Is the shuruk, kubutz and chirik, adjusted based on the syllable, in A)sephardi hebrew B)modern israeli hebrew ?

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

Is the shuruk, kubutz and chirik, adjusted based on the syllable, in A)sephardi hebrew B)modern israeli hebrew ?

Giorges has explained that in ashkenazi hebrew pronunciation, kubutz, chirik and shuruk are adjusted sounded "short" in closed unaccented syllables and otherwise, "long".

Short kubutz would be  like Book.    Long kubutz would be food.

Short shuruk would be like Book.  Long shuruk would be like food.

Short chirik would be like  Sick.  Long chirik would be like Meet.

(Cholam always long.,  Segol always eh as in bed.  Tzere always Ay as in Say.)

With ashkenazi hebrew elucidated as it is above (credit to Giorges),, my question is for 

A)Sephardi hebrew and 

B)modern israeli pronunciation 

Are there two different shuruks, two different kubutz 2 different chiriks,  in sephardi pronunciation (as with ashkenazi pronunciation)?

Ditto, same question, for modern israeli pronunciation?

[Giorgies E. Kepipesiom]

From what I have heard listening carefully to Saphardim of various varieties, no. 

Ditto, same question, for modern israeli pronunciation?

Same answer. I have not heard any difference. But what one hears is no proof of what the Academy has officially decreed. Most modern Israelis have little idea of what is officially "correct".

Please be precise as to what I have said about these short and long varieties. Both kubootz and shooruk are natively long like "boot." Same for cheeriq with or without yood: both are natively long as in "feet". But when these vowels are in closed unacccented syllables, the vowel gets cut short, so that the shooruk/kubootz becomes like 'oo' in foot, and the cheerik becomes like 'i' in "fit". These are not rules of grammar, they are facts of biology; this is how the anatomy of speech works.

GEK

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

If that's how the anatomy of speech works, analogous to rules of biology, then why is it that when I ask if there are two different shuruks e.t.c. as with ashkenazi pronunciation, you say No.

A "no" to that question, would mean that you think that while there are two different ones in ashkenazi, there are not for sephardi.

Also, as to being precise as to what you have said,  I think the sentence "Giorges has explained that in ashkenazi hebrew pronunciation, kubutz, chirik and shuruk are adjusted sounded "short" in closed unaccented syllables and otherwise, "long".  Is totally precise.. If it's not then can you state where it's not.  I can only be precise about what you've said in the past.. I can't predict the future of what you will say. You have never before used the phrase "natively long".to describe any vowel, so this is the first time you've described kubutz as natively long, and you've made the fine point in the past that kubutz is classified not as long, but as short, because it normally occurs in closed unaccented syllables. I am merely using clear and consistent and unambiguous language, by saying kubutz pronounced short, and kubutz pronounced long.  So that it's clear that i'm not talking about how it's written(e.g. some vowels like chirik can be written long or written short), or its "native value", or its classification.    One slight lapse in my language is when I asked my question after having defined things, you might object to me writing "two different kubutzes" where I wrote a question, but I wasn't defining things there I was just making my question starkly clear after having defined things, such that it was clear what I was asking,  I didn't say giorges said there are two kubutzes. 

It may be that you meant to answer Yes to the question. ? (i.e. that the vowel is shortened in sephardi and modern hebrew just like sephardi and it's natural laws of language) If so, id put it to you that in a conversation with a sephardi he thought there's just one chirik, between an ih and an ee.  Whereas I guess you'd do pronounce a chirik as short when in a closed unaccented syllable, and long otherwise..So that doesn't really jive with your natural hypothesis.. Though i'm not sure whether you meant to answer yes or no to that question, or what you meant by your yes or no.