# Pronunciation of vowels in Israeli Hebrew



## Squee100

I'm just going to say I'm VERY frustrated and confused by different sources I've seen giving different sounds for the vowels of Israeli Hebrew. No-one can seem to agree whether e is "eh" like _set_ or "ay" like _day_ (but without the diphthongization), i is "ih" like _fit_ or "ee" like _feet_, o is "aw" like _saw_ or "oh" like _no_ (again, but without the diphthongization), and u is "oo" like _wood_ or "ue" like _blue_. Are the monophthongs in YIVO Yiddish the same? The main thing I'd like to know is how accurate the vowel sounds given in the link below are to the usual accent of Israeli Hebrew and an "idealized" form of the Ashkenazi accent.

HMYYRBOH YDLYL JYS DMLM or, Hebrew and English spelling book. To which is prefixed an abridgement of the Hebrew grammar

If there are inaccuracies, what corrections would need to be made to fix them?


----------



## Drink

Whenever someone tries to describe the vowels of a language using English vowels, it's not gonna work. Simple as that.

The Modern Israeli vowels are very similar to the Standard Spanish vowels:
- _a_ (for patach and qamatz gadol)
- _e_ (for segol and tsere)
- _i_ (for chiriq)
- _o_ (for cholam and qamatz qatan)
- _u_ (for shuruq/qubutz)

Some older Israeli Ashkenazim will sometimes pronounce the tsere (but not the segol) as what in Spanish would be spelled _ei_ (like in the English word _day_). Perhaps that's where your confusion comes from.

Now if you want to go into YIVO Yiddish and Ashkenazi Hebrew, that's a much more complicated topic.

Also, keep in mind that Israeli Hebrew did not exist in 1837 when that book you link to was written.


----------



## Squee100

Drink said:


> Whenever someone tries to describe the vowels of a language using English vowels, it's not gonna work. Simple as that.
> 
> The Modern Israeli vowels are very similar to the Standard Spanish vowels:
> - _a_ (for patach and qamatz gadol)
> - _e_ (for segol and tsere)
> - _i_ (for chiriq)
> - _o_ (for cholam and qamatz qatan)
> - _u_ (for shuruq/qubutz)
> 
> Some older Israeli Ashkenazim will sometimes pronounce the tsere (but not the segol) as what in Spanish would be spelled _ei_ (like in the English word _day_). Perhaps that's where your confusion comes from.
> 
> Now if you want to go into YIVO Yiddish and Ashkenazi Hebrew, that's a much more complicated topic.
> 
> Also, keep in mind that Israeli Hebrew did not exist in 1837 when that book you link to was written.


That still doesn't tell me how they're actually _pronounced_ (even listening to native speakers I can't tell if I'm doing it right), or if the usual Israeli and Ashkenazi pronunciations have the same monophthongs.

As for the book, it talks about the Sephardi pronunciation, whose vowels are the same as those of the usual Israeli. I would still like to know if the vowel sounds given are accurate enough to be usable (for both the Sephardi and Ashkenazi pronunciations given.)


----------



## Drink

Squee100 said:


> That still doesn't tell me how they're actually _pronounced_ (even listening to native speakers I can't tell if I'm doing it right), or if the Sephardi/usual Israeli and Ashkenazi pronunciations of Hebrew have the same monophthongs.
> 
> As for the book, it talks about the Sephardi pronunciation, whose vowels are the same as those of the usual Israeli. I would still like to know if the vowel sounds given are at least _close_ (for both the Sephardi and Ashkenazi pronunciations given.)



Well then I hate to break it to you, but the exact vowel quality differs from speaker in both Yiddish and Israeli Hebrew. So it's impossible to answer your question. I'm telling you that the Spanish vowels (by which I mean the Spanish language spoken in Spain and Latin America) has the closest vowels to Modern Israeli Hebrew. Draw from that whatever conclusions you want about whether the book you linked to is close or not. I'm not going to comment on what the book says because as I said before, you shouldn't use English vowels to describe another language's vowels. For example, the "aw" sound in English means something totally different to me as a New Englander than to a New Yorker.


