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)