Timeline for Should I say shmei or shmeh?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 11, 2015 at 1:28 | comment | added | MoriDowidhYa3aqov | @NoachmiFrankfurt thats good on him however there are those who would argue not to do so because that is how my mother and father pronounced. the common nonsense that ashkanazim tend to answer every allegation about them being backwards and have lost proper jewish traditions | |
| Jun 11, 2015 at 1:14 | comment | added | Noach MiFrankfurt | I know this is a late comment, but R' Hamburger of Machon Moreshet Ashkenaz paskens that there is never a problem with being medakdek in one's pronunciation. He says that although the hey-mappik became less common in Germany before the war, and has become virtually nonexistent among B'nei Ashkenaz today, it should be pronounced by those who are makpid in their Hebrew. | |
| Nov 24, 2013 at 5:24 | comment | added | MoriDowidhYa3aqov | @DoubleAA we are in ths comment section. the answer however addresses that that is how teimonim pronounce the shmeih and that it should be offically be accepted by all :) | |
| Nov 24, 2013 at 5:03 | comment | added | Double AA♦ | @MoriDoweedhYa3gob Maybe, but we're not discussing which is the best overall way of pronouncing things. | |
| Nov 24, 2013 at 4:42 | comment | added | MoriDowidhYa3aqov | @double lets say it did change. So what then? It's better than the rest of what the klal has to offer. | |
| Nov 24, 2013 at 4:36 | comment | added | Double AA♦ | @MoriDoweedhYa3gob You just said: their practices did not change; therefore, their practices did not change. Really convincing argument. | |
| Nov 24, 2013 at 4:26 | comment | added | MoriDowidhYa3aqov | @DoubleAA therefore its hard to say that all of them were influenced by arabic and most likely have a source whch is older than rabbeinu saa3dyo joon. | |
| Nov 24, 2013 at 4:26 | comment | added | MoriDowidhYa3aqov | @DoubleAA the minhogim and and such did not change. only their nikkudim changed from changed top of the word to bottom and some things changed in regards to prostration but that is all modern changes. when rabbeinu saa3dyo joon wrote that the jeem is wrong he didnt have in mind only teimonim(tahts if he even had in mind teimonim at all). he had in mnd all jews that said the jeem. so we see it was more widespread than only teimonim. to say that the jews were influenced by the arabs in regards to this is not so poshut because we see it was a more variety of jews than just a single group. | |
| Nov 24, 2013 at 2:55 | comment | added | Double AA♦ | @MoriDoweedhYa3gob Just because it's better doesn't mean it's perfect. | |
| Nov 20, 2013 at 5:11 | comment | added | MoriDowidhYa3aqov | arabic influence? yes arabic influence....has nothing to do with the fact that their masoroh on loshon haqodhosh is much better than the rest of the klal. and that is evident not only from the pronunciation of things. | |
| Nov 20, 2013 at 4:29 | comment | added | Seth J | Melech should be Malk. But I did not know (and now understand) that they had such heavy Arabic influence on their Hebrew. Cool thing to learn. | |
| Nov 20, 2013 at 4:17 | comment | added | MoriDowidhYa3aqov | @seth they don't have a segol either. It is pronounced as a pata7. This goes with the teimoni original nikudim which they had. Their nikudim were ontop of the letters and it took them a long time to get used to the new system of having it on the bottom. In the original system, they didn't have a segol. As I read somewhere that te segol was an invention of the masoretes. Beith ha madrash/ madrasa in Arabic not medrasa. Malach not melech and Malik in Arabic not Melik | |
| Nov 19, 2013 at 21:45 | comment | added | Seth J | Really. I did not realize that. I wonder why. | |
| Nov 19, 2013 at 14:00 | comment | added | MoriDowidhYa3aqov | @seth because teimonim pronounce the shawa as a pata7 n not an eh or ih. But if the first letter follows a yodh, sound follows the sound of the yodh. As in biyisroel. Instead of bayisroel it will be biyisroel. | |
| Nov 19, 2013 at 13:30 | comment | added | Seth J | I assume there isn't, btw. I'm pointing out that your transliteration is so different from most of us, that it's not clear what you mean. | |
| Nov 19, 2013 at 13:28 | comment | added | Seth J | @Mori, your transliterations are nearly impossible to follow. Why would there be a Patah sound with the Shin? | |
| Nov 19, 2013 at 6:57 | comment | added | MoriDowidhYa3aqov | @DoubleAA are we talkingb out sounding of words of specific a specific word? | |
| Nov 19, 2013 at 6:39 | comment | added | Double AA♦ | The same sound appears in מלכותיה כרעותיה משיחיה פורקניה and עמיה. | |
| Nov 19, 2013 at 6:11 | comment | added | MoriDowidhYa3aqov | @SethJ no it is shamehh not shmih. it said twice in qadhish. so if you listen to the entire thing you can hear him say it twice that way. | |
| Nov 19, 2013 at 1:19 | comment | added | Seth J | It was very short, but it sounded to me like Shmih. Is that close? | |
| Nov 18, 2013 at 9:38 | history | edited | MoriDowidhYa3aqov | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 521 characters in body
|
| Nov 18, 2013 at 9:09 | history | answered | MoriDowidhYa3aqov | CC BY-SA 3.0 |