text:
Associated Grocers

Associated Grocers was a retailers' cooperative that distributed full lines of groceries and general merchandise.

Service area
Founded in 1934, it also provided retail services to independent groceries in Washington, Oregon, Alaska, Hawaii, and Guam. Based in Seattle, it served over 300 members’ retail locations with 2004 sales of $794.8 million before it was acquired by another cooperative, Unified Western Grocers on September 30, 2007.

Executive officers

 * John S. Runyan - President and Chief Executive Officer
 * Steve Numata - Chief Financial Officer
 * Craig W. Palm - Vice President and General Counsel
 * Carl Morley - Vice President, Fresh Foods
 * Craig K. Calton - Vice President, Marketing and Sales
 * David L. Brumley - Vice President, Human Resources
 * John Wiedmann - Vice President, Wholesale Operations
 * Gene F. Puhrmann - Chief Information Officer

title: Associated Grocers


text:
Radio K.A.O.S.

Radio K.A.O.S. is the second solo studio album by English rock musician Roger Waters. Released on 15 June 1987 in the United Kingdom and June 16 in the United States, it was Waters' first solo studio album after his formal departure from the band Pink Floyd in 1985. Like his previous and future studio albums and many works of his during his time with Pink Floyd, the album is a concept album based on a number of key topical subjects of the late 1980s, including monetarism and its effect on citizens, popular culture of the time, and the events and consequences of the Cold War. It also makes criticisms of Margaret Thatcher's government, much like Pink Floyd's The Final Cut (1983), another album conceived by Waters.

The album follows Billy, a mentally and physically disabled man from Wales, forced to live with his uncle David in Los Angeles after his brother Benny is sent to prison following an act intended to support striking coal miners which results in the death of a taxi driver, and his dismissal from his mining job due to "market forces". The album explores Billy's view of the world through an on-air conversation between him and Jim, a disc jockey (DJ) at a fictitious local radio station named Radio KAOS.

Background and inspiration
In 1979, Waters met American disc jockey Jim Ladd for a radio documentary on The Wall album, beginning a friendship which remained until Ladd's death in 2023. Ladd was an inspiration as he brought some light into Waters's dim view of L.A. life, initially through listening to the bizarre Fish Report from KMET. Waters became increasingly interested in Ladd's plight with his radio station KMET, and his eventual sacking to change the programming format of the station in search of market-researched profits. In 1985, Waters wrote a song called "Get Back to Radio," which seemed to be partly based on the experiences of Ladd, and partly from childhood memories – Waters fondly remembers listening to Radio Luxembourg well into the night as a child.

An event from the 1985 miners' strike in Britain where a striking worker threw a concrete block off a motorway bridge, killing a taxi driver who was taking a strikebreaker to his job, seemed to register in Waters's subconscious, emerging in the second song written, "Who Needs Information" and later, "Me or Him." The album, with a working title of Home, took only three months to record, developed from 16 songs throughout 1986 and was worked into a now familiar Waters concept album.

The Ronald Reagan campaign advertisements during "Me or Him" are sampled from an actual 1980 political advertisement of Reagan's.

Concept
Billy is a 23-year-old Welshman from the South Wales Valleys. He is mentally and physically disabled as a result of cerebral palsy, uses a wheelchair and is only able to work his upper body. Though he is perceived as mentally challenged, his disability has actually made him not only a genius, but also superhuman, as he also has the ability to literally hear radio waves throughout all frequencies without aid.

Billy was living with his twin brother Benny, who was a coal miner, wife Molly, and their children. Unfortunately, Benny has lost his job in the mines due to the "market forces." One night, Benny and Billy are out on a pub crawl when they pass a shop full of TV screens broadcasting Margaret Thatcher's "mocking condescension." Benny vents his anger on this shop and steals a cordless phone. Next, in theatrical fashion, Benny poses on a footbridge in protest to the closures; the same night, a taxi driver is killed by a concrete block dropped from a similar bridge by Benny ("Who Needs Information" – track 2). The police question Benny, who hides the phone in Billy's wheelchair.

