# כל - kol and not kal



## hilbert

shalom

Can somebody explain why the word "kol" "every" is vocalized with qamaz gadol which normally gives the vocal "a" but here it is pronounced "o". Is there a regular it is unambigous? There are other examples of this phenomenon? 
toda raba
http://dict.tu-chemnitz.de/english-german/unambiguous.html


----------



## origumi

כל is vocalized with either kamatz katan or kholam khaser. The Biblical pronounciation is not fully consistent (as far as I can tell), see for example יְבָרֶכְךָ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּ*כָ*ל מַעֲשֶׂךָ וּבְ*כֹ*ל מִשְׁלַח יָדֶךָ (Deuteronomy 15:10).

According to the Akademia (sorry, I do not have an authoritative reference in front of me, only a hint here: http://hebrew-academy.huji.ac.il/decision4.html), in modern Hebrew (and statistically also in Biblical), כל gets kamatz katan when serving as the first part of construct state (סמיכות), for example כָל מַעֲשֶׂךָ. Otherwise it gets kholam khaser as in הַכֹּל כַּאֲשֶׁר לַכֹּל. Accordingly, in כתיב חסר (no nikkud) the former is spelled כל, the latter כול.


----------



## berndf

origumi said:


> Accordingly, in כתיב חסר (no nikkud) the former is spelled כל, the latter כול.


Is there any audible difference in modern Hebrew between the versions with kamatz katan and kholam khaser? I guess not.


----------



## origumi

origumi said:


> כתיב מלא (no nikkud)


 


berndf said:


> Is there any audible difference in modern Hebrew between the versions with kamatz katan and kholam khaser? I guess not.


All "o" sounds (kholam khaser, kholam male, kamatz katan, khataf kamatz katan) are identical in modern Hebrew.


----------



## roltan

Kamatz Gadol and Kamatz Katan both look the same.

The way you know whether it's AH or OH, is with a rule.
That a kamatz is a closed unaccented syllable, is a kamatz katan.

the tikkun minchas shai tikkun simanim has them all marked for the 5 books. as do some siddurim for the prayers.

Last word in Gen 2:15    uh luh shom ra. 
shom not sham

Gen 4:8  Va Ya KOM
kom not kam


Below are cases of kamatz in a closed unaccented syllable.

consonant kamatz consonant shwa

no accent with the kamatz, not a primary accent, and not a secondary accent so no meteg with the kamatz.
shwa is just a mark to say no vowel (though it can be vocal or silent, and when no meteg indicating accent, making the kamatz long, so, after a short vowel, then it's silent and part of teh syllable.   If there was a meteg then it'd be an accent, so the kamatz would be long). 

accent/stress, same thing.
nothing to do with pronunciation. In englihs we talk about different accents meaning pronunciations. In english terminology used with hebrew.. (and perhaps in linguistics i'm not sure).. But, accent just means stress.


anyway, besides that case

consonant kamatz consonant shwa

there's 



consonant kamatz consonant 

just end of a word. so nothing under the consonant. 


just a closed unaccented syllable.
Letter Vowel Consonant.

(if it was letter vowel consonant vowel, then you'd have 2 syllables. we're juts talking about one syllable)

Consonant could be one of the vowel letters if it's behaving as a consonant rather than a vowel.  Vowel letters are HEH,VAV YUD.(maybe aleph i'm not sure.. i think aleph prob is).  And if they don't have a vowel under them then they are vowel letters. If they do, have a vowel under them, then they're consonants followed by vowels and part of a new syllable.
HEH-KAMATZ
YUD-SHWA   (SHWA is not a vowel)
TAV
HEH

HEH-KAMATZ then YUD. 
if that's a vocal shwa, then  it's HA YUHTA. 
If it's a silent shwa then it's  HAY TA.

In HAY TA,    HAY is an open syllable, because it's  CONSONANT VOWEL.
kamatz Yud is considered one vowel. Or, perhaps to look at it another way.
 letter vowel , vowel letter acting as vowel.    It's not closed. Closed is Letter vowel letter. or to put it another way.. consonant vowel consonant..   dunno if consonant and letter mean the same thing.


----------



## de boer

origumi said:


> כל is vocalized with either kamatz katan or  kholam khaser. The Biblical pronounciation is not fully consistent (as  far as I can tell), see for example יְבָרֶכְךָ יְהוָה  אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּ*כָ*ל מַעֲשֶׂךָ וּבְ*כֹ*ל מִשְׁלַח יָדֶךָ (Deuteronomy 15:10).


Which text (codex?) is this? 

The _Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia_ reads:[FONT=SBL Hebrew; Times New Roman; Arial; David]בְּכָֽל־מַעֲשֶׂ֔ךָ וּבְכֹ֖ל  מִשְׁלַ֥ח יָדֶֽךָ׃[/FONT]
http://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/nc/...text/bibelstelle/Dt 15,10/anzeige/context/#iv​So the first _"kol"_ has a _maqaf_ and the second  has none, which means unlike the former it's not an enclitic. I guess  this is because the last word in the _construct chain_ is a pausal  form. You can compare it with the use of "את", which is written with _segol_ when it's enclitical and otherwise with _tsere_ without vowel reduction.


----------



## origumi

de boer said:


> Which text (codex?) is this?


It's the Mechon Mamre text at http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/t/t0.htm. You are correct - there's a makaf that I seem to have omitted by mistake.


