# pronunciation of kamatz



## Avishai

Shalom,

  I have read that when a kamatz is used in a syllable that ends with a consonant AND is not an accented syllable, it has the sound "o".  In all other cases it has the sound "a".  Is this correct or is there more to it?


----------



## בעל-חלומות

Of course there is more to it...

First of all, what you mean is an unaccented sylable that ends in a shva nakh (שווא נח) or a dagesh khazak (דגש חזק). These are always "o".

The kamatz is also a kamatz katan (a small kamatz, one whose sound is "o") if it's before another kamatz katan or before a khataf-kamatz(חטף-קמץ - הֳ). 

And I _think_ that's it.


----------



## Avishai

Shalom v'Toda

I was afraid it wouldn’t be that simple. But my Siddur distinguishes between Kamatz Gadol/Katan and I’ve only noticed one example where neither explanation seems to work. The word KHOL (all, with various prefixes) uses a Kamatz Katan (i think) with no Sva Nakh and no Dagesh AND it’s on an accented syllable. The rule I first stated seems to work in all the other places I have looked at. It’s all very confusing to me.


----------



## בעל-חלומות

כל does end in a shva nakh, but when the shva is at the end of a word, it's usually not marked. Still, it's not accented, so I don't know why it's written with a kamatz katan. The only reason I can think of is that maybe בכל"ם letters are ignored when putting the nikud on a word. When a word has only one syllable, it's considered unaccented.

Or maybe there is a difference in the nikud between modern Hebrew and the sidurim, but I don't think so.


----------



## Avishai

I found this on the net while looking for something else, but it seems to agree with my first posting about Kamatz Katan somewhat.

* "kamats katan is in a CLOSED, unaccented syllable only. We do not find kamats katan in an accented syllable. It is only in an unaccented closed syllable.

Beyond this, any time that a kamats precedes a chatef-kamats (ֳ ), it is read as a kamats katan: צָהֳרַיִם should technically be pronounced tso-ho-'ra-yim, with a kamats katan in the first syllable. This isn't the most common situation in the language, but it is static (as far as technical pronunciation is concerned)."*

I also don't understand why the Kamatz in "u'z'khor" (וּזְכָר) is a Kamatz Katan.  It's in an accented syllable or is it?


----------



## camaysar

Avishai said:


> I also don't understand why the Kamatz in "u'z'khor" (וּזְכָר) is a Kamatz Katan. It's in an accented syllable or is it?



Hi,

Wouldn't this be the equivalent of ובכל?


----------



## Avishai

Thanks for your response.

"Wouldn't this be the equivalent of ובכל?"

Yes I think so, but why does ובכל have a Kamatz Katan?  Everything I have seen says that Kamatz Katan never appears in an accented syllable but both ובכל and וזכר seem to go against this.


----------



## camaysar

I'm no expert, but perhaps a musical analogy can be made. It seems to me that  the first 2 letters (vav, bet) are as grace notes in music (acciacatura). They precede the beat, and are not counted in it. So even though there may be more than one note, the only note that counts is the main note. So, the Hebrew words in question may be seen as having only one syllable, preceded by 2 "grace notes".. but again, I'm no authority.


----------



## Gadyc

Avishai said:


> I also don't understand why the Kamatz in "u'z'khor" (וּזְכָר) is a Kamatz Katan. It's in an accented syllable or is it?


 
Why do you ponctuate it with a kamatz? it should be with holam hasser:


*וּזְכֹר* אֶת-בּוֹרְאֶיךָ בִּימֵי בְּחוּרֹתֶיךָ 

(Kohelet 12:1)

כל (all) is an exception.


----------



## Avishai

Shalom,



> Why do you ponctuate it with a kamatz? it should be with holam hasser:
> *וּזְכֹר* אֶת-בּוֹרְאֶיךָ בִּימֵי בְּחוּרֹתֶיךָ



Sorry my mistake. But From Tahanun:
אַל *תִּזְכָּר* לָֽנוּ עַוֹנוֹת רִאשׁוֹנִים מַהֵר יְקַדְּמֽוּנוּ רַחֲמֶֽיךָ


----------



## Gadyc

YishKoyech: 

אַל-תִּזְכָּר-לָנוּ, עֲוֹנֹת רִאשֹׁנִים

Tehilim 89
the 3 word are linked together (with the makaf), so they are considered to one single word, with one single Taam on the Lamed of LAnou.
SO, in this very special case, the Kamatz of Tizkor is a Kamatz Katan.
NB : if Tizkor was with a holam, it had to be an accented syllable but then the 3 words should be separated. The reason for the linkage is matter of commentary.


----------

