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

A place for those new to Biblical Hebrew to ask basic questions about the language of the Hebrew Bible.
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
ralph
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:20 am

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

Post by ralph »

ducky wrote: Fri Feb 26, 2021 11:35 am Hi Jason,

It's funny, I wasn't offended by Ralph's words at all since I Don't even know what a "nursery level" is.
(And even if I did, It's really nothing).
exactly, it's not "derisive"/to offend, when I said "nursery level"..

You could say that the hebrew alphabet is nursery level hebrew..

In most hebrew classes, many non-native speakers are not even at nursery level pronunciation of hebrew!

What is good about many israelis is they are often honest and to the point! And often people outside israel don't understand that and think they are rude, and this can happen to non-israelis too!
Ralph Zak
ralph
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:20 am

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

Post by ralph »

Jason Hare wrote:
I was asking if the attempt at derisive language ("this is nursery level English," which was intended to make ducky out to be less than an infant in his use of English) were actually necessary.
That is quite a nasty accusation. You can't read another person's mind. You shouldn't be so presumptuous.

I referred to the distinction between "put" and "food" to be "nursery level" English.. I didn't make any general comment about his English . And my comment was not intended to offend Ducky and he was not offended.

I know people in a local hebrew class whose Hebrew pronunciation is barely nursery level, and when I speak to them they know I am not saying things to offend them, I am quite to the point. You don't know me and you shouldn't be so presumptuous. And besides, Ducky was not offended so he understood me better than you did.

I have had a lot of successful communication with Ducky, where we manage to understand each other, though it sometimes takes some effort on both sides.
Ralph Zak
ralph
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:20 am

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

Post by ralph »

Jason Hare wrote: Fri Feb 26, 2021 11:08 am
ralph wrote: Fri Feb 26, 2021 5:56 am
Jason Hare wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:06 pm

Is that necessary, though?
No, of course you can get by without knowing (difference between "put" and "food"), but I think it's very beneficial to learn, especially when communicating with people using a lot of English to explain things, about biblical hebrew grammar, and pronunciations.

There are misconceptions about shuruk and kubutz, that you and he are helping to clear up.. and one of the misconceptions is related specifically to the difference between two vowel sounds, the one in "put" and the one in "food". On that subject it helps a lot to be familiar with that difference.
I was asking if the attempt at derisive language ("this is nursery level English," which was intended to make ducky out to be less than an infant in his use of English) were actually necessary.
That is an outrageous and false accusation, based on your presumptuous misinterpretation

I commented specifically on "put" and "food", that that's nursery level English, and that is not intended as derisive.

I know people whose native language is English who study in Hebrew classes, whose Hebrew pronunciation is nursery level / very basic level, but their understanding of hebrew grammar is pretty good. Not everybody is fluent.

Ducky's English is good enough that i've been able to communicate with him pretty well, sometimes it takes some effort both sides, but i've had quite a lot of successful communication with him where we have understood each other, perhaps moreso than with you.
Ralph Zak
ducky
Posts: 658
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

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

Post by ducky »

Hi Ralph and Jason,

All that stuff Doesn't matter.
Just leave it.

**
Anyway, Ralph,

I have more to write about your main issue which is the Shuruq and Qubuts.
I read some stuff that may relevant to what you say.

I still say that Shuruq and Qubuts are the same, and It is shown in other places (which I'll later write).
But I saw some places of which some do try t make a distinguish between the two, though I think it is quite artificial.

What could be is that some do have two "u" but not because of the sign, but it because of the place of the vowel (which is close to what I say before about the natural way).
But I am also not sure about that too, I need to keep reading.
But also, I think it is kinda the uncommon way - but as I say - I need to read a little bit.

So if I'm not writing about it until next week, just remind me
David Hunter
ralph
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:20 am

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

Post by ralph »

ducky wrote: ...

Thanks, I basically agree with you that Kubutz and Shuruk are the same sound..

The question mark is whether it changes depending on open and closed syllables..

the book "How The Hebrew Language Grew", by Edward Horowitz, agrees also, that Kubutz and Shuruk are the same sound, and when there was a vav then a shuruk was used.

