# ארוכה



## Ali Smith

Shalom, could someone explain why the letter כ is not pronounced “kh” in ארוכה (singular feminine of “long”)? If I remember correctly, it is pronounced “kh” in the masculine singular.

Thanks!


----------



## Drink

For historical reasons. Same reason as words like רב/רבים (rav/rabbim), דף/דפים (daf/dappim), דוב/דובים (dov/dubbim). There is a whole class of adjectives similar to ארוך that often has to do with colors or sizes and includes words like צהוב/צהובים (tsahov/tsehubbim), אדום/אדומים (adom/adummim), ירוק/ירוקים (yaroq/yeruqqim), עמוק/עמוקים (amoq/amuqqim), etc.

Hope that helps. If you want to know more about the historical reasons, let me know.


----------



## rosemarino

Drink said:


> For historical reasons. Same reason as words like רב/רבים (rav/rabbim), דף/דפים (daf/dappim), דוב/דובים (dov/dubbim). There is a whole class of adjectives similar to ארוך that often has to do with colors or sizes and includes words like צהוב/צהובים (tsahov/tsehubbim), אדום/אדומים (adom/adummim), ירוק/ירוקים (yaroq/yeruqqim), עמוק/עמוקים (amoq/amuqqim), etc.
> 
> Hope that helps. If you want to know more about the historical reasons, let me know.


Does it also have to do with the dagesh rules, i.e., in ארוכה the כ begins a syllable and follows a vowel.  In ארוך it is over a shva nach?


----------



## Drink

rosemarino said:


> Does it also have to do with the dagesh rules, i.e., in ארוכה the כ begins a syllable and follows a vowel.  In ארוך it is over a shva nach?



It's not quite that. The simplest way to explain it is that here you have a dagesh chazaq as opposed to a dagesh qal. However, you can (almost) never have a dagesh chazaq at the end of a word, and so in the masculine singular form which doesn't have a suffix, the dagesh is dropped (and the vowel changes because it's stressed).


----------



## rosemarino

I understand that that's the historical explanation in linguistic terms, but would the dagesh rules I cited lead a student of modern Hebrew to the correct pronunciation in this and similar cases?


----------



## Drink

rosemarino said:


> I understand that that's the historical explanation in linguistic terms, but would the dagesh rules I cited lead a student of modern Hebrew to the correct pronunciation in this and similar cases?



You did not apply this dagesh rule correctly. That dagesh rule is for dagesh qal, which is why I emphasized that this is a dagesh chazaq.

Also, I did not give a historical explanation. A historical explanation would be a bit more involved. The explanation I gave is a general rule and the one applicable here.


----------



## rosemarino

Drink said:


> You did not apply this dagesh rule correctly. That dagesh rule is for dagesh qal, which is why I emphasized that this is a dagesh chazaq.
> 
> Also, I did not give a historical explanation. A historical explanation would be a bit more involved. The explanation I gave is a general rule and the one applicable here.


Is it possible to give an example of when the rule I cited would apply?


----------



## Drink

rosemarino said:


> Is it possible to give an example of when the rule I cited would apply?



When any of the letters בגדכפ"ת (though in Modern Hebrew only three of these are actually pronounced differently: בכ"פ) appear at the beginning of a word or immediately after a shva nach (and thus they are also at the beginning of a syllable), they take a dagesh qal; but when they are preceded by a vowel, or by shva na, (whether they are a the beginning of a syllable or not) they do not take a dagesh qal (however, it is still possible for them to have a dagesh chazaq).

Examples:
- ביקש (biqqesh), but לבקש/יבקש/מבקש (levaqqesh/yevaqqesh/mevaqqesh)
- אלף/אלפים (elef/alafim), but אלפיים (alpayim)
- לבש/לובש (lavash/lovesh), but ללבוש/ילבש (lilbosh/yilbash)

Hope this helps!


----------



## rosemarino

תודה רבה, Drink.


----------

