# Segolate Nouns



## Serafim.

שלום 

I'd like to ask a question about segolate nouns. 

The main and general description of segolate nouns in the books is as follows ;
1) Nouns with segol as their last vowel like סֵפֶר.
2) Stressed on the next-to-last syllable.

But there are some nouns which cannot be fixed in the first rule.
for example : פֶּרַח , נַעַר, רוֹחַב 

firstly
When I hear a segolate noun in a conversation, I can guess that it is segolate noun because of its stress(rule2) however when I read a text how can I recognize if it is segolate or not. 

secondly
I know that the presence of the guttural letters make them irregular however could you please advise me what is the rules make them irregular ? On what ground do their vowels (their first, second or both vowels) change to patah, tsere, holam ? 

תודה על עזרתכם מראש


----------



## ks20495

> When I hear a segolate noun in a conversation, I can guess that it is segolate noun because of its stress(rule2) however when I read a text how can I recognize if it is segolate or not.



You can't really tell in a text without vowels. Most three-letter words, however, are segolate. Most - but not all. 



> I know that the presence of the guttural letters make them irregular however could you please advise me what is the rules make them irregular ? On what ground do their vowels (their first, second or both vowels) change to patah, tsere, holam ?



If the final letter is ח or ע, the second vowel becomes a פתח. 
For example: רֶגַע, שֶקַע, נֶצַח

If the second letter is ח or ע, both vowels become פתח. 
For example: נַעַר, שַׁחַר, כַּעַס



> On what ground do their vowels (their first, second or both vowels) change to patah, tsere, holam ?



The vowels don't change to צירי or חולם. 
As far as צירי, there are simply a few segolate nouns that have a צירי as their first vowel instead of a סגול. These must be memorized. (For example: סֵפֶר.)

As far as חולם, there is similarly a group of segolate nouns that have a חולם as their first vowel instead of a סגול. You can obviously tell which one these are. (For example: כֹּתֶל, אֹרֶךְ, קֹמֶץ.) 

The rules regarding the guttural sounds apply to these segolate nouns as well. For this reason, we say רֹחַב.


----------



## rlaszlo

Segolata nouns come from earlier substantives of the form: CVCC (C=consonant, V= vowel). Later on they put in a helping vowel after the second vowel for the easier pronunciation. There were only 3 vowels: a, i, u. CaCC -> CeCeC (e=segol), CiCC -> CeCeC (e=tsere), CuCC -> CoCeC. The stress reamins on the last syllable but one, because the last vowel is not "real", only auxiliary.


----------



## rlaszlo

Wow! They put a second vowel after the second consonant, of course.


----------



## OsehAlyah

Why is the word לחם sometimes spelled with Segol לֶחֶם                                                              and sometimes spelled with Kamatz לָחֶם                                                             ? According to the rule above it has ח as a second letter, so it should always be spelled with Kamatz. Yet it is usually spelled with Segol. Is there some sort of rule at play here, or is this something that simply needs to be memorized?


----------



## rlaszlo

You see לָחֶם only in particular places (generally at the end of a sentence) in the Bible. It has no relevance in Moderm Hebrew. As to the segol in spite of middle chet, it is just an exception and needs to be memorized. There are some other words of this kind, but not much. I remember only one: רֶחֶם which means womb, uterus.


----------



## Ali Smith

Why does רֶגַע (moment) have a סגול while שֵׁמַע (renown) has a צירי? They both have a guttural as the third letter, so that can’t be the reason.


----------



## Drink

The stressed vowel of a segolate can be either segol (e.g. צדק), tzere (e.g. סדר), or cholam (e.g. גודל).

Only the segol would change to patach when followed by a guttural (e.g. צער; with the notable exceptions לחם and רחם), the other two would stay the same (e.g. זוהר).

(Though come to think of it, I can't think of any examples of a segolate with a tzere followed directly by a guttural, perhaps that means the tzere does become patach in such a case.)


----------



## radagasty

Drink said:


> Only the segol would change to patach when followed by a guttural (e.g. צער; with the notable exceptions לחם and רחם), the other two would stay the same (e.g. זוהר). (Though come to think of it, I can't think of any examples of a segolate with a tzere followed directly by a guttural, perhaps that means the tzere does become patach in such a case.)



Yes, in some sense, the _tsere_ does become a _patach_ when followed by a guttural. However, this description is misleading from a diachronic point of view, and is perhaps not the best way of understanding the vocalisation of segholate nouns, putting as it does the cart before the horse.

Historically, segholate nouns in Hebrew derive from monosyllabic triliteral roots in proto-Semitic of the type CVCC, with a short vowel between the first two root consonants, thus /QaTL/, /QiTL/ or /QuTL/. Recall, though, that proto-Semitic had case endings, thus, in the nominative, /QaTLun/, for instance. The loss of case endings in Hebrew produced a consonant cluster at the end of the word /QaTL/, so an epenthetic vowel developed to aid pronunciation /QaTeL/, but this was not a true vowel, which is why segholate nouns retain the stress on the first syllable. In the case of a noun like מֶלֶךְ, where the stem vowel was originally /a/, as it still is in Arabic مَلِك and resurfaces in Hebrew when a pronominal ending is added מַלְכִּי, a further change took place, usually attributed to some sort of vowel harmony, whereby the stem vowel assimilated to the epenthetic vowel.

