question about u -kubutz, shuruk.. (and also, "old u")

[ralph]

Note that the 'o' in foot is different from the 'o' in food. (I don't need to specify british or american accent because both agree on this).

...old u...

So you say there's this "old u"

I understand you aren't big on english accents, but you said it's like the sound in the word "foot".

are you describing a kubutz? or shuruk? or both?!

Would you say kubutz or shuruk are pronounced the same?

[ducky]

Hi Ralph,

I didn't know that the "oo" in "food" and in "foot" is different.
interesting to know that.

****
The "u" is like "shuruq" and Qubuts"

but this is not the sound of the Qamats Qatan
The Qamats Qatan is like the Holam (o).

*******
When I wrote "u" - I mean that the Qamats Qatan that is pronounced as Holam (o) - was "born" from the "u" sound.

******
Another note:
you asked about Shuruq and Qubuts.
There is no difference between them.

The only reason that we have a "u" vowel that is called "Shuruq" and a "u" vowel that is called "Qubuts" is just because of the spelling of the word.

The Masoretic people, when they created the signs for the vowels were humbled to the spelling.
And so, when they saw an "u" sound (and there was no "Vav") they signed the "u" sound with "Qubuts".
But when there was an "u" sound and there was a "Vav" letter after it (which acted as a vowel letter), they put the sign of "Shuruq" (to mark the vowel letter).
And so, to signs were made for the same sound.
One which involved a vowel letter Vav
And one without it.

The same thing is with Holam (sometimes with Vav and sometimes without it) - but it is the same sound.

(I know that when someone starts to study, they teach it as a big vowel and small vowel, but it is not really accurate, and these vowels are not really relevant for that)

[ralph]

Hi Ralph,

I didn't know that the "oo" in "food" and in "foot" is different.
interesting to know that.

It's really important!

The standard-UK/USA pronunciation of "put" https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/put /pʊt/

The standard-UK/USA pronunciation of "food" https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... glish/food /fuːd/

(that dictionary has a speaker so you can hear the word)

Is it that a kubutz/shuruk in a closed syllable would be like /pʊt/

And a kubutz/shuruk in an open syllable would be like /fuːd/


A Cholam can be with or without a vav.

Is a Shuruk only ever with a vav?

Is a kubutz only ever without a vav?

[ducky]

Hi Ralph,

These vowels thing is very interesting to me, but instead of referring to the words you put, maybe just listen to a Hebrew speaker (song, talk, or anything).

Here is a part of the "u" from a children song about the vowels
https://youtu.be/2FAUasGf9y8?t=180

*********************

remember that names are just names.
Shuruq is the name of the "u" sound when the Vav is involved
and the Qubuts is the name of the "u" sound when the Vav is not involved.
But it doesn't mean that the "u" is different.
The fact that Shuruq and Qubuts have different names is because the mark is different.

You can find a lot of words that are expected to be with Qubuts and they are written with Shuruq (because the spelling had Vav) - and vice versa.
But it doesn't mean that the vowel is certainly big or small.
There are Shuruqs that come as a small vowel
and there is a Qubuts that come as a big vowel

[ralph]

...

look I learnt how to read hebrew in school. So I don't need a children's song. I can read chunks of a siddur/prayer book fast, i'm familiar with davening/jewish prayer.

and I understand what you are saying about kubutz and shuruk being the same sound. I've read that too. And I'm not disagreeing with you on that.

My example of "put" and "food" is perfect.. as it gives you links to hear exactly the difference.

Your childrens song doesn't answer the question I asked..

Of when you think it is like "put", and when you think it is like "food"?

(Or maybe you think it's like "put" and not like "food". Or maybe you think it's like "food" and not like "put")?

It might be tough for you to say because you might not be familiar with two sounds that are so similar.

I asked you.

Is it that a kubutz/shuruk in a closed syllable would be like "put"

And a kubutz/shuruk in an open syllable would be like "food"

(now that you know the different sound of "put" and "food").

And you don't have to listen to a noisy 4min childrens song to see the pronunciation of "put" and "food", it's literally a one second thing to listen to for "put" and for "food".

I do have a book somewhere that says that kubutz and shuruk are the same vocally.. just that shuruk is used when there's a vav, and kubutz when there is no vav. It also said that sometimes it's the oo like in food, and sometimes u like in put. depending on whether the syllable is open or closed, and whether there's stress on the syllable.

I think it effectively maybe said that if the syllable is closed an unstressed then it's like "put".

if it's an open syllable (then maybe whether stressed or not), it's like the oo in "food".


Also as for the questions I asked you here, I think maybe the answer to each of these A,B,C is YES, right?

A)A Cholam can be either with a vav or without a vav?

B)Is a Shuruk only ever with a vav?

C)Is a kubutz only ever without a vav?