----------



## Squee100

Drink said:


> Well then I hate to break it to you, but the exact vowel quality differs from speaker in both Yiddish and Israeli Hebrew. So it's impossible to answer your question. I'm telling you that the Spanish vowels (by which I mean the Spanish language spoken in Spain and Latin America) has the closest vowels to Modern Israeli Hebrew. Draw from that whatever conclusions you want about whether the book you linked to is close or not. I'm not going to comment on what the book says because as I said before, you shouldn't use English vowels to describe another language's vowels. For example, the "aw" sound in English means something totally different to me as a New Englander than to a New Yorker.


I do get what you're saying. Thanks so much! BTW I'm a New Englander too and believe I speak as described in the link below, and am having some of the same confusion with Spanish as with Hebrew.

Eastern New England English - Wikipedia


----------



## aavichai

Hi
I think the first comment was very goot

1. Kamats Gadol /Patah' - like Sun

2. Segol and Tsere - like Ben (the askenazi accent pronounce the Tsere as - Day (ey)
but today no one pronounce it like that except few words that this accent is "stuck"
like זיתים Zeytim ביצה Beytsa and some more

3. Kubuts/Shuruk - like Full

4. Holam - like Dos or Torn(very straight and sharp O)

5. Hiriq - like fit, or feet
i don't reallt see the difference, i guess it is depnds where the vowel is, if it is stressed or not or if the syllibal is open or close. when you talk, the "fit or feet" would be automatic


----------



## oopqoo

Hello!
Not trying to offend you aavichai but the way you described it doesn't accurately show to an American English speaker how to really pronounce the Israeli Hebrew vowels. For example there's a huge difference between the i in fit and the ee in feet.
So let me give you some of my examples:
A (קמץ/פתח): The first "a" in Arkansas
E (צירה/סגול): As you said like the ay in day but without the diphthong - so If in English "day" it's pronounced DEI then I'm talking about DE without the I sound in the end
O (חולם): As you said like "oh" but without the diphthong - so if "oh" in English is pronounced OU then I'm talking about just the O without the final U sound
U (שורוק/קובוץ): pretty similar to the sound in blue. Actually sounds exactly like how the two "ou"-s in the name Louboutin is pronounced in *French*.
I (חיריק): Like the "ee" in feet.
Note that in Hebrew we don't have sounds like "i" in fit, or the "oo" in book. These sounds are hard for us to pronounce (in the American pronunciation) and many of us don't even realize they are different sounds than the "ee" in feed and "oo" in food, respectively. That's why when you see Israelis transliterating their speech into Latin letters it oftentimes doesn't depict how it really should be pronounced (one of the most striking examples is how many misuse the letter "o" to transliterate the sound of a Shuruk/שורוק - for example someone may write the name יובל as yoval instead of yuval)
So note that the reason why this is hard to convey through text is because the way English sounds its vowels is different from how we sound them or how Spanish or French or Arabic sounds them. What I gave you is the closest American approximation to our sounds, but if you want to sound like a native you have to relinquish the American accent and learn how to pronounce it the Israeli way.


----------



## aavichai

Hi oopqoo

Not offended at all, and I accept that maybe my explanation wasn't really fit an American speaker in his accent

But I want to ask and comment a few things

1. A - I wrote "sun" and you fix it to Arkansas. Why is "Sun" doesn't fit?
don't the American say "Sun" as we say גן (Garden)?

2. E - The diphthong is in the old Ashkenazi accent for the Tsere, and that is why I wrote "Day" only for that point.
and I wrote also that some words with Full Tsere (with YOD) are pronounced by a lot of people today (or should I say most) with a diphthong.
like ביצה זיתים - most people say Beytsa/Beytsim and Zeytim ---- Somehow in some words the diphthong is pronounced.

