# vocalization of יי which retains the full spelling



## InfatigableLearner

Hello to all,

The question I have, which is likely a beginner’s question, concerns the vocalization of texts in words where a יי (double yod) appears in an unvocalized text. As many are aware the double yod appears in many words when there is no vocalization and often collapses into a single yod with a dagesh forte (דגש חזק) when the text is vocalized. For example, the word קיים (“he confirmed, etc.”) when vocalized is קִיֵּם. I have also seen instances where the double yod is retained even when the text is vocalized. Thus in Shmuel Bolozky’s 501 Hebrew Verbs book this verb’s conjugation is written as קִייֵּם. I have also seen instances where the same form is written out as קִיֵּים. It is this vocalized full spelling with which I am interested in, not just for verbs but other parts of speech as well. The reason of course is that having both forms in one helps to facilitate learning and reading both vocalized and unvocalized texts.

I can think of some other instances where the double yod appears in words that are not verbs. For example, in an unvocalized text one finds the word עניין (“subject,” etc.) which is written as עִנְיָן when vocalized. One should note that unlike the example given above with the verb קיים, here the vocalized form lacks the dagesh forte when vocalized so that there is no indication that a double yod should be used when writing out this word in an unvocalized text. The same is true for the vocalized full spelling of this word as well which I have seen written as עִנְיָין. Another example is the word שמימיית (“heavenly”) which in its vocalized form is שְׁמֵימִית. Once again the vocalized form does not have a dagesh forte so that that there is no indication that a double yod should be used when writing out this word in an unvocalized text. Further, with this example it would appear that the yod in the vocalized form is a hireq yod which makes sense as to why there is no dagesh forte, yet does not explain why there is a second yod in the unvocalized spelling.

Thus my first question here is, how might one vocalize words from an unvocalized text which contain a double yod that also retains the full spelling found in the unvocalized text. Essentially, what are the patterns that should be known in the various parts of speech for words where a double yod might appear. Also, noting the two different methods seen in the example of the verb קיים, are there in fact multiple methods to handle this and if so, what are they. Sorry if my question seems basic, but this seems to be a recurrent issue in my studies of Hebrew.

InfatigableLearner


----------



## arielipi

It indicates that you shouldnt read the letter before it with [X]i, as single yod is em kri'a,Mater lectionis


----------



## berndf

This is modern spelling adapted to the modern, simplified vowel system which does not distinguish between long and short vowels any more. All /i/s, irrespective of etymological length, are now represented by a single Yod and all /o/s and /u/s are represented by a single Waw. To avoid confusion with consonantal Yod and Waw, those are geminated in the middle of a word.

If you want to use vowel signs with this changed base spelling you obviously have to fudge them a bit. For more details, see here.


----------



## InfatigableLearner

Hello to all,


  Although I tried to be clear about my question in my post, it would seem that I did not write well enough for readers to understand my question. My question was not “why do double yods appear in an unvocalized text?” or “why is the double yod retained in some texts when vocalized?” I understand that a double yod might appear in a word in an unvocalized text for various reasons (doubling of the second letter for the piel, pluralization, etc.) and that the double yod is retained in mixed orthography (כתב מעורב) in an attempt to represent both the full, unvocalized spelling (i.e. כתיב מלא) as well as the vocalization. My question is specifically “what is/are the rule(s) for vocalizing words in which double yods (יי) appear when one wishes to produce a text with mixed orthography?” That is, “what is/are the proper method(s) for vocalizing words with double yods within the framework of mixed orthography?” Toward answering this question, note the following examples:

קִיֵּם(“he confirmed”) → קִיֵּים
לְוִיִּם(“Levites”) → לְוִיִּים
עֲדַיִן(“yet”) → עֲדַיִין
שְׁנִיָּה(“second”) → שְׁנִיָּיה

In the above examples, the mixed vocalizations are the same as the normal vocalization except for the additional yod. Thus it would appear that the “rule” when encountering words with double yods in an unvocalized text that one wishes to vocalize with a mixed orthography is 1) find out the vocalized form, 2) place the vowels of that form over the unvocalized form, but leave the second additional yod blank. That seems simple enough. However, I am not sure that this “rule” holds for the following examples:

אֲמִתִּית(“true”) → אֲמִתִּיית?
שְׁמֵימִית(“heavenly”) → שְׁמֵימִיית?
הַמֵּתִים(“the dead”) → הַמֵּתִיים?

