# חנות בגדים קבועה



## dukaine

What exactly is this? From what I can gather from googling and the context in which I read it, I think it's just a regular clothing store, but I'm not sure what the significance of קבועה is. I got it from this sentence:

*מהחלון אני רואה את החנות בגדים הקבועה והשבבניק הקבוע שעובד שם מעשן בחוץ.*


----------



## amikama

From the context, it sounds something like "the same clothing store and the same shababnik [I see every day]".
חנות הבגדים הקבועה could also mean "the regular clothing store" (i.e. the one you frequent).
Another expression with the word קבוע in this meaning is לקוח קבוע = a regular customer (one that frequents a business).


----------



## dukaine

amikama said:


> From the context, it sounds something like "the same clothing store and the same shababnik [I see every day]".
> חנות הבגדים הקבועה could also mean "the regular clothing store" (i.e. the one you frequent).
> Another expression with the word קבוע in this meaning is לקוח קבוע = a regular customer (one that frequents a business).


Ah, I see. I was reading it as a certain type of store. I checked Morfix again and saw that "routine" is one of the definitions of קבוע,  which I totally missed when I was looking it up. Thanks so much!


----------



## LXNDR

Note a colloquial mistake *ה*חנות בגדים instead of חנות *ה*בגדים


----------



## Ali Smith

LXNDR said:


> Note a colloquial mistake *ה*חנות בגדים instead of חנות *ה*בגדים


In the colloquial version do you say he-khanut or ha-khanut? I mean, is the vowel under the ח a qamats? If so, you have to say he-khanut, at least theoretically.


----------



## Drink

In colloquial language, you never pronounce the definite article as "he", only as "(h)a".


----------



## Ali Smith

Got it! But is the vowel under the first letter of חנות a qamats? If so, then in formal speech the word should be pronounced he-khamats.


----------



## LXNDR

Ali Smith said:


> Got it! But is the vowel under the first letter of חנות a qamats? If so, then in formal speech the word should be pronounced he-khamats.



According to some sources in *החנות* the definite *ha* should be vocalized with patach since Heth isn't kamatz'ed  חֲנוּת

השפה העברית - ה' הידיעה


לפני ה', ח'
שאינן מנוקדות בקמץבפתחהַהֲמֻלָּה, הַהֹלְכִים
הַחֹמֶר, הַחֲכָמִים(אין תשלום דגש)
יוצאים מן הכלל: הָהֵם, הָהֵן, הָהֵמָּה, הָהֵנָּה


ה"א הידיעה – ויקיפדיה


לפני ה', ח'
 לא קמוצות*לפני חָ, חֳ*לפני הָ, עָ
בלתי מוטעמותהַ+דגש חזקהָהַ


ניקוד אותיות השימוש - האקדמיה ללשון העברית


*הַ**ה* (בדרך כלל)
*ח* (בדרך כלל)*הַ*הֵד, *הַ*הֶסְבֵּר
*הַ*חֲלוֹם, *הַ*חָכְמָה


----------



## Drink

Ali Smith said:


> Got it! But is the vowel under the first letter of חנות a qamats? If so, then in formal speech the word should be pronounced he-khamats.



Seems like it's always with chataf-patach.


----------



## utopia

Who are the "some sources"? As far as I know it's חֲנוּת

And never had a kamats.


----------



## Ali Smith

utopia said:


> Who are the "some sources"? As far as I know it's חֲנוּת
> 
> And never had a kamats.


utopia: So, if someone wanted to say "in a store" would he say ba-khanut (assuming he were speaking on a formal occasion)? I think so, because it would be just like לחברים (for friends), which is pronounced la-khaverim (but le-khaverim in colloquial Hebrew).

LXNDR: If someone pluralized הֵחָנוּת (he-khanut), would the result be ha-khanuyot?


----------



## LXNDR

Ali Smith said:


> LXNDR: If someone pluralized הֵחָנוּת (he-khanut), would the result be ha-khanuyot?



 הֵחָנוּת (he-khanut) is incorrect as i tried to demonstrate in my previous post.

It seems that ha-khanuyot is the only correct pronunciation regardless of the singular because  חֲנוּיּוֹת is still isn't kamatz'ed


----------



## Ali Smith

LXNDR said:


> הֵחָנוּת (he-khanut) is incorrect as i tried to demonstrate in my previous post.
> 
> It seems that ha-khanuyot is the only correct pronunciation regardless of the singular because  חֲנוּיּוֹת is still isn't kamatz'ed


Thanks! But then if someone wanted to say "in stores", would he say ba-khanuyot בַּחֲנוּיּוֹת? If so, it would end up looking and sounding exactly like "in the stores"!


----------



## LXNDR

In practice no. In stores would be said as be-khanuyot and in the stores as ba-khanuyot.


----------



## Ali Smith

LXNDR said:


> In practice no. In stores would be said as be-khanuyot and in the stores as ba-khanuyot.


Thank you! But when _writing_ it would be impossible to distinguish "in stores" from "in the stores", wouldn't it? I mean, they would be _spelled_ exactly the same way: בַּחֲנוּיּוֹת (note the פתח under the ב).


----------



## LXNDR

In Hebrew the situation isn't unique to this specific word combination. After all, the written language is vocalized very frugally. But it all transpires from the context and doesn't impede understanding.
Another example is 2nd person ending of verbs in the past tense, אמרת is both amart (you f.) and amarta (you m.). In writing without context or diacritics it's impossible to figure out who's implied by it.


----------



## utopia

Ali, when you talk, there's no difference - words that start with kamats or hataf-patah are the same in colloquial speech.

When one reads, and wants to sound literate - only then you'd hear one reading according to the rules.

Pupils and teachers usually read it as if they talk - hahanut (definite), behanut, lehanuyot.

Even on the radio, if the announcer is not aware of the initial vocalization of the word, then he would use the spoken way of pronounciation.

Vocalized books like books to teach the language, are adifferent thing, but don't expect Hebrew speakers to remember the rules about initial vocalization. They want the simpliest and that's what they use.


----------



## Ali Smith

utopia: I guess that means that if I said _la-khanut_ or _ba-khanut_, I could be sure that everyone would think I meant "to/in *the* store", and nobody would ever guess I meant "to/in *a* store" unless he or she happened to be a teacher of Hebrew.


----------



## utopia

Exactly!

I don't think there's any fear that even a teacher might understand it otherwise!


----------



## S1234

If somebody insisted on vocalizing לחנויות, wouldn't he put a patakh under the lamed only if he meant "to stores"?

If he wanted to say "to the stores" wouldn't the correct vowel be a qamets?


----------



## Drink

Nope, patach in both cases. The rules for whether the definite article has a patach or a qamatz before a guttural are pretty complicated.


----------

