# Closed/Open syllables



## Margalit

Hello,
I am trying to understand the rules for kometz katan, and it refers to "segholate" words and "open/closed" syllables.  I am not familiar with many of the dikduk terms in English, and don't understand this.  Can anyone explain simply?
Thanks!


----------



## tkekte

What flavor of Hebrew are you studying? Israeli Hebrew has only five vowels, all the same length, a kamats katan is pronounced simply as [o].


----------



## Margalit

Hi Tkekte:
whether its "Lashon haKodesh" or "Ivrit", there's still a difference between kamatz gadol and kamatz katan.  It either "ah" like patach, plus "oh" like cholam, or "aw" (traditional kamatz) plus "oh" like cholam.  
I am trying to understand the rules for when to apply kamatz katan.  I know what sounds right, but don't know why its right.
Thanks for your help!

Margalit


----------



## tkekte

Emm... "apply"? Do you mean, you're trying to learn on your own how to "lenaked" words properly? Why bother, when you can just open a dictionary, and the correct nikkud is there. To me, Hebrew nikkud is something like English spelling. 

Or are you just trying to learn the pronunciation? (that's why I asked which flavor) Btw, in Israeli Hebrew a cholam or a kamats katan are never pronounced like "oh" in English, it's actually more like English "aw" but more to the front (if you know some vowel theory..). In other words it's a single short vowel [o], not a diphthong [ou]. (I'm too lazy to use the proper IPA symbols here)


----------



## Margalit

Erev Tov Tkekte,
yes, I am trying to understand the rules for when to pronounce a kamatz katan.  I do speak Hebrew (learned it from grade school through high school and spent a year in Israel) but I don't know the *rules* about when to apply it -- just whether it 'sounds' right or not.  Someone asked me, and I've looked in a few books, but I don't understand the explanations.  It contrasts words that end in vowels or consonants -- but the letters of alefbet are not vowels, so I don't get it.

Thanks!

Margalit


----------



## Flaminius

Hi Margalit,


> but the letters of alefbet are not vowels, so I don't get it.


A word-final "hey" is not a consonant but a vowel (/a/, /e/ or even /i/ in rare cases) unless it has mapiq (finally a Hebrew diacritical point whose name I remember!).


----------



## Margalit

Hi Flaminus,
so are you saying that any word that ends in a 'hey' would take the kamatz katan?


----------



## Gadyc

Margalit, try this tip. I learnt from my excelent teacher when I was in high school. It applies almost every times.

I like the aw for kamatz gadol propsed by Tkekte, so i will use it to differance it from kamatz katan (o).
Remember אברהם - patah+kamatz+kamatz = AvRawHawm. you try to remember it in"lshon hakodesh".
Accent is on last sylable - Hawm (מלרע)
Now, let split sylables:
*Av* - closed sylable (ending with a consonant) not accented => patah / Short vowel.
*Raw* - open sylable (open end, you can continue it endlessly) not accented => kamatz /Long vowel.
Thus, an accented open sylable will USUALLY get a Short vowel.
*Hawm* - closed sylable, accented => kamatz (Long vowel)

Usually, not always.
Exception are in some verb cojugation (ע הפועל in past and future tenses in some בנינים), and in kamatz katan:
kamatz katan exists only in an open not accented sylable.
So, you have:
לכה דודי - Lecha dodi and not Lecho dodi
ישא ברכה - Issa Bracha and not Isso Brocho (unless you speak in Ashkenaz pronounciation)
It think that's what Flaminius meant.


----------



## JaiHare

In an unaccented syllable:
---
Open — Long

Closed — Short
---

This is true for all syllables (either open or closed) that are *unaccented*. An accented syllable may contain either a long vowel or a short vowel.

Thus, _choch-'mah_ (חכמה) must have a short vowel in the first syllable, and it is pointed with a kamats: חָכְ-מָה. Make sense?

JaiHare


----------



## Gadyc

Apologies:



Gadyc said:


> kamatz katan exists only in an open not accented sylable.


 
That's what I wrote and it is not exact (It is even a mistake)


----------



## JaiHare

Indeed, kamats katan is in a CLOSED, unaccented syllable *only*. The rule (open-long, closed-short) does not normally predict anything about an accented syllable, but 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).


----------



## Ali Smith

In הַלְּלוּיָהּ when the דגש drops out, as it often does, is the first syllable still considered closed? If not, shouldn’t the vowel lengthen so as not to violate the rule that an open, unaccented syllable can contain either a long vowel or an ultra-short one but _never_ a short vowel?


----------



## Drink

The ל retains a vocal schwa, so the preceding syllable becomes open and is non-phonemically lengthened in Tiberian pronunciation.

No different at all from a patach that precedes a chataf-patach.


----------



## Ali Smith

Thanks! But what about in words like יֵצְאוּ 'they (mp) will go out' and יֵלְכוּ 'they (mp) will walk'? Here we have a _long _vowel in a closed syllable. Shouldn't the vowel reduce and become חיריק?


----------



## Drink

Ali Smith said:


> Thanks! But what about in words like יֵצְאוּ 'they (mp) will go out' and יֵלְכוּ 'they (mp) will walk'? Here we have a _long _vowel in a closed syllable. Shouldn't the vowel reduce and become חיריק?


These syllables are not closed. The shva is a vocal shva.


----------