/malkun/ → /malk/ → /málek/ → /mélek/

In the case where the second root consonant was a guttural, the final step was prevented, whence segholates like נַעַר and פַּחַד. Thus, to say that the ‘_seghol_ would change to a _patach_ when followed by a guttural’ in fact inverts the historical order of things, because, really, it was a _patach_ that failed change to _seghol_. 

In the case of segholates with _tsere_ as the stem vowel, _e.g., _סֵפֶר, these would historically have derived from a /QiTL/ base, with the stem vowel reëmerging in the suffixed form סִפְרִי. Where the second root consonant was a guttural, however, the historical /i/ generally shifted to /a/. This means that, for the most part, they became indistinguishable from second-gutturals whose stem vowel was /a/. Indeed, for many segholate nouns vocalised in /a–a/, it is impossible to say whether the original stem vowel was /a/ or /i/. Even the suffixed forms are no help, since the _patach_ is retained, _e.g._, נַעֲרִי.


----------



## Drink

Usually when people describe language, they are describing it synchronically.

If someone asks _why_ it happens, then it makes sense to explain diachronically.

So I don't think it's misleading at all to describe a language synchronically, even when it doesn't match the diachronic explanation.


----------



## radagasty

My beef with the contention that ‘the _tsere_ becomes a _patach_’ when followed by a guttural is that the _tsere_ never existed in the first place. Suppose I challenged you to give an example of the _tsere _becoming a _patach _in such a case? (I’ll even accept a synchronic example, so I am not expecting you to identify a root with /i/ as the historical stem vowel.) I’ll warrant that you can’t, in which case it becomes questionable whether the proposed rule even makes any sense.


----------



## Drink

Ok, I understand better what your overall point was.

However, I still disagree.

The tzere exists in roots _without_ an immediately following guttural, as in the examples cited (שמע, סדר, etc.). It is in relation to that set of roots that you can say that the tzere "becomes" a patach when immediately followed by a guttural. You of course cannot give any actual examples of this, since there is no way to distinguish the hypothetical tzere-group from the hypothetical segol-group.

But the non-existence of specific cases is not actually a problem. Or else you should have a problem with saying things like the shva na "becomes" a chataf-patach under a guttural in words like חקירה. This is a normal way of describing this phenomenon. However, if you were to demand a specific example that proves there is supposed to be a shva there, you can't provide one, because only words without a guttural there have a shva, while words with a guttural there never do.

If you were to describe this in rigorous scientific terms, you would never say anything "becomes" anything diachronically. You would only describe things in static terms, something like "A tzere and segol cannot occur in this position, while patach can." But such precise language is not necessary when speaking in laymen's terms.


----------



## radagasty

Hmm... I don't know. I am still uncomfortable with saying that _tsere_ becomes a _patach_ when followed by a guttural, because I never imagined the _tsere_ to be there in the first place. As for your counterexample, I am not sure that I would say that the simple _schwa_ becomes a compound _schwa_ under a guttural in words like חֲקִירָה.

There is a situation where I would be comfortable with this sort of language, though. Take the verb חָקַרְתָּ, for instance. If you add an object suffix, say ני, then the _qamets _under the first radical should reduce to a _schwa_, thus *חְקַרְתַּנִי. However, because of the guttural, the simple _schwa_ turns into a compound _schwa_, whence חֲקַרְתַּנִי. To me, this is borderline acceptable, because you can hypothesise the presence of a _schwa_ in applying the rule for non-guttural consonants, but, even so, I would be more happy not to use such language.


----------



## Drink

I really see no difference between your example of חקרתם and my example of חקירה. In both cases, the only reason to expect a shva is by comparison with the non-guttural paradigm. So either it's valid to compare to the non-guttural paradigm (in which case you can in laymen's terms use the word "becomes"), or it's not valid (in which case the qamatz reduces to a chataf-patach and there is no reason to bring up the shva). But looking at the two paradigms in this unconnected way could only make sense in a rigorous analysis, not in ordinary everyday language learning. l for laymen. I'm not writing a linguistic dissertation here, I'm only explaining language to a layperson.


----------



## radagasty

Drink said:


> I really see no difference between your example of חקרתם and my example of חקירה. In both cases, the only reason to expect a shva is by comparison with the non-guttural paradigm.



I take your point. I suppose for the noun, one would expect the vocalisation *חְקִירָה in line with other nouns of this pattern, but the 'schwa turns into a compound schwa' חֲקִירָה because of the guttural. As I said, though, I am not really very happy with this sort of language, even for the example of the verb I cited.


----------



## Ali Smith

Even the word _patakh_ itself (as in חֲטַף פַּתַח‎) is a segholate noun, and is therefore pronounced with the stress on the first syllable. That's what our teacher told us anyway.