3. O - maybe I was wrong in my example I gave. I didn't mean it to be with a diphthong. I thought that "Torn" is pronounced with just a "straight" O (without diftong)

4. U - I wrote "full". isn't that correct? How does it should be pronounced?

5. I - I actually, as Israeli, as you say, can't feel the difference between the I and the EE. So I guess I have to take your words.
and you said that we don't have the I like in "Fit"
How "fit" should be pronounced? isn't it like מן (From) or קיר (wall)?

thanks.


----------



## oopqoo

Hi aavichai

Words like fit, sun, full have sounds that kind of force the Israeli mouth to do some acrobatics haha. The "i" in fit is like the midpoint between our segol and kamatz. I can't find a way to explain in words how the rest should be pronounced. I can only say that pronouncing these correctly forces you to go into the same kind of uncomfortable mouth shape needed pronounce sounds like ü or ö in German. i.e. it should not feel natural/comfortable to pronounce these.


----------



## Squee100

oopqoo said:


> Hi aavichai
> 
> Words like fit, sun, full have sounds that kind of force the Israeli mouth to do some acrobatics haha. The "i" in fit is like the midpoint between our segol and kamatz. I can't find a way to explain in words how the rest should be pronounced. I can only say that pronouncing these correctly forces you to go into the same kind of uncomfortable mouth shape needed pronounce sounds like ü or ö in German. i.e. it should not feel natural/comfortable to pronounce these.


That's interesting. In clips of native speakers, the name of the letter ע sounds like "(throat)ah-yihn" and that of the letter ש like "sheen" to me.


----------



## Squee100

I have two huge questions about the chart below from _Encyclopedia Judaica_. I know I've already asked both, but I'm still a little confused.



 
1. In terms of English words, what sound does each of the vowel symbols in the chart represent?
2. Am I, as a non-Jew, allowed to use whichever of these pronunciations I want (for the consonants as well as the vowels, of course)?


----------



## origumi

Squee100 said:


> 1. In terms of English words, what sound does each of the vowel symbols in the chart represent?


Modern Hebrew has a 5-vowel system as described to you in your previous post. Historical dialects like the Ashkenazi, Sepharadi, Yemenite, were somewhat different, but then, they are important to you mainly if you have some kind of specific interest.



> 2. Am I, as a non-Jew, allowed to use whichever of these pronunciations I want (for the consonants as well as the vowels, of course)?


Non-Jew? Humm... well, they're not gonna disappear you, I suppose, if you choose the wrong pronunciation.
Take into account, though, that if you want Modern Hebrew speakers to understand you, modern pronunciation is your choice.
Modern pronunciation may show some traces of an historical one, depending on the speaker, but this is irrelevant for a non-native.


----------



## oopqoo

Squee100 said:


> That's interesting. In clips of native speakers, the name of the letter ע sounds like "(throat)ah-yihn" and that of the letter ש like "sheen" to me.


What is the question about that then?


----------



## Squee100

origumi said:


> Modern Hebrew has a 5-vowel system as described to you in your previous post. Historical dialects like the Ashkenazi, Sepharadi, Yemenite, were somewhat different, but then, they are important to you mainly if you have some kind of specific interest.


What I'm looking for is an English example of the sound represented by each of the vowel symbols in the chart. That is, in what English word would I find the sound meant by o, i, e, å, ɛ, etc. Are the vowel sounds in English really so different from those in other languages that there aren't any good examples?



origumi said:


> Non-Jew? Humm... well, they're not gonna disappear you, I suppose, if you choose the wrong pronunciation.
> Take into account, though, that if you want Modern Hebrew speakers to understand you, modern pronunciation is your choice.
> Modern pronunciation may show some traces of an historical one, depending on the speaker, but this is irrelevant for a non-native.


I don't have any specific interest with these pronunciations, nor do I intend to use Hebrew that much for religious purposes (As I said, I'm a non-Jew), but some of them just sound better to me and the diversity is really cool.