You talk about small vowels and big vowels.. Maybe you mean short and long. I'm not using such language as it's possibly ambiguous. I'm not talking about a difference in length of sound! You can say "food" quickly or you can say "put" quickly!

[ducky]

Hi Ralph,

The answer to your 3 questions is Yes.

But I wanted to tell you (unsuccessfully) that these questions are not relevant to the main question you ask (about the pronunciation).

*****
I write "big and small" for the reason to not use the terms "long and short".
I write "big and small" for the grammar explanation.

*****
As for the sounds...
You need to understand that my ear is not really good with diction and vowels and I can't even pronounce the "put" and the "food" in the right way as the recording says.

I'll tell you this.
I read the Bible in the Yemenite accent.
I read the Bible in the Sephardic accent.
I speak Hebrew, sing Hebrew, and do everything Hebrew.

I have only one "u".
I never create "another u" in my life.

Maybe, those who have a sharp ear as you have, can hear a Hebrew speaker talk, and finds that in some cases his "u" is changing because of the condition of the syllable.
I don't know if that happens.
And if it does, then it happens naturally and unintentionally.
No one tries intentionally to create two "u"

As we talked before, Modern (and Sephardic) has only 5 vowels (a-i-e-o-u)
And therefore, every "u" is the same "u" (just like in the stupid song).

[Jason Hare]

The verb לְנַתֵּחַ lənattḗaḥ goes into the imperfect ("future") 3mp as יְנַתְּחוּ yənattəḥû́. When you add a 3ms suffix to it, you end up with יְנַתְּח֫וּהוּ yənattəḥû́hû "he will cut it into pieces." The vav-consecutive becomes וִינַתְּח֫וּהוּ vînattəḥû́hû "and he cut it into pieces."

This verb appears in 1 Kings 18:23.

וְיִתְּנוּ־לָ֜נוּ שְׁנַ֣יִם פָּרִ֗ים וְיִבְחֲר֣וּ לָהֶם֩ הַפָּ֨ר הָאֶחָ֜ד וִֽינַתְּחֻ֗הוּ וְיָשִׂ֨ימוּ֙ עַל־הָ֣עֵצִ֔ים וְאֵ֖שׁ לֹ֣א יָשִׂ֑ימוּ וַאֲנִ֞י אֶעֱשֶׂ֣ה׀ אֶת־הַפָּ֣ר הָאֶחָ֗ד‬ ‬וְנָֽתַתִּי֙ עַל־הָ֣עֵצִ֔ים וְאֵ֖שׁ לֹ֥א אָשִֽׂים׃

That first shuruk is not written! It's written as a kubuts. There is no difference in sound. Instead of וִינַתְּח֫וּהוּ vînattəḥû́hû, it's וִינַתְּחֻ֫הוּ vînattəḥū́hû. Just like ◌וֹ ô can be written simply as ◌ֹ ō, so ◌וּ û can be written as ◌ֻ ū. It's the same sound.

Kubuts can be either long [ū] or short [u], depending on the situation. In an unaccented syllable: if the syllable is closed, kubuts is short; if the syllable is open, kubuts is long. When it is long, it is interchangeable with shuruk. In all situations, kubuts and shuruk sound the same, whether long or short.

For transcription purposes:
shuruk = ◌וּ = û (always long — all matres lectionis are long)
long kubuts = ◌ֻ = ū
short kubuts = ◌ֻ = u

[ducky]

Hi Jason,

There are also a lot of Shuruq that are "short".
(like words that have Dagesh after Shuruq - which means that the Shuruq is actually "short")
*****

Anyway, going back...
If there is a difference between some of the "u's", then it would be for the natural way of talk.
As when the "u" is stopped by a dagesh it might sound different to some when it is "free" and loose

[Jason Hare]

There are also a lot of Shuruq that are "short".
(like words that have Dagesh after Shuruq - which means that the Shuruq is actually "short")

This is why I mentioned that in unaccented closed syllables, it is short u.

יְחֻבַּר yə|ḥub|bár — Middle syllable is unstressed and closed. The vowel is short.

אֻכַּל ʾuk|kál — First syllable is unstressed and closed. The vowel is short.

וַיֹּצִאֻ֫הוּ vay|yō|ṣī|ʾū́|hû — The syllable with alef is stressed and open. The vowel here is long. The same is the case with the chirik in the previous syllable, which is unstressed and open.

וַיּוֹצִיא֫וּהוּ vay|yô|ṣî|ʾû́|hû — This is the plene spelling of the above, and each syllable but the first contains a mater lectionis. Matres lectionis are always long.

I mentioned three different states: always long shuruk, long kubuts (in accented/stressed syllables, or in unstressed open syllables), and short kubuts (in unstressed closed syllables).

[ralph]

....

Thanks, and when you say long and short, do you mean

A)length of time the sound is held for?

B)the difference between "put" and "food"

C)grammatical rules long and short, which would impact modern(post levita/bachur), shva rules

Or some combination of A,B,C?