# bread and water



## Ali Smith

שלום

If I wanted to say something like _He gave me bread and water._ in Hebrew I would say נתן לי לחם ומים.

My question is: would the vowel on the ו in לחם ומים be שׁוּרוּק‎ or קָמַץ‎ or שְׁוָא נָע‎? 

אנכי מודה לכם מאוד


----------



## Drink

It would be either shuruk or qamatz. Which one depends on style I guess. A qamatz would more closely associate the water with the bread.


----------



## GeriReshef

Ali Smith said:


> שלום
> 
> If I wanted to say something like _He gave me bread and water._ in Hebrew I would say נתן לי לחם ומים.
> 
> My question is: would the vowel on the ו in לחם ומים be שׁוּרוּק‎ or קָמַץ‎ or שְׁוָא נָע‎?
> 
> אנכי מודה לכם מאוד


As far as I know - shuruk.
Many native speakers, maybe most of them, might use shva-na; though it is incorrect.


----------



## Ali Smith

Yes, I do recall coming across the rule that when the word "and" is followed by one of the BuMP consonants, it changes into "u".


----------



## radagasty

Ali Smith said:


> If I wanted to say something like _He gave me bread and water._ in Hebrew I would say נתן לי לחם ומים.



In the Bible, this combination is always vocalised לֶחֶם וָמַיִם, with a _qamets_ under the ו.


----------



## Ali Smith

Thank you, everyone! By the same logic, I should put a קָמַץ‎ rather than שׁוּרוּק‎ under ו in יש לעשיר בקר וגמלים 'The rich man has cows and camels.', right? A שְׁוָא נָע‎ would, of course, be out of the question.


----------



## radagasty

Ali Smith said:


> I should put a קָמַץ‎ rather than שׁוּרוּק‎ under ו in יש לעשיר בקר וגמלים 'The rich man has cows and camels.', right?



No, the vocalisation וָ with _qamets_ is only possible immediately before a stressed syllable, _e.g._, תֹּהוּ וָבֹהוּ or זָהָב וָכֶסֶף.
Since וּגְמַלִּים has final stress, the וּ should be vocalised with a _shuruq._


----------



## aavichai

Since the ומים is in a pausal form, then you write Qamats.

When it is not in a pausal form, then you write Shuruq.


----------



## Drink

aavichai said:


> Since the ומים is in a pausal form, then you write Qamats.
> 
> When it is not in a pausal form, then you write Shuruq.



I don't think pausal form is what matters. I think you can find the vav with qamatz even in non-pausal forms.


----------



## aavichai

Basically, the Qamats would come in a stoppage or in a "phrase" while the Sheva/Shuruq would come when the word is inside the context.

And it is also with מים
When the word is inside the context, it comes with Shuruq, like:
לחם לא אכל ומים לא שתה in Ex. 34:28

In the case of לחם ומים I can see that even if it comes in the middle of the context, the vowel is still Qamats.
And in this case, I think it is a matter of "phrase" that causes this.

Similar to זהב וכסף that the word וכסף is voweled with Qamats even though it is not in a pausal position.


----------



## Drink

Exactly, it's the phrase, and not the pause.


----------



## aavichai

Hi Drink,

The Qamats stays in the prefixed Vav Before a stressed syllable because it has no reason to be reduced.
Therefore, when the word "is not part" of the sentence, the Qamats stays.
And when the word is linked to the rest of the sentence, the Qamats will be reduced.
That's the point.


You say that It's the phrase and not the pause.

But the phrase itself is a pause by default.
The phrase is like one unit, and this one unit acts in a pausal way.
Just like a private name who gets the "pausal rule".
The reason that this unit (phrase or PN) gets these vowels, is because it is "pausal".

The reason that you see only "phrases" in that case, is that indefinite words that have the prefixed Vav, And end a sentence or an idea - will always (or almost always) be the second part of a related word (and therefore, a phrase).


----------



## Drink

Unfortunately, there are not many examples with this particular word. The only times that the word ומים occurs in pausal position, it is part of the phrase לחם ומים. Part of the reason is that for ומים to occur in a pausal position, it most likely must be paired with something.

But if this is a pausal form, then the simple question is why is the word ומים not in its pausal form when לחם ומים occurs in non-pausal position? The pausal form should have a qamatz instead of patach under the מ as well.


----------



## aavichai

Maybe I didn't say my words right.

I don't say that the phrase is in a pausal form of the sentence.
But I say that the phrase - being a phrase - is like a pause that keeps the vowel from being reduced.

I mean, let's look at it that way.
If the phrase is inside the context, and the reading "flows", then what stops the Qamats from being reduced?
It would be reduced like any other ומים that we see. (Shuruq in this case).

The thing that stops it from being reduced is the "stoppage" that this vowel gets in the phrase itself.

You talk about the Patach/Qamats under the letter מ.
But that is one thing that has nothing to do with the matter of a vowel being reduced or not.

The Patach/Qamats is one thing that the pausal form causes a change in the word form (with or without a prefix).
And the Qamats being reduced or not is another thing that is caused by the strength of the link to the words that come next.

Don't you think?


----------



## Drink

I see. You could be right. Would be interesting to do an analysis of vav on initial-stressed words and the te'amim they occur with. According to your theory, the qamatz under the vav would be associated with a מפסיק or מעמיד, and the shva/shuruk would be associated with a מוליך.


----------



## aavichai

I think that if it would be "tested" by words with one syllable as מת or שש
or with other verbs - (and not just nouns), then the differences would be seen (since no "phrases" would be involved).

Of course, this is only what my mind tells me.
But I guess that even if there are some exceptions, then the principle would be still valid.


----------



## Drink

Actually words like מת and שש can and do form phrases.

But basically my "test" is just a description of what you said. If the ta'am is a מפסיק or מעמיד, that means it's disconnected from the following word. If it's a מוליך, then it's connected to the following word.


----------



## aavichai

Yes. But my point is that the phrase, even if it is linked to the rest of the sentence is still a phrase.
And inside the phrase - the "pause" happens.
Not because there is a real pause, but because the phrase has an essence of a unit.

But never mind about that.
we already saw that לחם ומים is with Qamats, and that was the question here.


As for your theory and mine about the rest of it (which I guess are very close), there is a need for "testing" it before we just throw things into the air.


----------

