# Is it ha'amud or he'amud



## Ensign_Sulu

הָעַמּוּד
or
הֶעַמּוּד

Thanks!​


----------



## scriptum

Ha'amud ("ha" becomes "he" only if the word begins with a guttural consonant + qamatz, e.g. he'anaf - הֶעָנָף)


----------



## Flaminius

And judging from the idiomatic _af ba-`ananim_, the vowel for _hej jedi`a_ is [a] when the article is subsumed in the preposition.  Am I right, *scriptum*?

That is, _me-he-`ananim_ but _ba-`ananim._


----------



## origumi

As usual, the rules get complicated as we delve in.

Before א, ר with kamatz: ה הידיעה gets kamatz.
Before ח with kamatz: ה הידיעה gets segol.
Before ה, ע with kamatz:
==> if the syllable after ה הידיעה is stressed - ה הידיעה gets kamatz
==> if the syllable after ה הידיעה is not stressed - ה הידיעה gets segol

And there are, I guess, exceptions.


----------



## scriptum

Hi Flaminius,
It's me-*ha*-'ananim (in the plural the first vowel of the word is no longer a qamatz:
עָנָן / עֲנָנִים)


----------



## Ensign_Sulu

Many thanks for erudite replies.



scriptum said:


> Hi Flaminius,
> It's me-*ha*-'ananim (in the plural the first vowel of the word is no longer a qamatz:
> עָנָן / עֲנָנִים)


Personally - and I find that this is also the convention on Kol Yisrael's news reports - I prefer the discrete form of the preposition *min* before definite article, i.e.
*min ha'ananim* as opposed to *meha'ananim*.
The fact that Kol Yisrael shares my judgment indicates it's not a mere auditory bias schlepped over from the English _a_/_an_ rule. But I wonder if there's any official literature to determine when *min* is preferred over_* me-*_. That *min 'ananim* "from clouds" is bad seems a forgone conclusion.


----------



## origumi

Ensign_Sulu said:


> But I wonder if there's any official literature to determine when *min* is preferred over_* me-*_.


The official literature (for me at least) in this regard is the Bible. Both forms appear there. _min_ is more popular than _mi-_, _me-_, but this is apperently due to the biblical writing nature (vs. everyday language).

It seems that things haven't changed in the last 3500 years - both forms are good, one may be prefered in educated writing and formal texts, the other in casual talking.


----------



## Flaminius

scriptum said:


> Hi Flaminius,
> It's me-*ha*-'ananim (in the plural the first vowel of the word is no longer a qamatz:
> עָנָן / עֲנָנִים)


Thanks, scriptum.  I've always thought telling between patach, qamats and chataf-patach, chataf-qamats (and what else?) is someone else's academic question.  Now I see I am stepping into the forbidden realm.  

So, if I were to say "from the cloud," is it _me-he-`anan_ according to the official rule?


----------



## scriptum

Flaminius said:


> So, if I were to say "from the cloud," is it _me-he-`anan_ according to the official rule?


Hmmmmmmmmmmm... Theoretically, yes, I know no rule that forbids such a combination. But I think it is impossible aesthetically. If I used _he-_ at all (which, thank God, I never do), I would say _min he-._


----------



## hadronic

you mean that NOBODY actually says "he" with segol ? The  "ha-milon he-chadash" becoming simply the "ha-milon ha-chadash" ?

I've always thought that "min" was more formel than "me". Is it the way around ?


----------



## scriptum

hadronic said:


> you mean that NOBODY actually says "he" with segol ?


Hé, hé, pas si vite. I only said that *I* never use "he" with segol...


hadronic said:


> I've always thought that "min" was more formel than "me".


Well, as we see, Origumi thinks it's the other way round (Origumi, have I understood you correctly?).
I am not sure about the whole thing. My personal feeling is that, more often than not, the choice between _meha-_ and _min ha-_ is done on an aesthetical basis, in accordance with the rhythm of the speech - much like the choice, say, between _pomme_ and _pomm'_ in French.


----------



## origumi

scriptum said:


> Well, as we see, Origumi thinks it's the other way round (Origumi, have I understood you correctly?).


_min_ is a more formal word, _min_ is more popular common preferred in the Bible due to the Bible's formal style.


----------



## hadronic

And do nowaday's Israeli Hebrew speaker pronounce the article "he" in the cases given above ?


----------



## scriptum

To the best of my knowledge, _he-_ is only used in very formal contexts.


----------



## Ensign_Sulu

I can cite one example where _he-_ is overapplied. In the Kedusha recited in Mizrahi shuls on Saturday morning, the congregation will say *kaddavar he-amur 'al yad...* whereas I'm pretty certain that in the siddur itself what's written is *kaddavar ha-amur*.