Benny is taken to prison, and Molly, unable to cope, sends Billy to live with his uncle David in Los Angeles, California, United States. Since Billy can hear radio waves in his head ("Radio Waves" – track 1), he begins to explore the cordless phone, recognising its similarity to a radio. He experiments with the phone and is able to access computers and speech synthesisers, and learns to speak through them. He calls a radio station in L.A. named Radio K.A.O.S. and tells them of his life story about his brother being in jail ("Me or Him" – track 3), about his sister-in-law not being able to cope and sending him to L.A. to live with his uncle Dave ("Sunset Strip" – track 5), and about the closures of the mines ("Powers That Be" – track 4).

Billy eventually hacks into a military satellite and fools the world into thinking nuclear ICBMs are about to be detonated at major cities all over the world while deactivating the military's power to retaliate ("Home" – track 6, and "Four Minutes" – track 7). The album concludes with a song about how everyone, in thinking they were about to die, realises that the fear and competitiveness peddled by the mass media is much less important than their love for family and the larger community. ("The Tide Is Turning" – track 8).

In the sleeve notes, Waters dedicated the album "to all those who find themselves at the violent end of monetarism."

Recording
The album was recorded at Waters' own personal studio in London called The Billiard Room and mixed at Odyssey Studios in London.

Recording was done with the aid of Roger Waters' backing band the Bleeding Heart Band.

Packaging
Morse code is a central theme in the art and style of the album, visually and audibly. The artwork for the album, designed by Kate Hepburn, are written Morse code sentences in green imprinted on a black background. The translation spans both the front and the back of the sleeve. The front cover reads ROGER/WATERS/RADIO/KAOS/WHONE/EDSINF/ORMA/TIONTH. The back cover reads EPOWE/RSTHAT/BEHO/METHETI/DEISTU/RNING/RADIO/WAVES. When translated as a whole, the artwork spells out the name of the artist, the album, and five tracks from the album. It reads: Roger Waters, Radio K.A.O.S., "Who Needs Information," "The Powers That Be," "Home," "The Tide Is Turning" and "Radio Waves." The code on the artwork is also heard throughout the album itself, most notably at the beginning and end of the album, book-ending the piece in the same manner as the heartbeat from Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the Moon (1973) and the Bleeding Heart Band from The Wall (1979).

Singles
Aside from eight songs that were used on the released album, additional songs appeared as B-sides.

The lead single from the album, "Radio Waves", was released on 11 May 1987 as a 7" single, a 12" extended play single, and a CD single. The b-side was a non-album track called "Going to Live in L.A.". "Radio Waves" briefly went into both the American and British charts in the month of release, reaching No. 74 on the UK Singles Chart and No. 12 on the US Billboard Mainstream Rock chart.

"Sunset Strip" was released as the second single in September 1987. The B-side included a demo of the song "Get Back to Radio" and a live version of Pink Floyd's "Money". Despite "Sunset Strip" not being released as a promo to American and British radio stations, and competing against Waters's former band whose single "Learning to Fly" was topping the US Billboard Mainstream Rock chart, it managed to go as high as No. 15.

"The Tide Is Turning" was released as the third single in the United Kingdom and Australia. Without direct competition from Waters's former band, Pink Floyd, the single was a commercial success in Europe. It peaked at No. 54 on the UK singles chart.

"Who Needs Information?" was released in the United States in December 1987 as the fourth and final single, backed with the live exclusive "Molly's Song", another previously unreleased song. The single was in direct competition with Pink Floyd's "On the Turning Away". While Pink Floyd's singles topped the US Mainstream Rock charts back to back, "Who Needs Information?" failed to chart, despite a radio promotional release.

Waters even once said in an interview that he might even release an EP with some unreleased songs from this project for those who might be interested, but this never appeared.

Promotion
The record was first announced via a press release from EMI on 6 April 1987, confirming Waters's new album, its details and release date. The press release mentioned that the project was conceived to be a full-out rock opera, complete with a stage show, film and live album, much like Waters's original vision for the album.

Waters also made a Video EP for this album featuring the songs "Radio Waves," "Sunset Strip," "Fish Report," "Four Minutes" and "The Tide Is Turning (After Live Aid)."