  I think that in these three examples the resulting mixed orthography might be in error so that the “rule” derived from the previous examples cannot be applied in these examples. If so, then what is the “rule” for vocalizing the double yod in these words within the framework of mixed orthography? What other “rules” might be out there for dealing with other instances of the double yod within the framework of mixed orthography? It is with these issues that my question is narrowly focused.



InfatigableLearner


----------



## arbelyoni

There are no rules regarding the mixed orthography, because it is not standard.
There are three standard orthographies in Modern Hebrew:
כתיב מנוקד - "vocalized orthography", (eg. נִקּוּד)
כתיב חסר - "missing orthography", that has the same spelling like the vocalized one, except for the vowel points (eg. נקוד)
כתיב מלא - "full orthography" that adds matres lectionis (אמות קריאה) instead of some of the vowel points (eg. ניקוד).

The Academy of the Hebrew Language has fixed rules concerning both vocalized and full orthographies (missing orthography is derived from the vocalized one), but the so-called "mixed orthography" is not standard, but a later _popular_ mixture of the full and vocalized orthographies:
The basic spelling is the same like full orthography; vowel points are added according to the rules of vocalized orthography, except for the fact that the extra matres lectionis remain (Hirik becomes Hirik Male; Holam becomes Holam Male; Kubutz becomes Shuruk).



> אֲמִתִּית(“true”) → אֲמִתִּיית?
> שְׁמֵימִית(“heavenly”) → שְׁמֵימִיית?
> הַמֵּתִים(“the dead”) → הַמֵּתִיים?


These examples are in error, because according to the rules of full orthography, Vav and Yud are geminated only when they represent consonants. Yud does not serve as a consonant in the examples above, but as a mater lectionis (in fact, שְׁמֵימִית would be שמיימית).


----------



## berndf

arbelyoni said:


> There are no rules regarding the mixed orthography, because it is not standard.


@InfatigableLearner: This is what I tried to express by "fudge them a bit". Sorry, it this wasn't clear.


----------



## InfatigableLearner

Hello to all,

Thank you for the responses thus far. I guess the problem I am having is that the texts I have in mind are old so that they do not follow orthographic practices seen these days. arbelyoni says that “Academy of the Hebrew Language has fixed rules concerning both vocalized and full orthographies” which maintains that yod is not geminated unless it represents a consonant. Such a rule, however, appears not to have been in place in the past, for here is a nice example I found on Google Books when trying to find אמתיית:

כי עיניו פקוחות על דרכי בני אדם השגחתו תמידיית אמתיית לא מקריית ונפסקיית

[Unable to post link due to board policies for new members, search for "כי עיניו פקוחות על דרכי בני אדם" in Google Books for source]

Here the use of the double yod occurs many times in this unvocalized text apparently in violation to the standards set the Academy for full orthography. In typing a historical text which uses such conventions, it is not possible to alter the consonantal text to accord with standards set down later, even when vowels are added, so as to maintain the then current orthographic conventions for the purposes of research. So then the question becomes, how can one vocalize the text without disturbing the consonantal text? arbelyoni mentions that the basic trend for “mixed orthography,” which would be required in light of the above situation, is that “Hirik becomes Hirik Male; Holam becomes Holam Male; Kubutz becomes Shuruk” which certainly makes sense. But this does not explain how one can maintain the double yod seen in older texts within the framework of a mixed orthography. berndf says you have to “fudge it” because there is no standard in place. I would say that while there is no standard set by “the Academy,” which makes sense if the double yod is not used this way even in modern unvocalized texts, there are surely trends out there for handling this when dealing with old texts. In my first post I mentioned in the case of קיים that one finds קִיֵּים and קִייֵּם to which I would add that I think I even saw a method which would have קִיּיֵם. While these are not standards, they do represent conventions which are clearly understandable to and used by more than one person. Further, it seems to me that within these conventions there would obviously be certain practices which are more widespread than others. It is for this reason that when I spoke of “rule” I used quotation marks since, although there is no rule in place for what I am asking, there are obviously a number of conventions. Not knowing what these various conventions might be as it pertains to vocalizing double yods to produce a mixed orthographic text and the various scenarios in which they might be found, I asked the question I did. I hope that what I am searching for and why is more understandable now. And berndf, there is no need for you to apologize. I apologize for not making clear that my concern is with older texts whose orthographic conventions differ from today which seems to have a direct bearing on the issue.

