follows a vowel it usually changes the pronunciation of that vowel. Such yood following komatz changes the komatz to 'oy' as in Adonoy, Soroy or loylo. Following patoch it changes the patoch to 'ay', as in laylo, eilay, Soray. After shooruk it changes the shooruk to 'ooy' as in heosooy, v'tzipooy, kolooy etc. Why then after segol does such yood not change the pronunciation of the segol (chyecho not chayeycho; apecho not apeycho; v'sechezeno not v'sechezeyno).

       IMHO, a "bare" (no niqud) yud after a qamatz, patax, or shuruq does NOT change the pronunciation of the vowel --- these vowels are pronounced as always, followed by a "y" sound for the yud (which is just an ordinary consonant in such cases).  To take some of GEK's examples, saray = sara + "y", tzipuy = tzipu + "y", the first syllable of layla is la + "y", and similarly for all the rest of GEK's examples cited above for qamatz, patax, and shuruq.  

      SYSTEMATIC EXCEPTION: The suffix yud-vav, as in torotav and eilav, has a silent yud that is neither a consonant nor a vowel.  This is an exception both to my claim that such yuds are consonants and to GEK's claim that such a yud changes the pronunciation of the preceding qamatz. I'm pretty sure that everybody pronounces these words as if the yud were not there at all --- or to put it another way, the yud does not alter the pronunciation of the qamatz.  I'm not particularly troubled that there's a systematic construct containing a silent letter that all Hebrew speakers know to ignore.  It's conceptually no different from the fact that English speakers know to ignore the g when pronouncing words that begin with gn (such as gnome and gnarl) and the k when pronouncing words that begin with kn (such as know and knight). Such systematic constructs that constitute exceptions to the usual rules are found in virtually every language. 

     On the other hand, following a tzeire or xiriq, a "bare" yud is part of the vowel itself --- not a consonant.  I think that I can prove these assertions by looking at the behavior of BGDKFT letters that follow yuds after   qamatz/patax/shuruq as opposed to yuds after tzeire/xiriuq. I'll provide one example on each side of the coin.

     1. Vatomer eilay tavo (B"reishit 30:16) --- the tav in tavo has a dageish because the preceding yud is a consonant (not a vowel).

     2. As pointed out earlier in this thread, it's b"nei vinyamin (not b"nei binyamin).  This shows that the yud in this situation is part of the vowel.

Note that regardless whether the yud is a consonant or part of the vowel, the pronunciation of the vowel remains unaltered by the yud.  The segol and tzeire are pronounced the same regardless whether or not there's a yud that's part of the vowel.  The qamatz, patax, and shuruq are also inherently unaltered by an ensuing yud --- the yud is simply a consonant that behaves no differently from any other consonant that might immediately follow such vowels. 

     Now I'm able to address Giorgies' question about a "bare" yud following a segol.  Off the top of my head, the only words I can think of with a segol followed by a "bare" yud involve either the suffix segol-yud-khaf-qamatz (as in eilekha or mizvotekha) or the suffix segol-yud-nun-qamatz (sometimes with a silent hei after the final qamatz).  This latter suffix can occur in either atid (as in v"texezena) or tzivuy (as in tz"ena ur"ena).  These three words all have a final hei --- an example without a final hei is vatishtaxavena (B"reishit 33:6 and 37:7).  [NOTE: I have little doubt that people will jump all over me with examples that don't involve one of these suffixes --- in which case, we'll have to analyze those examples to see where they fit in.]  Since the segol-yud never comes at the end of such suffixes, there are no relevant examples of BGDKFT letters following segol-yud to help provide any insights.  But my own (unsubstantiated and unproven) hypothesis is simply that the suffixes segol-yud-khaf-qamatz and segol-yud-nun-qamatz(-hei) are in the same category as the suffix yud-vav discussed above.  They are nothing more than systematic constructs of the Hebrew language which contain a silent yud that all Hebrew speakers know to skip when pronouncing such words verbally.  This would certainly explain why a yud after a segol is treated differently in pronunciation than a yud after a patax or a shuruq --- but is this really any different from the yud after the qamatz in the suffix yud-vav?

Xodesh Tov,

Art

--

[jecg...@aol.com]

In the previously censored sentence

ומתפללים אל אל לא יושיע..

-----Original Message-----
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
To: leining <lei...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tue, Jun 7, 2016 8:15 pm
Subject: Re: [leining] tzere and segol pronunciation

[Mark Symons]

Ari, your comment touches on the issue that never ceases to amaze me of how so many people (who don't participate in groups such as this) can daven fluently for years without understanding or even being motivated to try to understand what they're saying. I would find this very difficult to do. 

The abundance of translated siddurim doesn't seem to have helped. My impression is that people who use translated siddurim don't look at the translation much. It may not be feasible to do this during davening; it would really require considerable time and effort to study the translation and matching it to the Hebrew. Maybe it's different for the few who use the linear translations.

I think I understand most the tefilla, but this has been facilitated by having a good grounding in Hebrew, so that it hasn't taken too much trouble to look up the words that I didn't know. 