----------



## origumi

Ensign_Sulu said:


> I can cite one example where _he-_ is overapplied. In the Kedusha recited in Mizrahi shuls on Saturday morning, the congregation will say *kaddavar he-amur 'al yad...* whereas I'm pretty certain that in the siddur itself what's written is *kaddavar ha-amur*.


This reminds of an off-topic yet interesting issue around this prayer
 
במאה הי”ט התחוללה בקהילות החסידים באוקראינה מחלוקת אדירה, שהגיעה עד כדי אלימות: מחלוקת ה”כדבר”. ומה דבר המחלוקת? חסידי חב”ד נהגו לומר בקדושה “ככתוב על יד נביאך”, בעוד חסידי טלנא אמרו: “כדבר האמור על ידי נביאך”. אלו נקראו “ככתובניקים” ואלו - “כדברניקים”. המחלוקת פילגה משפחות, הביאה להטלת חרמות, ופילגה ביריבות מרה את קהילות החסידים (דוד אסף, נאחז בסבך, עמ’ 276). 

This is the variant I know:

נַקְדִּישָׁךְ וְנַעֲרִיצָךְ, וּנְשַׁלֵּשׁ לָךְ קְדֻשָּׁה מְשֻׁלֶּשֶׁת, כַּדָּבָר *הָאָמוּר* עַל יְדֵי נְבִיאָךְ וְקָרָא זֶה אֶל-זֶה וְאָמַר, קָדוֹשׁ קָדוֹשׁ קָדוֹשׁ יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת; 

According to משנה תורה - ספר אהבה - סדר התפילה כ"ו.


----------



## dinji

origumi said:


> As usual, the rules get complicated as we delve in.
> 
> Before א, ר with kamatz: ה הידיעה gets kamatz.
> Before ח with kamatz: ה הידיעה gets segol.
> Before ה, ע with kamatz:
> ==> if the syllable after ה הידיעה is stressed - ה הידיעה gets kamatz
> ==> if the syllable after ה הידיעה is not stressed - ה הידיעה gets segol
> 
> And there are, I guess, exceptions.


 
I guess before kamatz katan ה always gets kamatz as in _ha'ohalim_ 'the tents', classically pronouced something like _hå:'åhali:m_

Right?


----------



## origumi

dinji said:


> I guess before kamatz katan ה always gets kamatz as in _ha'ohalim_ 'the tents', classically pronouced something like _hå:'åhali:m_
> 
> Right?


These rules refer to kamatz gadol. For ח also to חטף קמץ (קטן) as in הֶחֳדָשִׁים (_the months_).

Another interesting phenomenon is words in which the first letter's nikud is changed in the presence of ה הידיעה:
אֲרוֹן ← הָאָרוֹן, אֶרֶץ ← הָאָרֶץ, הַר ← הָהָר, חַג ← הֶחָג, עַם ← הָעָם, פַּר ← הַפָּר


----------



## hadronic

So for אֳניה (ship, with chateph qamatz), I guess we have to write
הָאֳניה. But how do we have to pronounce that ? "ha-oniya" (according to logique) or "ho-oniya" (just like in צָהֳריים tsohorayim, with the qamatz / chateph-qamatz pattern pronounced o-o) ?

In any case, how do you distinguish between "to the ship" and "to a ship"
Both would be לָאֳניה , but one with "full" qamatz (coming from le-ha-oniya), and the second with short qamatz (coming from assimilation of the schwa of לְ to the next compound schwa like in בֶאֱמֶת, לַעֲבוֹדה) ?


----------



## natatchka

ok first in hebrew we have the nekudot rule table
in hebrew you can't say ho honia just because two equal vowels go after each other
you just say ha-onia  העוניה
in the following case of the ship , in hebrew  there is not such a thing distinguishing between   ''to the ship and to a ship''
it's the same thing

la-onia לאניה

שיהיה לך יום נעים  have a nice day !


----------



## natatchka

btw , responding to the main question
its ha hamud
in the street people say he hamud , they just dont respect the vowel rules


----------



## hadronic

natatchka said:


> in hebrew there is not such a thing distinguishing between ''to the ship and to a ship''
> it's the same thing
> 
> la-onia לאניה


 
... let me strongly doubt about that....

In the minimal way (=street language) it should be at least "la-oniya" (to the...) vs. "le-oniya" (to a...). But in a more formal language ( = biblical ) I expect it to be "la-oniya" (to the...) vs. "lo-oniya" (to a...), but then, they both would be written the same way ! (ie, with a qamatz, the former being gadol, the latter qatan)


----------