----------



## origumi

Squee100 said:


> some of them just sound better to me and the diversity is really cool.


I totally agree, Yemenite accent is wonderful, so it deep Ashkenazi or Sepharadi. Nevertheless, if you want to understand and be understood, these are not an option. Native Israeli, with Hebrew as mother language, would have tough time understanding an old Yemenite guy or an Ashkenazi song. I'm saying it from experience, it took me a while to get used to each of them.  It's not about vocabulary or grammar, just the pronunciation.


----------



## Squee100

origumi said:


> I totally agree, Yemenite accent is wonderful, so it deep Ashkenazi or Sepharadi. Nevertheless, if you want to understand and be understood, these are not an option. Native Israeli, with Hebrew as mother language, would have tough time understanding an old Yemenite guy or an Ashkenazi song. I'm saying it from experience, it took me a while to get used to each of them.  It's not about vocabulary or grammar, just the pronunciation.


I totally get that - Israel's only about the size of New Jersey, so it makes sense that in that small area only one accent would be used enough to be well-understood. Still, I'd be remiss not to use and compare the old pronunciations, but sometimes I don't feel like they're real Hebrew. What should I do? I already asked this in another thread because I thought you'd post there, but here's good too.


----------



## Drink

First of all, to correct origumi, the Ashkenazi, Sepharadi, and Yemenite pronunciations are not historical, but are still alive and well in their respective communities (although they are used for things like prayer and text study, and not for conversation; but that's how they were always used). And to clear up any confusion I myself may have caused, when I spoke of Israeli Ashkenazim in my first post in this thread, I was referring to their pronunciation of Modern Israeli Hebrew, and not to Ashkenazi Hebrew.



Squee100 said:


> I totally get that - Israel's only about the size of New Jersey, so it makes sense that in that small area only one accent would be used enough to be well-understood. Still, I'd be remiss not to use and compare the old pronunciations, but sometimes I don't feel like they're real Hebrew. What should I do?



We can't answer this question for you. We can only tell you about the different varieties. You have to answer for yourself why you are interested in Hebrew to begin with, and only based on that can you decide which variety you want to study and use. If you are interested in communicating with Israelis, you only need to know Modern Israeli Hebrew; if you are interested in studying the Bible, any single variety will do, or you may want to look at the reconstructed Tiberian or Biblical pronunciations; if you are interested in the history and culture of the Jews of Eastern Europe, then you only need the Ashkenazi pronunciation; if you are interested in Hebrew from a linguistic perspective, you'll probably want to learn all of them; etc.


----------



## origumi

Latin and Ge'ez are also used in certain context. It would be misleading refering to the mentioned Hebrew pronunciations, which a Hebrew learner is not likely to ever meet, as "alive and well".


----------



## Drink

origumi said:


> Latin and Ge'ez are also used in certain context. It would be misleading refering to the mentioned Hebrew pronunciations, which a Hebrew learner is not likely to ever meet, as "alive and well".



We're talking about pronunciations here. Latin and Ge'ez are languages, not pronunciations. The Amharic-influenced pronunciation of Ge'ez (and others) is certainly alive among clergy in Ethiopia, just like the Italian-influenced pronunciation of Latin is alive in the Vatican; but the situation with those two is different because knowledge of these languages and pronunciations is mostly restricted to the clergy. The Ashkenazi, Sepharadi, and Yemenite pronunciations are of Hebrew are (almost) as alive and well as they have ever been, and used not only by rabbis and cantors, but by most ordinary members of these more traditional Orthodox Jewish communities. Certainly it's unlikely that someone who is not an Orthodox Jew would encounter this if they were not specifically looking for it, but that's for everyone to decide for themselves.


