# הועבר pronunciation?



## bymyself90

Is it spelled huvar or huavar?

Toda


----------



## arbelyoni

According to the Academy (כלל ה), its Niqqud is either הָעֳבַר (ho'avar) or הֻעֲבַר (hu'avar).


----------



## ystab

arbelyoni said:


> According to the Academy (כלל ה), its Niqqud is either הָעֳבַר (ho'avar) or הֻעֲבַר (hu'avar).



הָעֳבַר is read (ho'ovar), as Hataf-Qamatz is pronounced as a short /o/.

They say in a small note that הֹעֲבַר (ho'avar) is also okay.


----------



## arbelyoni

ystab said:


> הָעֳבַר is read (ho'ovar), as Hataf-Qamatz is pronounced as a short /o/.
> 
> They say in a small note that הֹעֲבַר (ho'avar) is also okay.


Thanks for the correction.
It should also be noted that [ho'avar] and [ho'ovar] are not common in daily speech; the only form used colloquially is [hu'avar].


----------



## berndf

arbelyoni said:


> According to the Academy (כלל ה), its Niqqud is either הָעֳבַר (ho'avar) or הֻעֲבַר (hu'avar).


Why [h*o*?ovar] and not [h*a*?ovar]? In an open syllable, I would have expected a Kamatz gadol and not a Kamatz qatan or does -הָעֳ count (in Tiberian pronunciation) as a single (closed) syllable?


----------



## Drink

berndf said:


> Why [h*o*?ovar] and not [h*a*?ovar]? In an open syllable, I would have expected a Kamatz gadol and not a Kamatz qatan or does -הָעֳ count (in Tiberian pronunciation) as a single (closed) syllable?



This is a regular process: [huʕbar] > [hoʕbar] > [hoʕŏvar], with [ŏ] indicating an "ultrashort" vowel (which may not actually have been pronounced differently). This sequence of short vowel followed by ultrashort vowel is actually very common: אַהֲבָה [ʔahăva:], נֶעֱלַם [neʕĕlam].


----------



## berndf

Drink said:


> This is a regular process: [huʕbar] > [hoʕbar] > [hoʕŏvar], with [ŏ] indicating an "ultrashort" vowel (which may not actually have been pronounced differently). This sequence of short vowel followed by ultrashort vowel is actually very common: אַהֲבָה [ʔahăva:], נֶעֱלַם [neʕĕlam].


I am not quite sure how this helps answering my question. It is clear that the Hataph Kamatz originated as a kind of a helper vowel to make the [ʕ] more pronounceable. My question was, if the word still counts as two-syllabic so that the first syllable is closed and the Kamatz under the He counts as Qatan and not as Gadol. If counts as Gadol than is should normally have shifted to /a/ in modern Hebrew.


----------



## Drink

berndf said:


> I am not quite sure how this helps answering my question. It is clear that the Hataph Kamatz originated as a kind of a helper vowel to make the [ʕ] more pronounceable. My question was, if the word still counts as two-syllabic so that the first syllable is closed and the Kamatz under the He counts as Qatan and not as Gadol. If counts as Gadol than is should normally have shifted to /a/ in modern Hebrew.



Qamatz qatan and gadol never alternated in Hebrew. Qamatz gadol is always the result of the lengthening of the [a] vowel (and in some cases an originally long [a:] vowel), while the qamatz qatan is always a reflex of an unlengthened short  vowel (and in some cases a shortened longed [o:] vowel, which incidentally usually originates from Proto-Semitic [a:]). The only reason they use the same symbol is that they merged in some varieties of Hebrew, such as that of the Tiberian Masoretes. Today, this merger is still preserved in Ashkenazi and Yemenite Hebrew, but it never occurred in Sephardi Hebrew. Modern Israeli Hebrew tries to preserve the Sephardi distinction, but there is some confusion due to the use of the same symbol, which is one of the reasons that many people say "makhratayim" instead of "mokhratayim".


----------



## berndf

Drink said:


> Qamatz qatan and gadol never alternated in Hebrew. Qamatz gadol is always the result of the lengthening of the [a] vowel (and in some cases an originally long [a:] vowel), while the qamatz qatan is always a reflex of an unlengthened short  vowel (and in some cases a shortened longed [o:] vowel, which incidentally usually originates from Proto-Semitic [a:]). The only reason they use the same symbol is that they merged in some varieties of Hebrew, such as that of the Tiberian Masoretes. Today, this merger is still preserved in Ashkenazi and Yemenite Hebrew, but it never occurred in Sephardi Hebrew. Modern Israeli Hebrew tries to preserve the Sephardi distinction, but there is some confusion due to the use of the same symbol, which is one of the reasons that many people say "makhratayim" instead of "mokhratayim".


So, you are saying the rule Kamatz gadol=open syllable and Kamatz Qatan=closed syllable isn't correct but a misinterpretation or over-simplification of a distinction that can only be stated correctly in etymological terms?


----------



## Drink

berndf said:


> So, you are saying the rule Kamatz gadol=open syllable and Kamatz Qatan=closed syllable isn't correct but a misinterpretation of a distinction that can only be explained etymologically?



Not exactly. But it's not so much a "rule" as just an observation. The [a] vowel was lengthened (usually) in open syllables, while the  > [o] was left unlengthened in unstressed closed syllables. Thus, as a general rule, qamatz gadol occurs much more frequently in open syllables, and qamatz qatan occurs much more frequently in closed syllables.


----------



## berndf

Drink said:


> Not exactly. But it's not so much a "rule" as just an observation. The [a] vowel was lengthened (usually) in open syllables, while the  > [o] was left unlengthened in unstressed closed syllables. Thus, as a general rule, qamatz gadol occurs much more frequently in open syllables, and qamatz qatan occurs much more frequently in closed syllables.