Tour
The Radio K.A.O.S. tour aka K.A.O.S. On the Road ran from mid-August 1987 to the end of November of the same year. It was entirely in North America except for the final two shows from Wembley, England. The tour, the largest of Waters's career up to that point, featured extravagant staging, props and video. The entirety of the concert was presented as a K.A.O.S. radio special, "K.A.O.S. on the Road", and featured disc jockey (DJ) Jim Ladd introducing the songs, conversing with Billy, or simply complimenting Waters and the band on their performance. The screen used for the tour displayed video of Waters, Ladd, and various other actors playing out aspects of the narrative, as well as animations and video illustrating the songs. The concert was 'interrupted' at one point each night by Billy, who played the video to the début Pink Floyd single "Arnold Layne", in remembrance of Syd Barrett.

Prior to each show, Jim Ladd took calls from people in a booth and these calls were then answered by Waters. The person in each booth was usually chosen via a competition on local radio stations, in keeping with the theme of the concert. The setlist included the entire Radio K.A.O.S. album, with popular Waters-composed Pink Floyd songs mixed into the sequence, and typically lasted more than two and a half hours.

The tour went heavily into debt, with Waters using his own money at one point to underwrite the expense, as there were massive overruns and delays. The tour was proposed to go worldwide, but due to financial considerations these discussions never went any further, and the tour ended.

Critical reception

Released on 15 June 1987 in the United Kingdom and the United States, the album was met with mixed reviews. It peaked at number 25 in the United Kingdom, 33 in Australia, and 50 in the United States.

J. D. Considine of Rolling Stone magazine gave a positive review, describing the album as "by no means perfect" but "powerful". Although the themes and style of the album were criticized, he deemed it an improvement on its predecessor The Pros and Cons of Hitch Hiking (1984).

Robert Christgau from The Village Voice wrote: "In which Waters's wheelchair-bound version of the deaf, dumb and blind boy learns to control the world's computers with his cordless phone, then simulates impending nuclear holocaust just to scare the shit out of the powers that be. I have serious reservations about any record that can't be enjoyed unless you sit there reading the inner sleeve, but this is not without its aural rewards — a coverable song or two and some nice comping on shakuhachi, as well as the deep engineering that made Floyd famous. As pretentious goes, not stupid."

Waters has since expressed dislike for the album and the effort of creating it. "Between Ian Ritchie and myself, we really fucked that record up," he remarked. "We tried too hard to make it sound modern. Also, the part where Billy pretends that he's just started the Third World War I now find faintly embarrassing. And I dislike the backing vocals on 'The Tide Is Turning'."

In addition to being dissatisfied with the production, Waters regretted trimming the album from a double to a single one, thus losing much of the concept.

In a retrospective review, Mike DeGagne of AllMusic gave the album three-and-a-half stars, stating that, unlike some of Waters's other works, it conveys the music more than the narrative, but "while both The Pros and Cons of Hitch Hiking and Amused to Death convey his talented use of concept, imagination, and lyrical mastery, this album seems to be nothing more than a fictional tale with a blatantly apparent message".

Track listing
Columbia Records Original 1987 Vinyl Record Pressing

Personnel
Credits are adapted from the Radio K.A.O.S. liner notes.

 * Roger Waters – vocals; acoustic and electric guitars; bass guitar; keyboards; shakuhachi
 * Graham Broad – percussion; drums
 * Mel Collins – saxophones
 * Nick Glennie-Smith – DX7 and E-mu on "Powers That Be"
 * Matt Irving – Hammond organ on "Powers That Be"
 * John Lingwood – drums on "Powers That Be"
 * Andy Fairweather Low – electric guitars
 * Suzanne Rhatigan – main background vocals on "Radio Waves", "Me or Him", "Sunset Strip" and "The Tide Is Turning"
 * Ian Ritchie – piano; keyboards; tenor saxophone; Fairlight programming; drum programming; Cowbell
 * Jay Stapley – electric guitars
 * John Thirkell – trumpet
 * Peter Thoms – trombone
 * Katie Kissoon, Doreen Chanter, Madeline Bell, Steve Langer and Vicki Brown – backing vocals on "Who Needs Information", "Powers That Be" and "Radio Waves"