----------



## jdotjdot89

To avoid further קמץ קטן\קמץ גדול confusion, you may want to take a look at the תיקון סימנים, which is one printing that I know of that prints the two vowels with slightly different symbols for clarity.


----------



## de boer

jdotjdot89 said:


> To avoid further קמץ קטן\קמץ גדול confusion, you may want to take a look at the תיקון סימנים, which is one printing that I know of that prints the two vowels with slightly different symbols for clarity.


Actually things are more complex. Regarding vowel qualitiy Tiberian Hebrew didn't distinguish between _qamats gadol_ and _qamats qatan_: they were both pronounced [ɔ];[1] regarding vowel length there is room for speculation. So, where does this differentiation stem from? Joüon & Muraoka suppose its origin in the Babylonian tradition.[2]

The rules for _qamats gadol_ and _qamats qatan_ are, however, fairly simple. The basic idea is that a _qamats_ in a closed unaccented syllable is a qamats qatan and otherwise a qamats gadol. This coincides mostly with the etymological origin of the vowel _qamats_ which is threefold: (1) from original short _u_ (<_*u_); (2) from original short _a_ (<_*a_); (3) (rarely) from original long _a_ (<_*ā_).
So it’s at least easy to see that e.g., _ḥåḵmā_ ‘wisdom’, _ʾåḵlā_ ‘food’, _wayyā́qåm_ ‘he arose’ are historically derived from respectively *_ḥukma_, _*ʾukla_, _*wayyáqum_ (with _ā_=_qamats gadol_ and _å_=_qamats qatan_). Similarly _kōl_ derives from _*kull_ and therefore it is _kōl_ in absolute state, _kål_ in construct state, and with restored _u_ before gemination e.g., _kullō_.
Further there are some minor differences in pronouncing _qamats gadol_ and _qamats qatan_ in different reading traditions, so it depends ultimately which one you choose. But if one ignores the distinction between both and says /wajˈjɔːkˤɔm/ for _wayyā́qåm_, then it is certainly closer to Tiberian Hebrew than the nowadays prevailing pronunciation /vaˈjakom/.

For Modern Hebrew the situation is slightly different anyway since its phonology and syllable structure is radically different from Tiberian Hebrew. One could even argue that from a linguistic point of view both are different languages.[3]



de boer said:


> So the first _"kol"_ has a _maqaf_ and the second has none, which means unlike the former it's not an enclitic. I guess this is because the last word in the _construct chain_ is a pausal form. You can compare it with the use of "את", which is written with _segol_ when it's enclitical and otherwise with _tsere_ without vowel reduction.


An additional note: I meant _proclitic_ and _proclitical_ instead of _enclitic_ and _enclitical_. 


[1] Paul Joüon and Takamitsu Muraoka, _A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew_ (Rome: Pontificio Instuto Biblico, 2006), §6. j;  or a slightly different discussion in: Rudolf Meyer, _Hebräische Grammatik_ (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992),  §11 a.

[2] Joüon and Muraoka, §6. g footnote 4.

[3] Ghil‘ad Zuckermann, “New Vision for Israeli Hebrew: Theoretical and Practical Implications of Analyzing Israel’s Main Language as a Semi-Engineered Semito-European hybrid language.” _Journal of Modern Jewish Studies_ 5, No. 1 (2006), 57–71.


----------



## HansChaim

There must be a difference in ARAMAEIC. It is not the same as HEBREW. But all of you don't mention this. I  want to now  what the oppinion of a scholar is,  who knows Arameic (DANIEL, EZRA, TARGUMIM)


----------



## jdotjdot89

HansChaim said:


> There must be a difference in ARAMAEIC. It is not the same as HEBREW. But all of you don't mention this. I  want to now  what the oppinion of a scholar is,  who knows Arameic (DANIEL, EZRA, TARGUMIM)



I don't follow your logic as to why this topic would have anything to do with Aramaic; the quote and word in question are both Hebrew.  Aramaic sometimes is implicated in Hebrew-related topics, but not this one.


----------



## HansChaim

I saw the (very old) Jewish encycloaedia with ineterseting items. My problem is that may-be  that in Aramaic Hebrew the kamats katan is not in use.


----------



## ks20495

In sacred texts and liturgy, the rules of Hebrew vocalization (ניקוד) are applied to the Aramaic.

This is true for קמץ קטן.

Compare
"...לְהַנְעָלָה קָדָמַי לְכֹל חַכִּימֵי בָבֶל..." (Daniel 4:3)​with
"...וְכָל רָז לָא אָנֵס לָךְ..." (Daniel 4:6).​
However, the ניקוד was created centuries after the texts were written. Therefore, it does not necessarily represent the phonetics of spoken Aramaic.


----------



## HansChaim

In TNACH there is a MAKAF behind KAF LAMED. This is realy a good example that proves that we had  to read also in Aramaic: KOL and not KAL, although there are Kehilot where they pronounce also KAL. In Amsterdam we say: KAL CHAMIRA and KAL NIDREE


----------



## ks20495

> This is realy a good example that proves that we had  to read also in Aramaic: KOL and not KAL



This example doesn't indicate that קמץ קטן existed in the Aramaic used to write, for example, Book of Daniel. 

It just indicates the following: When Jewish scholars decided to add ניקוד to books like Daniel, they used the Hebrew ניקוד with which they were familiar.


----------

