Talk:Kubutz and shuruk

Kubutz and Shuruk

Kubutz and Shuruk are distinct symbols, but they are very closely related, more so than zeirei/seggol or kamatz/patakh. So it makes sense that Shuruk redirects here. Maybe we can go further and rename this article to Kubutz and Shuruk? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Double b

The letter Bet in the word קבוץ holds a strong Dagesh, therefore I think it would be better to spell the word in English "Kubbutz". Kulystab (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree in principle, but then there's also the question of K/Q and TZ/TS. It should be considered in more depth. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

In a rigorously scientific transliteration this article would be Qubbūts and Shūrūq, with macrons on 3 of the 4 U's; this reflects the Hebrew spelling accurately and someone who does not use the Modern Israeli pronunciation can pronounce it his way. In an encyclopedia for the general English-speaking public, the transliteration recommend by the Hebrew Language Academy might be more appropriate, namely, Kubbuts and Shuruk with no diacritics. In either case, the b should be doubled and ts is preferred to tz. In any case you will need at least 48 redirections. —Solo Owl (talk) 00:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I thought Wikimedia had a standard for transliterating Hebrew. Does this article conform to it? —Solo Owl (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Name

Doesn't need to go in the article, but some people traditionally called it "m'loo-pm". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8602:73F0:3C85:9CA:3C25:F575 (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

NOT an open syllable

the "rule" for modern usage is written badly, saying "final vowel or in open syllables word internally" and contradicts itself 2 lines ahead with the example xa'tul --- /tul/ to me is not an open syllable, as to anyone who can read ... nor does the word have a final vowel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.37.76 (talk) 06:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Shuruq occurs when vav is prefixed to a word-initial bilabial?

Is this Dissimilation rule appropriate to add to the article or does is it too detailed to justify having it? Perhaps it is already there and I missed it.

https://www.academia.edu/30031251/BIBLICAL_HEBREW_pdf "When prefixed to a word beginning with a bilabial (“two lips”) consonant (b m p), or to a word that has åewa as the first vowel, the conjunction becomes ." MichelleInSanMarcos (talk) 12:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

shuruk is a "niqqud vowel sign"?

The article begins by saying that "Kubutz [...] and shuruk [...] are two Hebrew niqqud vowel signs that represent the sound [u]." For shuruk, that seems wrong to me, but I suppose it depends on how one defines the phrase "niqqud vowel sign."

To me, that phrase suggests marks like tzere, kamatz, and, yes, kubutz. One could say that the shuruk dot is similar to those, but the vav-and-dot compound that makes up shuruk is not similar to those. And even the shuruk dot is only similar to those; it really isn't one of those marks like tzere, kamatz, kubutz, etc. For example, if a letter L normally has consonant sound C,

• L with kubutz means "[u] after C".
• L with shuruk dot means "[u] instead of C".

So, I think characterizing shuruk as a "niqqud vowel sign": (a) confuses shuruk with shuruk dot (b) isn't really right even for shuruk dot.

I think it would be more correct (or at least less likely to cause confusion) to say, simply, something like "Kubutz [...] and shuruk [...] are two ways represent the sound [u] in pointed Hebrew." Or "Kubutz [...] and shuruk [...] are two notations for the sound [u] in pointed Hebrew." Or similar. Bdenckla (talk) 17:45, 16 April 2025 (UTC)