----------



## Squee100

Drink said:


> We can't answer this question for you. We can only tell you about the different varieties. You have to answer for yourself why you are interested in Hebrew to begin with, and only based on that can you decide which variety you want to study and use. If you are interested in communicating with Israelis, you only need to know Modern Israeli Hebrew; if you are interested in studying the Bible, any single variety will do, or you may want to look at the reconstructed Tiberian or Biblical pronunciations; if you are interested in the history and culture of the Jews of Eastern Europe, then you only need the Ashkenazi pronunciation; if you are interested in Hebrew from a linguistic perspective, you'll probably want to learn all of them; etc.


For what it's worth, my introduction to Hebrew was this book:
Horrible Harry and the Holidaze (before you say anything, I was in elementary school at the time)
and this website:
Judaism 101: Hebrew Alphabet
but I intend to use the language for secular purposes. I guess it's considered wrong to do something like pronounce a loanword or neologism with an Ashkenazi accent, but I'd feel remiss not to. I'd REALLY hate to be wrong, though...


----------



## aavichai

accents are just accents
still the same language
so there is nothing wrong to use any one you want

i guess also english has many accents


----------



## Squee100

aavichai said:


> accents are just accents
> still the same language
> so there is nothing wrong to use any one you want
> 
> i guess also english has many accents


That's what I wanted to hear, but I'm not sure that you know I'm talking about the entire traditional pronunciation when I say "accent". Other native speakers have claimed that nobody understands them or uses them in conversation. Does what you say still hold true in that case, in your view?


----------



## aavichai

first i say it doesn't matter

and for your question
it depnend what you called traditionally

the early vowels of the semitic language was just A I and U
and with times the hebrew "added" more vowels (never mind the reason)

if we go back to the masoretic times
then the
Kamats was somthing between A and O (it derived from them mostly)
and the Segol was somthing probably between A and I (also drived from them)
(the yemenite doesn't used a segol at all - and it was always A)

So the Kamats and Segol
are used after the masoretic times in other accents

so those vowels are no longer pronounced as they were in the masoretic times (according to the pronounciation of the masoretic)

but it doesn't really matter
because such as the Kamats and segol are not "original" and was "created" naturally in the language
then today, and because of the exile, each part of the world also changes naturally the accent

so i don't see any problem with it
like any other language has changes
but still remain the same langugae

and if you just want to study, and you have some love for some accent
read it as you want
the grammar would still be the same grammr
it is just the way you pronounce the word that has changes.


----------



## berndf

Squee100 said:


> No-one can seem to agree whether e is "eh" like _set_ or "ay" like _day_ (but without the diphthongization)


I guess that is the most accurate description you can get: the distinction doesn't matter phonologically and the most neutral realisation is probably the Spanish _e,_ which is in the middle between the two.


----------



## Squee100

So what _is_ the reason for the differences in description I described in the original question? Is it because of variation between speakers, allophony, the weirdness of English vowels, or some combination thereof?


----------



## Drink

I don't understand what you're asking.


----------



## berndf

Squee100 said:


> So what _is_ the reason for the differences in description I described in the original question? Is it because of variation between speakers, allophony, the weirdness of English vowels, or some combination thereof?


Modern Hebrew has fewer vowels than English. Some distinctions that matter in English don't matter Hebrew. You could pronounce the status constructus of בית like _bait, bet_ or _bat_. It would still stay the same word. The theoretical location of the vowels is that of the Spanish vowel chart:




As it has wide open spaces between they, quite a bit of variation is possible without modifying content.


----------



## Squee100

This is about the vowels in both Modern Hebrew and Standard Spanish. When I refer to a single language without identification, I'm talking about Hebrew.


You've said they're the same (or close to it). In Hebrew, and to a lesser extent in Spanish, there is disagreement among English-language sources about whether the vowel sounds are [e], , [o], or [ɛ], [ɪ], [ɔ], [ʊ]. Having watched some of those Spanish/English cartoons as a kid and listened to clips of native Hebrew speakers to try to ensure I have the correct pronunciation, I've made the following observations.