Interestingly, the book P335, doesn't mention about "put" and "food" for two tyoes of oo/uh. But he mentions

There's Hirik Gadol(ee), and Hirik Katan(ih). That's the difference between Seed/Seen/Queen(hirik gadol), and Sin/Grin/Hit/Bit (hirik katan)

UK and US pronunciations are the same here. i.e. "seed" is pronounced the same in UK and US. And "bit" is pronounced the same in UK and US.

Seed and bit are pronounced differently.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... glish/seed (Hirik Gadol) ee

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/bit (Hirk Katan) ih

He describes long and short vowels as a mistaken old theory that long vowels were held longer or something like that. (so maybe a more modern interpretation of the system is that they are just grammatical classifications.. and maybe more modern still is to disregard the classification of short and long completely.. really that book leaves more questions than answers and kind of brushes over these things quite dismissively).
Ralph Zak
ducky
Posts: 658
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

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

Post by ducky »

What I think about Hiriq is the same as I think about the Shuruq/Qubuts.
And I don't think that we should look to find English and Hebrew vowels to compare.

And as I say, if there is a change, it is more about the natural way of the speaker.
But I hope I'll get to that this week.

*****************
And a general note about all of this issue.
Personally, this whole case of pronunciation is less interesting.
Because I don't see it deeply relevant for the Hebrew study.

the changes of the sounds of the vowels in each era and/or each time, don't change anything to the study itself.

Also in English study.
I guess you are knowledgeable in the English accents.
But if someone would ask how to pronounce the O in Clock.
then one would show him the American way
and the other would say that the English way is right
but then we go back 500 years ago in England, and it maybe was a little bit different
And then we go 1000 back, and maybe it was a little bit different.

And also, in each era, there were probably different accents in the east and the west,
and this village talked a little bit like this, while the other one takes a little bit like that.

So when one wants to learn English rules, it doesn't really matter how it was pronounced when and where.
David Hunter
ralph
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:20 am

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

Post by ralph »

ducky wrote: What I think about Hiriq is the same as I think about the Shuruq/Qubuts.
And I don't think that we should look to find English and Hebrew vowels to compare.
If you knew the English pronunciations then you would see the benefit of it.. Because English, particularly RP or regional accent, is quite unusually useful linguistically, in that it has so many sounds.

English has the sound of the sephardi cholam.. and the sound of the ashkenazi cholam. And the shva. And so on.

If you know IPA, then you could perhaps use iPA, but good luck if you aren't familiar with the difference in sound between "food" and "put".
Also, in IPA there's RP Phonemes and there's GenAM Phonemes(General american) phonemes.
There's /u/("food") and /u:/("food") and /ʊ/("put") so /u/ and /u:/ are both the same, just a different IPA representation. US ways of writing them involve no colon. Somebody that isn't familiar with some technicalities of IPA might not realise that /u/ and /u:/ are the same sound!

So I think that since all the sounds exist in English, and you can easily hear English pronunciations with no sing songs.. and lots of excellent clear videos about how to pronounce English. Lots of dictionaries where you can play a sound in one second (no sing song), no monologue. It's an extremely good way to communicate. And when I link to an English word, there is a link for it being spoken , and the IPA.

But if you want IPA, then we are talking the difference between "put" and "food" is the difference between these two sounds A)/ʊ/ (or more clearly, uppercase! Ʊ ). And the other sound B)(/u/ or /u:).

ducky wrote: And as I say, if there is a change, it is more about the natural way of the speaker.
Yes I agree. But it's interesting to consider when that change occurs.
ducky wrote: if someone would ask how to pronounce the O in Clock.
The format of the answer would be similar to if somebody asked how to pronounce the Cholam.

You can say, For Sephardi pronunciation, _____ For Ashkenazi pronuncation _____ For Modern Hebrew ____ (or some other eg maybe yemenite).