Mark

--

[Art Roth]

Meir wrote:
Other appearances of segol-"bare" yod, in addition to chaf-kamatz and nun-kamatz, are (a) hei-kamatz (e.g., "baneha") and (b) alef ("kol geh yinasei," in Yeshayahu 40:4).

Thanks for the additions to my posting.  

The hei-qamatz case obviously behaves in exactly the same way as the khaf-qamatz and nun-qamatz cases.  It's important to note for the sake of completeness, and I'm glad you posted it, but it presents no difficulties for my underlying explanation.

I was not previously aware of the alef case(s).  Is Y"shayahu 40:4 a unique example, or are there others in the same category?  Are you sure it's pronounced geh rather than gey, i.e., that the yud is a silent component of segol-yud rather than a consonant?  (I'm not in any way challenging, just asking --- I've never seen this word before and know nothing about it.)  The geh pronunciation (which you've used) would obviously be more parsimonious with my original hypothesis, but the gey pronunciation would not be a very disturbing exception as a one-of-a-kind phenomenon that's not found anywhere else.  On the other hand, if there's a whole class of such words, more attention would have to be paid to this category of words.  BTW, if there are other examples of words with this ending, perhaps there's a word with this ending somewhere in Tanakh that has a connective trope and is followed by a BGTKFT letter.  In that case, we would have a conclusive answer as to whether the yud in such situations is actually a consonant.

Art

  

[Art Roth]

Avi wrote:
Yud, as a consonant, is generally pronounced like the letter "y": Y'rushalayim, yeish, vayomer, etc.  In the cases of shuruk-yud and cholam-yud, kamatz-yud, and patach-yud, you're assuming that the yud is consonantal, even though it's not pronounced like "y"; it's not pronounced like it normally is.  To the contrary, it would have a long "e" sound as in sheep, beep, etc.  IOW, absent the vowel before the yud (shuruk/cholam/kamatz/patach), you're left with "ee".  But this is not how a yud is pronounced.

In the cases of patax-yud and qamatz-yud, I don't understand the assertion that it's typically pronounced like "ee" rather than "y".  We say Saray (not Sara-ee) --- exactly as it would sound if you tack on a "y" to the name Sara.

In the case of the shuruq, I agree that for most of us, it sounds more like "ee" than "y".  For instance, most of us say tzivu-ee and ripu-ee.  But I believe that this is merely a device that we employ for ease of pronunciation.  It's possible (but very difficult) to say tzivu-"y", where the "y" sounds the same as in yeish or vayomer --- but IMO, this is probably the most correct pronunciation.  I think that most of us substitute tzivu-ee simply because tzivu-"y" is just too difficult to pronounce and perhaps not worth making the effort to do so.  

Here's another example of the same phenomenon.  When there's a sh"va before a silent letter (alef or, for most of us, ayin), it's a lot easier to pronounce the sh"va as a xiriq.  I try to avoid doing this, but don't always succeed --- and many people don't even make the effort.  For example, I will sometimes unintentionally (even during leining) pronounce v"amarta and v"asita as vee-amarta and vee-asita, respectively.  That doesn't make it right --- but it's a natural tendency for the sake of convenience.  Now tzivu-"y" is even more difficult to pronounce than v"asita --- so qal vaxomer, a more easily pronounced substitute is even more prevalent for tzivu-"y" than for v"asita.

The xolam is even more of an extreme case.  I disagree with your assertion that the yud is typically pronounced like "ee" in this case.  Nobody pronounces gimel-vav-yud as go-ee.  But it's also not true that the "y" sound is simply tacked on to a normal xolam.  I believe that this is literally impossible to do --- unlike tzivu-"y", it can't be accomplished even with great effort.  Try saying go-"y" without changing the "y" to "ee" --- I know that I can't.  So most of us simply say "goy" --- with a real "y" sound but a shortened xolam that sounds more like the English "aw" than the English long-o sound which is usually used for a xolam.  Ironically, we have now come up with a case where GEK's originally assertion is true for all practical purposes, i.e., the presence of the yud actually changes the pronunciation of the vowel.  But this is only in practice out of convenience.  From a purely theoretical perspective, I believe that the "correct" pronunciation is the impossible-to-pronounce combination of the usual xolam followed by the usual "y" sound.

Art        

[Giorgies E. Kepipesiom]

As far as I am aware, "ge" is unique in this regard. It ends with two successive silent letters. I don't know of any other word that does so. Yes, it is ge (no "h" sound at the end). The yood is silent, does not add a "y" sound to the segol.

GEK 

[Giorgies E. Kepipesiom]

On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 12:49:54 AM UTC-4, Art Roth wrote:

I don't understand what you are saying. I personally have no difficulty at all adding a "y" sound to a shooruk or cholam. No difficulty at all saying tzivooy without resorting to tzivooee, nor saying goy without resorting to goee. What is the problem you seem to have?

GEK

whishing tasty cheesecake kiddush for all