October 30, 2012 3:50 pm at 3:50 pm #901939
R’ Hamburger identifies 4 different pronunciations of the cholam.
1) Poland and Hungarians pronounce komatz chirik (as in toy)
2)Litvaks and Russians pronounce segol chirik (as in pay)
3)Dutch Jews pronounce patach shuruk (as in how)
4) Western Europeans and Americans pronounce komatz shuruk (as in go)
It seems that the yeshivishe nowadays all pronounce according to the Polish way, in an attempt to ape their peers and appear as “frum” as possible.October 30, 2012 4:18 pm at 4:18 pm #901940
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.October 30, 2012 6:17 pm at 6:17 pm #901941
Just wondering, do yekkes say sinow for sinai? What about the briskers – do they say sin-ai?October 30, 2012 7:25 pm at 7:25 pm #901942
ybrooklynteacher, the “ow” is for a cholam, not a kamatz or patach.October 30, 2012 9:09 pm at 9:09 pm #901943
If most yeshivish guys in america are into brisk, and you choose your favorite godol’s pronounciation, then why are all yeshivishe guys not saying “ay”?
Hkatan, i imagine brroklyn teacher was commenting on the suggestion that “Har sinai” rhymes with U’shnei luchois avnim hoirid beyodoi.October 30, 2012 9:34 pm at 9:34 pm #901944
Shoe store assistantMember
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”October 30, 2012 11:39 pm at 11:39 pm #901945
Did R Hamberger says that last part, or was that your own emendation?
Because it sounds very low class for a Talmud chochom, perhaps more suited to someone of low class.October 31, 2012 9:48 am at 9:48 am #901946
Nishdayngesheft – and of course referring to someone who’s screen name is rebdoniel as ‘Danny boy’ is really high-class…October 31, 2012 11:13 am at 11:13 am #901947
The Sinai reference, is because in Yismach moshe it is at the end of a phrase and therefore is pronounced Sinoy, komatz and yud.
JMH, Lo is ommitted by some, because it is not grammatically correct, but said by others because that is in the original nusach based on rhyme.October 31, 2012 11:15 am at 11:15 am #901948
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.October 31, 2012 12:58 pm at 12:58 pm #901949
Aaron Chaim – ‘shabbos’ and ‘soroshecho’? And the earliest girso I’ve seen doesn’t have ‘lo’ in it, so I’m not sure that you’re entirely correct about the orignal nusach.October 31, 2012 1:16 pm at 1:16 pm #901950
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.October 31, 2012 1:29 pm at 1:29 pm #901951
@Shoe store assistant-
The correct pronunciation for “shoe” varies: Crocs, Louboutin, Clarks, Thom McAn, Nike, Manolo, Ugg, Adidas, Dr. Martens, etc. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL I crack myself up I am so funny!October 31, 2012 6:48 pm at 6:48 pm #901952
If a person makes a comment suited for a shikkur, he deserves to be addressed as a shikkur.
You can keep the change.October 31, 2012 8:11 pm at 8:11 pm #901953
@ Derech Hamelech, there are very much so Hilchos Havara. Look up Mishnah Brurah ???? ??”?, ???? ?October 31, 2012 9:27 pm at 9:27 pm #901954
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’.October 31, 2012 10:33 pm at 10:33 pm #901955
Actually emendation is the correct useage in this case. He did not want to add something new, he wanted to add explanatory information, clearly thinking he was enhancing R Hamberger’s statement.
My remark was directed a specific comment that he made which clearly was not said nor intimated to by R Hamberger. Thus it was an appropriate comment on his addition and the spirit in which it was made.
Using all your talk show radio show words does little to impress me. or anyone else for that matter.November 1, 2012 11:22 am at 11:22 am #901956
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.November 1, 2012 11:24 am at 11:24 am #901957
Sorry, typo. Amendments are mil’bar, emendations are mil’gav.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.