Return to Question

When a word ends in two Seggols (or a Seggol and Patach, depending on whether the final letter is guttural), and the word is in pausal form, the first Seggol is lengthened to a Kamatz. Why is it not lengthened to a Tzereh?

Is it due to historical changes in our pronunciation? If so, should we adapt the pausal form of these words to better reflect our current pronunciation of the non-pausal form?

(I am aware that there are exceptional words which don’t have a pausal form. They do not pertain to the question.)

When a word ends in two Seggols (or a Seggol and Patach, depending on whether the final letter is guttural), and the word is in pause, the first Seggol is lengthened to a Kamatz. Why is it not lengthened to a Tzereh?

What about those words which do not change their second-to-last vowel in pausal form, like מֶלֶךְ and קֶדֶם?

When a word ends in two Seggols (or a Seggol and Patach, depending on if the final letter is guttural), and the word is in pausal form, the first Seggol is lengthened to a Kamatz. Why is it not lengthened to a Tzereh?

I have an entirely uneducated theory that this is a result of early influence by the Babylonian system, where Seggol had merged with Patach, and therefore the causal form would—for Babylonian Masorites—sound more like Kamatz.

If this is indeed the case, would Halacha dictate that we replace the Kamatz in these words with Tzereh, or is there a halachic reason not to do so?

(I am aware that there are exceptional words which don’t have a pausal form. They do not pertain to the question.)

When a word ends in two Seggols (or a Seggol and Patach, depending on whether the final letter is guttural), and the word is in pausal form, the first Seggol is lengthened to a Kamatz. Why is it not lengthened to a Tzereh?

Is it due to historical changes in our pronunciation? If so, should we adapt the pausal form of these words to better reflect our current pronunciation of the non-pausal form?

(I am aware that there are exceptional words which don’t have a pausal form. They do not pertain to the question.)

When a word ends in two Seggols (or a Seggol and Patach, depending on if the final letter is guttural), and the word is in pausal form, the first Seggol is lengthened to a Kamatz. Why is it not lengthened to a Tzereh?

I have an entirely uneducated theory that this is a remnant of the Babylonian system, where Seggol had merged with Patach, and therefore the causal form would—for Babylonian Masorites—sound more like Kamatz.

If this is indeed the case, would Halacha dictate that we replace the Kamatz in these words with Tzereh, or is there a halachic reason not to do so?

(I am aware that there are exceptional words which don’t have a pausal form. They do not pertain to the question.)

When a word ends in two Seggols (or a Seggol and Patach, depending on if the final letter is guttural), and the word is in pausal form, the first Seggol is lengthened to a Kamatz. Why is it not lengthened to a Tzereh?

I have an entirely uneducated theory that this is a result of early influence by the Babylonian system, where Seggol had merged with Patach, and therefore the causal form would—for Babylonian Masorites—sound more like Kamatz.

If this is indeed the case, would Halacha dictate that we replace the Kamatz in these words with Tzereh, or is there a halachic reason not to do so?

(I am aware that there are exceptional words which don’t have a pausal form. They do not pertain to the question.)