InfatigableLearner


----------



## origumi

InfatigableLearner said:


> כי עיניו פקוחות על דרכי בני אדם השגחתו תמידיית אמתיית לא מקריית ונפסקיית


The book ניצוצי אור by רבי שלמה קצין was published in 1967. At that time (and today) such double yod is unusual. I cannot imaging why this spelling was selected. The word נפסקיית is the strangest - there shouldn't be even one yod. Maybe it's a quotation of older source that had a reason to spell it that way (in order to make a point?). So I wouldn't take this line as an example for the double yod issue, unless the same phenomenon is attested in similar sources.


----------



## berndf

origumi said:


> The book ניצוצי אור by רבי שלמה קצין was published in 1967. At that time (and today) such double yod is unusual. I cannot imaging why this spelling was selected. The word נפסקיית is the strangest - there shouldn't be even one yod. Maybe it's a quotation of older source that had a reason to spell it that way (in order to make a point?). So I wouldn't take this line as an example for the double yod issue, unless the same phenomenon is attested in similar sources.


The spelling אמתיית seems to occur most frequently in 19th century Eastern European books. Could this simply be a non-native speaker's mistake, e.g. caused by false analogy to אמתיות?


----------



## InfatigableLearner

Hello origami,

I actually just searched with little thought as to the time period to show simply as an example of the phenomenon since it was stated that by standards set by the Academy such use of a geminated yod is not allowed. The overall point being that while such standards are in place today, they were not in the past. Indeed, you state “At that time [=1967] (and today) such double yod is unusual” which perhaps hints that you already know of a time when such double yod was in fact not unusual. I am not sure how the example I picked out of the air, even if it were from 1967, invalidates my point that the use of a double yod is found in words in some unvocalized texts. It may have been strange in 1967 and may have been citing something even older, but it still shows that such use of the double yod was used by someone at some time. Just to let you know, searching for “כי עיניו פקוחות על דרכי בני אדם” in Google Books as I had mentioned actually leads to the work ספר המדות by יעקב קרנץ (דובנא) dated 1875 (Wikipedia says originally published in 1862). Thus it would seem that the citation is indeed from an older work as you had guessed.
But I am not relying on a single line from a single author for what I am saying, searching Google Books again, this time for שמימיית, I find this word in ספר נשמת חיים by מנשה בן ישראל who wrote in the 17th century (the edition on Google has it on image/page 89, second to last line). Searching for such forms on Google Books one will find many other hits in various works in various periods (but also many false hits due to bad OCR). But the question I have is not whether such forms exist, which is a given and also perhaps conceded in your statement, but what conventions are there to vocalize that use of the double yod seen in such texts which at the same time preserves the consonantal text of those works.

InfatigableLearner


----------



## origumi

I don't have enough knowledge about doubling the yod in pre-modern Hebrew writing.

Just one warning about double-yod case in modern Hebrew that may mislead: some plural forms are spelled in "ktiv male" with either one or two yods. For example:

 ישראלי => ישראל*י*ם, ישראל*יי*ם
איטלקי => איטלק*י*ם , איטלק*יי*ם

This is NOT an example to what you are looking for. In this case there's a distinction between the plural as a noun vs. adjective:

ראיתי שני איטלק*י*ם = I saw two Italians. Pronounced I-tal-k*i*m.
קניתי שני כיסאות איטלק*יי*ם = I bought two Italian chairs. Pronounced I-tal-k*i-i-*m.


