chOlam or chOYlam

Maybe havara just doesn’t really matter. There are no hilchos havara after all. There are plenty of sefarim written by gedolim about kavana betfilla but nothing about havara, so maybe its the kavana that makes the letter what it needs to be. I have to check it again, but I think the yesod v’shoresh ha’avodah mentions something in passing about it when he goes through shema about lengthening the dalet.

ybrooklynteacher, the “ow” is for a cholam, not a kamatz or patach.

Just interested, but how do you pronunce shoe? The English say the “shu” – as in pull, while americans say shoe as in boot. Who is really correct? Or is there a third pronounciation special for “oE”

Nishdayngesheft – and of course referring to someone who’s screen name is rebdoniel as ‘Danny boy’ is really high-class…

BTW, There is an Even Ezra in parshas Vo’eiro, on Ehye asher ehye, which speaks about pronunciation of the R sound. I’ve never seen it myself but perhaps someone will check it out and see if he refers at all to this issue.

Shoe store assistant, you are making a BIG mistake.

there is no difference in english and american pronouniciation, just that one pair is referred to as shus, and two as shoes, therefore english people who do not buy hsabbos shoes, refer to shus, while american talk about shoos. canadians however, who buy yom otv shpoes too, talk about shees.

Hatzlacha.

Hapence.

If a person makes a comment suited for a shikkur, he deserves to be addressed as a shikkur.

You can keep the change.

nishdayngesheft – So I suppose that people who disagree with you are automatically shikkorim now? Please, let’s have a civilised discussion. No need to call names or simply throw around ad hominem attacks. It’s not clever, and it doesn’t convince anyone as to the validity of your position. If you have an issue with something someone else says, please have the good manners to address them politely and then make your point. Be prepared also to provide proof, not just dismissal.

By the way, if we’re nit-picking, then it’s ‘amendment’ not ’emendation’. The latter is an alteration designed to improve, the former is an additional statement. You accuse rdoniel of adding his own, not correcting, hence he would be ‘amending’ not ’emending’.

nishtdayngesheft – Luckily for me I’m not trying to impress you. But in case you missed it, I’ll repeat the definition of ’emendation’: “an alteration designed to improve”. rdoniel was not altering the words of R’ Hamburger, and was thus not emending it. He may have added to it, and it just so happens that we have in the English language a word for such an addition (which covers multiple types of additional statements including corrections, clarifications, amplifications and extrapolations [and it just so happens that rdoniel was extrapolating]) and that word is ‘amendment’. This is not ‘talk show radio’, this is normal English. An amended text leaves the original wording intact, the emended text changes the original wording. Amendments are mil’gav, emendations are mil’gav. rdoniel was therefore amending, not emending.

Furthermore, your making fun of his screen name was directed to him, not his statement, and deciding that his comment was ‘fit for a shikkur’ was an ad hominem attack in that it was an attack on the person, not a rational or cogently argued refutation of his position. You never explain why his claim is ‘low-class’, but simply dismissed it as such.

And if you read his post carefully you will find that he never claims that R’ Hamburger said anything except identifying various pronunciations. He then adds ‘it would seem’, indicating that he himself feels that this may be a reason why a certain havoro gained traction. You may agree or disagree. If you disagree, say why and be prepared to argue constructively and logically, but blase, offhand rejection won’t make you more right.