example of kamatz katan israeli pronunciation in the bible? + what's the israeli rule for it?

[Jason Hare]

קְדֹשִׁים qəḏōšîm is plural of the adjective קָדֹשׁ qāḏōš "holy." These forms are not relevant to what we're talking about.

קָֽדָשִׁים qāḏāšîm and קֳדָשִׁים qŏḏāšîm are plurals of the noun קֹ֫דֶשׁ qṓḏeš "holiness." This is what we're talking about.

A search on Mechon Mamre reveals that the anarthrous form appears with kamats, whereas the articular form appears with ḥataf-kamats. Thus, you will find קָֽדָשִׁים qāḏāšîm (link) and הַקֳּדָשִׁים haqqŏḏāšîm (link). I wasn't aware of this distinction, but now it makes sense.

For the most part, קָֽדָשִׁים refers to votive offerings and קֳדָשִׁים shows up in the expression קֹ֫דֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים refers to the "most holy place" (the "holy of holies") of the temple building.

See the entry from HALOT here.

[Jason Hare]

By the way, Joüon & Muraoka bring up שֹׁ֫רֶשׁ ← שָֽׁרָשִׁים as another example to state that קָֽדָשִׁים should still be read as kodashim.

From Joüon & Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew: Revised English Edition (2006):
(§6.l)
The exceptions are not numerous; the more important are the following:
1) Alongside the form קֳדָשִׁים one also has קָֽדָשִׁים both pronounced traditionally [qodašim] (the latter as [qa-] by Sephardis) with o̧ in an open syllable. This unusual spelling suggests that the symbol ◌ָ represents the sound o̧ alone. Likewise one has שָֽׁרָשִׁים for שֳׁרָשִׁים*; cf. § 96 A g(3).

[ducky]

Hi Ralph and Jason

What's the rule for determining it in modern Israeli pronunciation?

As I said before.

It is based on the origin of the Qamats.
But of course, you can use the "signs" that helps.
Qamats is "o" when:
1.Qamats in an unaccented closed syllable
2. Before Hataph-Qamats (like the name נעמי)
3. The first Qamats in the words קדשים and שרשים

I have heard that in [modern] Israeli Hebrew pronunciation determining of kamatz Katan is meant to be a reconstruction of how it would have been.

It is also in Sephardi (except for the two cases above (2 & 3).

basically, the Qamats is an evolved vowel that came from two basic vowels.
Not every community had it.
And so, its pronunciation is according to its basic vowel.

If the Qamats is based on "a", then it would "turn back" to be "a".
For example the word "Shalom".
the "Sha" is with Qamats.
And it is pronounced "a" because it was developed from an "a" sound (compare to Arabic Salaam for example).

If the Qamats is based on "u", then, in that case, it would be pronounced as "o"
(In this case, it didn't really "turn back" completely to "u", but to "o").
For example, the word כל is written with Qamats "o".
and when it comes with a suffix, we can see its basic vowel "u" כלך כלכם and so on.

so ok.. so it's based on if the sound was an old "u".

But how do you know if the sound was an old "u"?

You can see it according to the form of the word. A lot of the time, you can just play with the word's form and see how it is changing.

There are a few ways to see it, (also by eliminating the other option).
And As much as you understand the behavior of the vowels and patterns, it would be easy to see it.

Notice that I didn't say "u" for Qamats Qatan.
I said that it was developed from an "u" sound.
the "u" is just "u" (I don't understand so much about English accents, but just straight "oo" (like Foot)).

And the Qamats Qatan is just "o" (like Holam)