kamatz katan

[Nachman Geker]

When a kamatz comes before a chataf-kamatz, is it katan?  Examples are tzahorayim/tzohorayim and mimachorat/mimochorat.

Simanim and the Rinat Yisrael seem to say the first.  New Koren editions seem to say the second.

Kol tuv,

Nachman A. Geker

[Aryeh Moshen]

In true Hebrew it is a Kamatz Gadol (although I am not sure why is some cases).

In Modern Israeli it is treated as a Kamatz Katan.

--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/leining.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon]

Since Rivka hasn't been posting lately, I will answer. This is a difference between modern Israeli pronunciation and traditional (sefardi) pronunciation. In sefardi pronunciation, based on medieval grammarians, a kamatz katan could only appear in a closed syllable, and so a kamatz that preceded a chataf kamatz had to be gadol. Israeli Hebrew, based on more modern grammatical approaches that take etymology into account, has kamatz katan in open syllables in some cases, including those you are asking about. (I forget off hand whether _every_ case of kamatz followed by a chataf kamatz is considered a kamatz katan.) Simanim and Rinat Yisrael (apparently) follow the traditional identifications kamatz katan, whereas Koren is following modern Israeli pronuciation. Hopefully, Rivka will correct any mistakes I may have made.

Jeremy

--

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 http://groups.google.com/group/leining.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Jeremy R. Simon, MD, PhD, FACEP
Associate Professor of Medicine at CUMC (Emergency Medicine)
Scholar-in-Residence, Center for Bioethics
Columbia University

[Nachman Geker]

We are not a sephardic congregation.  We try to use standard Israeli pronunciation, so maybe I should do like the Koren.

Thank you,

Nachman A. Geker

[Yodan]

It depends if you use what’s called “Sephardi Pronunciation” (were a Kamatz in an open syllable is always a Kamatz Gadol regardless of word etymology) or Israeli (normative) Pronunciation”, where the identity of a Kamatz depends on its etymology (i.e. what is it derived from?) and where a Kamatz followed by a Hataf-Kamatz is a Kamatz Katan, unless the Kamatz is the vowel of the Definite Article or a B.Kh.L. preposition of a definite noun, in which case it is a Kamatz Gadol.

 

The identity of the Kamatz vowels in Sephardi Pronunciation is based on the classification formulated by medieval Sephardi grammarians (such as RADAK).

 

The identity of the Kamatz vowels in Israeli (normative) Pronunciation is based on the classification formulated by modern-era grammarians (modern era started in the 16^th-17^th century!), which is based on etymological (developmental) and comparative language studies.

 

Hope this helps. Let me know if you have more questions on this topic.

 

Rivka Sherman-Gold

Author of The Ohs and Ahs of Torah Reading

A Guide to the Kamatz Katan in the Torah, Haftarot, and Megillot

 

---

--

[Art Roth]

As many posters have noted, both answers have their advocates.  I personally find qamatz qatan more logical (and lein that way in practice) for the following reason.  In many cases (probably even most cases), the vowel before a xataf-patax or a xataf-segol changes to match the xataf.

 

EXAMPLES: be'emor (segol under the bet preceding xataf-segol under the alef), la`avadekha (patax under the lamed preceding xataf-patax under ayin), and even words like yaxanu (patax under the yud even though the normal form of such words calls for a xiriq there, as in yivnu) and ya`amod (patax rather than xiriq under the yud).  There are hundreds of other examples all over Tanakh.

 

It seems to me that the same principle should logically apply to a xataf-qamatz as well, i.e., the preceding vowel should match the xataf and hence should be a qamatz qatan.  Not a conclusive proof, but logical enough to satisfy me in practice given the conflicting sources.

 

BTW, you can't learn anything by looking at the shoresh because you get conflicting answers.  Nachman's original two examples illustrate this.  The shoresh of tzohorayim is tzohar (with a xolam over the tzadi), so you might expect the qamatz under the tzadi in tzohorayim to be qatan.  Conversely, the shoresh of moxorat is maxar (with a qamatz under the mem), so you might expect the qamatz under the mem in moxorat to be gadol. 

 

Art

[Yodan]

Shalom Art,

 

The two examples you listed deal with prefixes. Yes, their vowels match the following Hataf. Hence, Ko’Oniyot in Eshet Hayil, BoHori (Ex. 11:8), BoOni (I Sam 1:11, Haftarat 1^st Day Rosh HaShana), and LoHoli (Isaiah 1:5, Haftarat Mas’ei and Haftarat Devarim). These cases are relatively rare.

 

However, when the K followed by a HK is not the vowel of a prefix (as is the case with most words with a KK), it is the other way around – the Hataf matches the Kamatz. It is a HK when the preceding K is a KK (i.e. usually a Kamatz “derived” from a Holam), as in Oholo (from Ohel), but it is a Hataf-Patah when the preceding K is a KG (i.e. evolved from an AH sound), as in the verb Ahava, which is related to Ahav.

 

As to MOHORAT: The shoresh is usually stated as Mem.Her.Reish, The word MAHAR (which is not a shoresh) is not necessarily the underlying word of MOHORAT. This is a very unusual word and several views on its derivation have been proposed by grammarians. This is not a settled issue and it cannot be used as an example for a KK followed by a HK.

 

Aside from very few exceptions such as Mohorat, every K is followed by a HK is the vowel of a consonant that has a HOLAM or a KUBUTZ or SHURUK in the underlying or ancestral word; i.e. each K followed by HK evolved form an ancestral /u/ sound.

 

Let me know your thoughts,

 

Rivka

 

---

--

[Art Roth]

Rivka, you have more expertise than I do on this issue, and I have no reason to doubt anything you've said.  But it seems to me that you're not really contradicting me.  You're arguing that if an "ah" sound precedes the xataf, it will be a xataf-patax --- so when a xataf-qamatz actually appears after a qamatz, the preceding qamatz is qatan.  Of course, your derivation is "backwards" from mine --- the vowel determines the xataf rather than the other way around --- but in terms of actual pronunciation, we both agree that the qamatz preceding a xataf-qamatz is a qamatz qatan, i.e., my intuition is right.  Am I understanding you correctly?

[Yodan]

Yes, from a practical perspective, we are in agreement.

 

I focus on the KK as the primary vowel and the HK as a “secondary” vowel that is created under the influence of the KK, except for prefixes, where it’s the other way around (as you described).

 

Because prefixes with a KK are quire rare, whereas root-letters with a KK followed by HK are much more prevalent, and because the KK of a root-letter is etymologically the same vowel whether it is followed by a HK or a Shva NaH, it is didactically better to explain the situation from the perspective of most/typical cases.

 

Thanks for the follow up!