----------



## JAN SHAR

That would be true if the name of the vowel were פַּתַח, for then the stress would indeed be on the first syllable‎. However, the fact is that it is spelled פַּתָּח, which means the stress must be on the last syllable. A better example is the name of the vowel קמץ, which has its stress on the first syllable and is segolate.


----------



## Drink

Ali Smith said:


> Even the word _patakh_ itself (as in חֲטַף פַּתַח‎) is a segholate noun, and is therefore pronounced with the stress on the first syllable. That's what our teacher told us anyway.


The true vocalization of the word פתח is not clear at all.


----------



## Ali Smith

rlaszlo said:


> Segolata nouns come from earlier substantives of the form: CVCC (C=consonant, V= vowel). Later on they put in a helping vowel after the second vowel for the easier pronunciation. There were only 3 vowels: a, i, u. CaCC -> CeCeC (e=segol), CiCC -> CeCeC (e=tsere), CuCC -> CoCeC. The stress reamins on the last syllable but one, because the last vowel is not "real", only auxiliary.


However, there are cases where CiCC eventually became CeCeC (e=seghol), e.g.

קֶבֶר _grave_; _tomb_
פֶּרַח _bud_; _flower_
בֶּרֶךְ _knee_

One says קִבְרִי, as in אָבִי הִשְׁבִּיעַנִי לֵאמֹר הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי מֵת בְּקִבְרִי
One says פִּרְחָהּ, as in וְזֶ֨ה מַעֲשֵׂ֤ה הַמְּנֹרָה֙ מִקְשָׁ֣ה זָהָ֔ב עַד־יְרֵכָ֥הּ עַד־פִּרְחָ֖הּ
One says בִּרְכַּי, as in בִּרְכַּי כָּשְׁלוּ מִצּוֹם

I think what happened was:

/qibru/ > /qibr/ > /qabr/ (Philippi's law) > qaber > qeber


----------



## JAN SHAR

I believe שורש (root) is a segolate noun. So, when a pronoun is attached to it why does the vowel of the ש change into kubutz? Why does it not behave like חודש (month) when a pronoun is attached to it?


----------



## radagasty

JAN SHAR said:


> I believe שורש (root) is a segolate noun. So, when a pronoun is attached to it why does the vowel of the ש change into kubutz? Why does it not behave like חודש (month) when a pronoun is attached to it?



Does the vowel under שׁ change into _kibbutz_ when a pronominal suffix is added? שורש Is indeed a segholate noun, and it behaves exactly like חדשׁ when a pronoun is attached: שָׁרְשׁוֹ → שֹׁ֫רֶשׁ just like חָדְשׁוֹ → חֹ֫דֶשׁ. I’m not sure where you see the difference.


----------



## Ali Smith

JAN SHAR said:


> I believe שורש (root) is a segolate noun. So, when a pronoun is attached to it why does the vowel of the ש change into kubutz? Why does it not behave like חודש (month) when a pronoun is attached to it?



A much better question is why does the word טֻמְאָה‎ '(state of) impurity' have a קֻבּוּץ‎ instead of a חוֹלָם‎? Why doesn't it behave like other words that were _qutl_ in proto-Hebrew, like קֹדֶשׁ 'holiness' or חֹדֶשׁ 'month/new moon', or contained _qutl_, like חָכְמָה 'wisdom' or טָהֳרָה 'purification'?


----------



## Drink

Well firstly it's quTlat-, not quTl-, because it's feminine. So one would not expect a holam, but rather a qamatz qatan.

However, this qamatz qatan is often interchangeable with qubutz. I can't tell you if there is any exact rule at play, but some words just have qubutz instead of qamatz qatan.


----------



## Ali Smith

Drink said:


> Well firstly it's quTlat-, not quTl-, because it's feminine. So one would not expect a holam, but rather a qamatz qatan.
> 
> However, this qamatz qatan is often interchangeable with qubutz. I can't tell you if there is any exact rule at play, but some words just have qubutz instead of qamatz qatan.


Would the following be an example of this phenomenon:

וֶהֱבִיאָהּ֮ אֶל־הַכֹּהֵן֒ וְקָמַ֣ץ הַכֹּהֵ֣ן ׀ מִ֠מֶּ֠נָּה מְל֨וֹא קֻמְצ֜וֹ אֶת־אַזְכָּרָתָהּ֙ וְהִקְטִ֣יר הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חָה עַ֖ל אִשֵּׁ֣י יְהֹוָ֑ה חַטָּ֖את הִֽוא׃
(ויקרא ה יב)

And he will bring it to the priest, and the priest will take a fistful of it, a full amount of his fistful, with its memorial offering, and burn with perfume on the altar upon Y-----'s fire offerings. It is a sacrifice/compensation for sin.

I believe קֹ֫מֶץ means 'fistful' and is derived from קָמַץ 'to take a fistful'.


----------



## Drink

Yes, exactly.


----------