The vowel represented by the letter i is usually described as but seems to sound like [ɪ] in words like Spanish cinco and Hebrew עין. I'm willing to believe that it can make both sounds, but I don't know a rule for when it's which. Also, and I know this isn't relevant to the sounds that they actually make, I can only read CiC as [CɪC] even when I try to see [CiC]. I can sort of get around this for Spanish, but it's not helpful when transliterating Hebrew into English.


The vowel represented by the letter o is described as [o] or [ɔ]. The rule seems to be [o] in an open syllable, [ɔ] in a closed syllable. However, words like Spanish Carlos and Hebrew שלום seem to be pronounced with [o].


The vowel represented by the letter e seems to be [ɛ] for the most part, but sometimes [e] (e.g. Spanish Olé!), but again I don't know a rule for when it's which.


Is this correct? What are the actual rules I should use to sound like a native?


[Moderator edit: remove excessive formatting for readability.]


----------



## berndf

If you say you can't decide if a Spanish/Hebrew /e/ is a [e] or a [ɛ] and a /o/ is a [o] or a [ɔ] you have nailed it. That *is* the answer. Take another look at the vowel chart I posted above and compare it to a cardinal vowel chart:


----------



## Squee100

Okay, but that wasn't my point. For example, the _e_s in _Ramirez_ and _Olé_ sound different to me, as do the _i_s in _Joaquin_ and _cinco_. I assume similar variation exists in Hebrew (assuming I'm not hearing things), but I'm not sure if I _am_ hearing things, and if not what the rule is.


----------



## berndf

Squee100 said:


> Okay, but that wasn't my point.


I know. What I am trying to tell you is that it should be. It is just pointless to analyse the Spanish/Hebrew back and front mid vowels in terms of mid close and mid open. It simply doesn't matter. Listen to the three pronunciations of Spanish _olé_ on forvo. They cover the whole range from [ɛ] to [e] and you cannot say that one is more native than the others. The centre point of the range (again, look at the chart) is in the middle, not mid open and not mid close. The rest is free variation.


----------



## Squee100

berndf said:


> I know. What I am trying to tell you is that it should be. It is just pointless to analyse the Spanish/Hebrew back and front mid vowels in terms of mid close and mid open. It simply doesn't matter. Listen to the three pronunciations of Spanish _olé_ on forvo. They cover the whole range from [ɛ] to [e] and you cannot say that one is more native than the others. The centre point of the range (again, look at the chart) is in the middle, not mid open and not mid close. The rest is free variation.


Okay, that makes sense. What about /i/, /o/, and /u/? Are they _, [o], ; [ɪ], [ɔ], [ʊ]; or both depending on the speaker like with /e/? Like I said, the is in Joaquin and cinco sound different to me, but I've never heard them said by the same person._


----------



## berndf

/o/ is the same as with /e/. I wrote:


berndf said:


> It is just pointless to analyse the Spanish/Hebrew back and front mid vowels in terms of mid close and mid open.


/e/ and /o/ are both mid-vowels.

All Romance speakers can't hear the difference between [ u ] and [ʊ] and between [ i ] and [ɪ], respectively (not only Spanish speakers). Maybe you know the long list of jokes about French, Italian or Spanish speakers confusing _live _and _leave _or _shit _and _sheet_. I have witnessed such confusions in real life, including a complete breakdown of communication between a French speaking Swiss immigration officer and an English speaking traveller. The officer meant to ask _Where do you live?_ He repeated the question times and again but said each time _Where do you leave?_


----------



## Drink

berndf said:


> All Romance speakers can't hear the difference between [ u ] and [ʊ] and between [ i ] and [ɪ], respectively (not only Spanish speakers).



Try not to make such generalizations. For example, Quebec French distinguishes between /u/ and /ʊ/ and between /i/ and /ɪ/ (and also between /y/ and /ʏ/). It's probably the most prominent distinguishing feature that remains no matter how hard they try to sound "proper". Anyway, I realize this is irrelevant to this thread.