Thank you. And _C-o-gutturalC-__ŏ-_ is a general pattern (derived from _C-u-gutturalC_) where the lengthening did not occur although _C-o-_ became an open syllable. Right?


----------



## Drink

berndf said:


> Thank you. And _C-o-gutturalC-__ŏ-_ is a general pattern (derived from _C-u-gutturalC_) where the lengthening did not occur although _C-o-_ became an open syllable. Right?



Yes, apparently the epenthetic vowel was inserted after the lengthening of open syllables (also this vowel was inserted inconsistently in some words but not others, so you can find _C-o-gutturalC-_ as well).


----------



## berndf

Drink said:


> Yes, apparently the epenthetic vowel was inserted after the lengthening of open syllables (also this vowel was inserted inconsistently in some words but not others, so you can find _C-o-gutturalC-_ as well).


Either that or the ultra short vowels were at the time the lengthening occurred phonologically too insignificant to impact on the syllable structure of the word.


----------



## hadronic

The weird thing in C_ŏ_H_ŏ  _(H=guttural, brevis = short vowel, exponant = ultrashort, shwa-like vowel), is that the first vowel keeps its short status as if the ultrashort vowel didn't exist (ie, as if it was similar to a mute schwa, which it historically is), but in the same time, the consonant immediately following the ultrashort vowel (like the "v" in _ho'ovar_) still get softened as if the ultrashort vowel was similar to a mobile shwa, which it is not.

All in all, it ressembles the furtive schwa (shwa merahef), in that it follows a short vowel but commands softening of the next consonant, like in _măl'xei_  (furtive shwa noted by apostrophe here), the plural smikhut form of _melekh_ ("the kings of").


----------



## arielipi

hadronic - i believe it is because its one of האח רע


----------



## hadronic

arielipi - his has already been said a few messages back, and *is* actually the point in case in this thread. We're already some steps beyond that observation already, namely, the status of the short vowel before and the ultrashort vowel after the guttural. How do they fit the massoretic system of schwas, vowel length and spirantization.


----------



## hadronic

On another note, there are examples of qamatz followed by hataf-qamatz    in which the qamatz is not qatan but gadol, yielding to a "a-o" pronunciation instead of the expected "o-o" :  hā-ŏniya, (the boat). 
The pair "bā-ŏniya" (in the boat) vs. "bŏ-ŏniya" (in a boat) is even spelt the same, but pronounced differently.


----------



## Drink

hadronic said:


> On another note, there are examples of qamatz followed by hataf-qamatz    in which the qamatz is not qatan but gadol, yielding to a "a-o" pronunciation instead of the expected "o-o" :  hā-ŏniya, (the boat).
> The pair "bā-ŏniya" (in the boat) vs. "bŏ-ŏniya" (in a boat) is even spelt the same, but pronounced differently.



Yes, but they have a different origin, as I'm sure you know: _*baʔʔuniyya(t)_ > _bāʔŏniyyā_, but _*bəʔuniyya(t)_ > _boʔŏniyyā_. It is import to realize that you cannot always distinguish between qamatz gadol and qatan without looking at the grammar as well.


----------



## arielipi

I dont understand the question then -this is a phenomenon happening due to האח רע - what is the question? why does it happen as it does?


----------



## hadronic

@ drink : we all agree, I just wanted to bring up an example where this combination doesn't represent, as it usually does, the "o-o" pronunciation. Some books adventure in saying that a hataf-qamatz is a clear sign that the preceding qamatz is qatan, but this is wrong. 
That said, it seems like it's the unique example where this wouldn't be the case. I can't find anything similar to lŏmda (learning software) vs. lām'da (she learned), when the schwa-bearing consonant is not a guttural.


----------



## hadronic

@ arielipi : for me the question is that of the status of coloured schwas. Do they count as a short syllable? as a semi-syllable? as another type of syllable altogether? Does it belong somehow to the general principles governing long and short syllables, or should we make ad hoc rules to explain how they fit in a word's structure. 
Same as the schwa merahef : I personally consider it as a very ad-hoc notion, and as a kind of renouncement, a failure to actually grasp what's really happening.


----------



## hadronic

What  about Naomi נָעֳמִי ?


----------



## Drink

hadronic said:


> That said, it seems like it's the unique example where this wouldn't be the case. I can't find anything similar to lŏmda (learning software) vs. lām'da (she learned), when the schwa-bearing consonant is not a guttural.



That is because in those cases like lŏmda vs lām'da, if the schwa is under a gutteral, it is a hataf patah, not a hataf qamatz.



hadronic said:


> @ arielipi : for me the question is that of the status of coloured schwas. Do they count as a short syllable? as a semi-syllable? as another type of syllable altogether? Does it belong somehow to the general principles governing long and short syllables, or should we make ad hoc rules to explain how they fit in a word's structure.
> Same as the schwa merahef : I personally consider it as a very ad-hoc notion, and as a kind of renouncement, a failure to actually grasp what's really happening.



Traditionally, they are counted as part of the next syllable.



hadronic said:


> What  about Naomi נָעֳמִי ?



Na`omi is a misinterpretation of No`omi.


----------



## amikama

According to the Academia:

Hataf-kamats is always pronounced "o".
Kamats before hataf-kamats may be pronounced as "o" or "a". The 'official' pronunciation is "o" whereas the Sephardic pronunciation is always "a".
The name נעמי is pronounced _no'omi _according to the traditional grammar, and _na'omi _according to the Sephardic tradition. Both pronunciations are valid.


----------