Or you could ask them which of those pronunciations they are asking about

In the case of English there's a difference between UK(RP) and USA. And that dictionary.cambridge.org shows both very nicely.
ducky wrote: then one would show him the American way
and the other would say that the English way is right
but then we go back 500 years ago in England, and it maybe was a little bit different
And then we go 1000 back, and maybe it was a little bit different.
This is where it's important to specify and to understand the context of the question, and where the person asking is coming from.
ducky wrote: So when one wants to learn English rules, it doesn't really matter how it was pronounced when and where.
it does matter to some people, if you want to pronounce English like a Scotsman then it's a very different question.. But, English(RP) pronunciation, that's a set thing.

I have friends who study Hebrew, that aren't Jewish, but don't know good pronunciation, and I help them with their pronunciation. And I tell them of the different pronunciations that are out there. (ashkenazi, sephardi, "ashkefardi"/modern israeli).. and I suggest they go with modern israeli.

I knew an American that really bashed his Ashkenazi heritage(mistakenly), because he thought of that's why he can't pronounce the Cholam correctly. (He was pronouncing it like the 'o' in the american pronunciation of 'orange'). He was surprised to learn that UK Jews pronounce Cholam just fine, because we have the sound in our English!. In terms of sounds, knowing English makes learning other languages much easier. He didn't realise that he was pronouncing Cholam, not actually like Ashkenazi, but like in particular, an American accent!

And a funny thing is, when I told him to try saying "clock" "dock" e.t.c. with a sephardi cholam, it came out as a perfect English accent! He was shocked. It sounded like he was born in London! I was also surprised how good it came out!
Ralph Zak
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

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

Post by Jason Hare »

ducky wrote: Fri Feb 26, 2021 11:35 am Hi Jason,

It's funny, I wasn't offended by Ralph's words at all since I Don't even know what a "nursery level" is.
(And even if I did, It's really nothing).
It means that even babies know the difference between the sounds. The implication was that your English isn't even as good as that of babies.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
www.thehebrewcafe.com
Nihil est peius iis, qui paulum aliquid ultra primas litteras
progressi falsam sibi scientiæ persusionem induerunt.

— Quintilian
ralph
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:20 am

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

Post by ralph »

Jason Hare wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 9:48 am
ducky wrote: Fri Feb 26, 2021 11:35 am Hi Jason,

It's funny, I wasn't offended by Ralph's words at all since I Don't even know what a "nursery level" is.
(And even if I did, It's really nothing).
It means that even babies know the difference between the sounds. The implication was that your English isn't even as good as that of babies.
You are reading things in that aren't there.

That "implication" that you believe is the case, is not true or intended, and I have already explained this to you, how it is not true., but you keep insisting on coming back to this and making your accusations.

In most ways Ducky's English is much better than that. I was not making any general statement about his English. Or even specifically about his English.

But specifically pronounciation of "put" and "food" is something that children even of 3 or 4, are often familiar with, and my point is that it's easy to learn.

And as I told you, my communication with him is far more successful than my communication with you, and more is understood.
Furthermore, many people that are native English speakers, do not even have a nursery level pronunciation of Hebrew. For example, israelis know how to pronounce the vowels in Hebrew.. But those that aren't Israeli often don't know. That doesn't mean that their understanding of Hebrew generally is nursery level.

And generally I see pretty good progress in understanding between discussions between me and ducky, far moreso than between me and you. Because you insist on reading things in, and making accusations that aren't true, whereas ducky is pretty rational.
Ralph Zak
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

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

Post by Jason Hare »

Ducky is better at ignoring slights than I am. I don't see any reason why you should write that babies distinguish the difference between /u/ and /ʊ/ when talking with an Israeli, for whom such a distinction doesn't exist in his language. There is no /ʊ/ in Hebrew, and to point out that babies make that distinction cannot be read as anything than a jab. You could have said that this is a basic distinction ("oppositional phoneme") in English, but that you can understand how it would be problematic for an Israeli, for whom /ʊ/ doesn't exist. Instead, you wrote it in a way that would be taken as an insult by native speakers of English.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
www.thehebrewcafe.com
Nihil est peius iis, qui paulum aliquid ultra primas litteras
progressi falsam sibi scientiæ persusionem induerunt.

— Quintilian
Post Reply