----------



## InfatigableLearner

Hello to all,

I spent some time at the library trying to find out some information about this with no luck. After coming home and searching some more on Google Books, however, I encountered this:

...וּכְמוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (קֹהֶלֶת ז׳)׃ הַחָכְמָה תְּחַיֶּה אֶת בְּעָלֶיהָ, הַיְנוּ חָכְמַת הַתּוֹרָה הקְּדוֹשָׁה, שֶׁרַק הִיא הַחָכְמָה *הָאֲמִתִּיִּית*, הַמְחַיָּה אֶת כָּל הַנְּפָשׁוֹת... 

...as it is written (Qoheleth 7): “wisdom preserves its owner,” namely, the wisdom of the holy Torah, which is the only *true* wisdom, which preserves every soul...
-Erech Hapym - A Treasury of Patience, Mohorosh Of Heichal Hakodesh Breslov (1986)

Thus it would seem that at least with singular feminine adjectives that are originally written in a non-vocalized text as –יית the procedure for vocalizing them within a mixed orthography is to write –יִּית. With respect to this form I am not sure as to why the second yod is needed, but at least I have part of my question answered now. It is interesting to note that this vocalization is similar to the plural which was discussed above by origami.

InfatigableLearner


----------



## berndf

InfatigableLearner said:


> Thus it would seem that at least with singular feminine adjectives that are originally written in a non-vocalized text as –יית the procedure for vocalizing them within a mixed orthography is to write –יִּית. With respect to this form I am not sure as to why the second yod is needed...


I don't think this has anything to do with mixed orthography. The intended pronunciation is obviously amitiyyis, i.e. the first yod is a consonant and the second a vowel. But I have no idea what kind of grammar this is.


----------



## origumi

InfatigableLearner said:


> ...וּכְמוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (קֹהֶלֶת ז׳)׃ הַחָכְמָה תְּחַיֶּה אֶת בְּעָלֶיהָ, הַיְנוּ חָכְמַת הַתּוֹרָה הקְּדוֹשָׁה, שֶׁרַק הִיא הַחָכְמָה *הָאֲמִתִּיִּית*, הַמְחַיָּה אֶת כָּל הַנְּפָשׁוֹת...


I suspect that you are dealing with sporadic spelling variations that not necessarily represent any rule. In another thread of recent days (which seems to have disappeared?) we saw the alternative spelling רא*י*שון for the usual ראשון (in the book of Job). Well, this is an exception that has no continuation as far as I know.

BTW, the אמיתיית that you mentioned above is not from Ecclesiastes (קהלת), it's an interpretation to this book. This is clear in your English citation but the Hebrew one may mislead.


----------



## InfatigableLearner

berndf said:


> The intended pronunciation is obviously amitiyyis, i.e. the  first yod is a consonant and the second a vowel. But I have no idea  what kind of grammar this is.



Me either. I think it is clear from the example that הַחָכְמָה הָאֲמִתִּיִּית intends to be הַחָכְמָה הָאֲמִתִּית, but why there is a need for -_yyi_- is unknown to me at this time as well.



origumi said:


> BTW, the אמיתיית that you mentioned above is not from Ecclesiastes (קהלת), it's an interpretation to this book. This is clear in your English citation but the Hebrew one may mislead.



Yeah I was aware of that. Thus when I translated the text for the board (there is no English translation in the text), I added quotes around those words from Qoheleth 7:12 (though there is no אֶת in that verse). As for the Hebrew text, I simply reproduced it as it appears in the work.

berndf and origami, thank you for all your assistance in working though this with me up until now. I think I have answered what I needed to for what I am doing, but if I find anything explaining what is going on here and why I will return to let you know; if you would be interested that is.

InfatigableLearner


----------



## OsehAlyah

origumi said:


> In another thread of recent days (which seems to have disappeared?)


I think it's this thread: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2399815


----------

