<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;">Jay F. Schachter wrote, in response to someone writing that in rut the name is Naomi<div><br></div><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;"><div>This spelling appeared several times, so it must have been intentional.</div><div><br></div><div>It is a mistake. It should be No`omi.</div></blockquote><div><div>While I agree Naami is a mistake, and No’omi is one shitta, there are two legitimate shittot</div></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Question is what determines when a kamatz is a kamatz katan. There are two major shittot</div><div><br></div><div>a) word origin. This is embraced by most modern grammarians- one looks at the source of the word, and if the kamatz is instead of a cholam, it is a kamatz katan. R Schachter embraces this legitimate shitta - as he points out that the name No’omi comes from Noam.</div><div><br></div><div>b) Kamatz katan is always (and only) a kamatz in an unaccented, closed syllabie. Thus, as the kamatz under the nun is in an open syllable, it is a kamatz gadol (or kamatz rachav)</div><div><br></div><div>The second shitta is one that is not popular amongst most modern grammarians. However, raw Shlomo Tal, in the introduction to the siddur he </div><div>Rinat Yisrael, argues for the second shitta, saying it is the one used by all kehillot who have a long tradition of distinguishing a kamatz gadol from a kamatz katan, as well as that of ancient grammarians and baale mesorah. (Ashkenozis didn’t make real distinction in pronunciation between kamatz gadol and kamatz katan)</div><div><br></div><div>One example where the difference between the two shittot becomes very clear is in the phrase from Tehillim 35:10 , said in nishmat - kal atzmotai tomarna. - rathter than kol atzmotai tomarna - because there is no makkaf between kal and atzmotai, so kall is an independent word and therefore has an accent - and therefore the kamatz is in accented closed syllable, so is a kamatz gadol.. Rav Tal says that alll the ancient and banal mesora testify it is a kamatz gadol</div><div><br></div><div>Naomi is an example of a common paradigm - kamatz followed by patach kamatz - where the two shittot usually disagree. I would add that normal abazit pronunciation of those words is more like raw Schachter (eg, tzohoraim rather than tzahoraim)</div><div><br></div><div>Chag same’ach</div><div><br></div><div>Meir Shinnar</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></body></html>