----------



## Squee100

I know those languages only have one /i/ phoneme and one /u/ phoneme, so it makes sense that they wouldn't be able to tell the difference between [ i ] and [ɪ] and between [ u ] and [ʊ]. What I want to know is if both are used (which would make them allophones of the same phoneme), if so what the rule is, and if not which one they use.


----------



## berndf

Drink said:


> Try not to make such generalizations.


Point taken. A sentence starting with "all" is usually wrong.


----------



## berndf

Squee100 said:


> What I want to know is if both are used (which would make them allophones of the same phoneme)


It is not allophonic but free variation. You predominantly hear [ i ] and [ u ] in all of the those languages.


----------



## Squee100

berndf said:


> It is not allophonic but free variation. You predominantly hear [ i ] and [ u ] in all of the those languages.


I assume this is true for Hebrew as well, and that [e] vs. [ɛ] and [o] vs. [ɔ] are also free variation (in Hebrew as well as the Romance languages)? Also, can such variation exist within the speech of one person?


----------



## berndf

Squee100 said:


> I assume this is true for Hebrew as well, and that [e] vs. [ɛ] and [o] vs. [ɔ] are also free variation (in Hebrew as well as the Romance languages)? Also, can such variation exist within the speech of one person?


I would suppose so but I haven't seen any studies and can only speculate. There may also be dialectal/sociolectal variations.


----------



## Squee100

Hmm. So would [e], [ i ], [o], [ u ] in open syllables and [ɛ], [ɪ], [ɔ], [ʊ] in closed syllables sound "native" to a Hebrew speaker?


----------



## berndf

I honestly think this open/closed syllable thing is a red herring. I originally thought so, too. We are probably both influenced by our own languages, which both underwent a centuries ago a process of lengthening vowels in open syllable and with it raising and tensing. But I now think it has more to do with stressed and unstressed. Stressed syllables are longer than unstressed syllables and with them the vowels. But that is often only perceptual as vowel length influences our perception of vowel quality.


berndf said:


> Have a look at FORVO, there is one sample for דלת. It nicely shows the length difference. The first Segol is 100ms long and the second 50ms. If I had to transcribe it from how I perceive it, I would indeed write [dɛːletʰ] but the quality difference seems a delusion caused by the length difference. I see no relevant formant difference in the spectrum and if I cut 50ms out of the first Segol they sound equal to me and I hear [deletʰ].


Another example in Forvo is רגל.

Of course, a Tiberian long tzereh (with a silent yod), as in אחרי or the status constructus of בית, is a different matter. Most people pronounce it with an off-glide. This is Ashkenazi influence and violates the Spanish vowel model.


----------



## Squee100

berndf said:


> But I now think it has more to do with stressed and unstressed.


Interesting. Vowels in Hebrew, but not Spanish, sound different to me in unstressed syllables depending upon whether the syllable is open or closed. This is mostly at the end of words, and I'm not even sure which syllables count as open or closed due to loss of gemination and the consonantal sounds of syllable-final ה and ע. I've also heard reports of vowel laxing in closed stressed syllables, see Bereishis  in Hebrew Language Education Forum, and it seems to me that Spanish _cinco_ does this.


----------



## berndf

Squee100 said:


> I've also heard reports of vowel laxing in closed stressed syllables, see Bereishis in Hebrew Language Education Forum, and it seems to me that Spanish _cinco_ does this.


As far as as Spanish cinco is concerned, I would say such a tendency indeed exists, although it isn't more than a tendency. Some speakers do it, some don't. As to whether it exists in Hebrew as well, I am out of my depth. I can only say I haven't remarked it anywhere. But then I have been living in a French speaking area for many years and I had to train my ears to completely ignore the difference between [ i ] and [ɪ] when listening to a language that doesn't phonemically distinguish between them. From my experience, this is really the best you can do. Native speakers don't hear the difference and their pronunciation will accordingly be erratic and if you cling to that difference just because it is important in your own language you will stay in a permanent state of confusion and it will only keep you from paying attention to the things that really matter in that language.


----------