 * Clare Torry – lead vocals on "Home" and "Four Minutes"
 * Paul Carrack – lead vocals on "The Powers That Be"
 * Pontarddulais Male Voice Choir – chorus
 * Paul Batchelor – assistant engineer
 * Noel Davis – choir master
 * Nick Griffiths – co-producer on "Me or Him" and "The Powers That Be"
 * Kate Hepburn – cover design
 * Eric Jones – choir arrangement
 * Chris Sheldon – engineer
 * Kevin Whyte – assistant engineer

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Radio K.A.O.S.


text:
Talk:Rat Race (film)

Untitled
BTW Gloria Allred is an actual lawyer. You may spot her in the Scott Peterson case representing Amber Frey. 142.177.20.150 21:35, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rewrite tag
The reason I added the tag is that the plot section is not written in an encyclopedic manner, and is largely built off of a summary copy/pasted from the IMDB summary page.--Drat (Talk) 08:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it should be completely rewritten. The film is pretty much six sub-plots following the six teams. Maybe reformat it. I'll see what I can do.- JustPhil 17:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the summary is fine. Everything on the internet is copied from one place and pasted somewhere else. Plus it says all it needs to say. By the way, does anyone else notice that huge gap between the title, "Plot," and the actual text for that section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.199.67.25 (talk • contribs).
 * The gap is due to the tag. Despite what you say above, plagiarism is not permitted on wikipedia.--Drat (Talk) 10:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Rowan Atkinson & Wayne Knight
If I recall correctly, Zach was just a very (un)lucky FedEx delivery man, not an ambulance driver as this article claims. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 06:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

 * He was working for a organ deliver service —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.35.254.252 (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Cast in own section
Cast has to move from the infobox to its own section. If possible reduce infobox stars to 4 (max.) Hoverfish|Talk 08:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rat Race.jpg
Image:Rat Race.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

=Copied from Talk:Rat Race (2001 film)=

9/11 connection
Moved from the "Details" section:

 * *9/11 occurred three weeks into the film's run, so a humorous scene in the first 15 minutes or so of the players running down a casino hotel emergency stairwell instead disgusted movie goers; the film was then pulled from distribution.

I couldn't find any evidence backing up this claim. Rat Race's weekend gross as outlined on IMDB doesn't show signs of a sudden drop-off or backlash against the film after 9/11. I couldn't find any news reports mentioning disgusted viewers, either, and according to IMDB the film was shown in US theatres until December 2001. Are there any sources for this? --Baumi (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Yeah, that sounds like hogwash.
 * I don't think anyone made that connection, especially since the movie came out BEFORE 9/11, and was so popular that it was in big theaters well into 2002, and in some smaller theaters into 2003. 74.12.2.136 (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Rat Race Theme Song Rap
Someone find out what is actually being said in the Rap Section of the Rat Race Theme and Post it. No, Really.

"Who put the Hats on (in) the Rats in the Race?...." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.83 (talk) 03:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Allusions, connections, notes
I tried to eliminate the superfluous details in both the "Allusions and Connections" and "Production Notes" sections, but I suggest both sections be completely removed. None of them have citations and they seem to contain meaningless trivia. Anyone else agree? Disagree? Cactusjump (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Page's title?
Seeing as an page exists already with the title rat race shouldn't this page be renamed rat_race_(film) it may be viewed at the following link if you don't believe me. #REDIRECT [] Chaos samurai (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree- I've moved it to "Rat Race (2001 film)" to avoid (hopefully) any possible confusion with the "The Rat Race" a 1960 film  MB-907 (talk) 11:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick update- Hopefully I've covered all the internal links to this page to avoid readers being redirected to the general "rat race" page. MB-907 (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Drinking game
I assume no one is watching this page (seriously who remembers this movie) but I noticed the Critical Reception mentions people making a drinking game based on this movie, and betting drinks on the outcome...and then cites Metacritic? I sincerely doubt this ever existed outside the single person who wrote that, so I'm going to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.34.42 (talk) 04:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Steve Martin as air traffic controller.
The ATC is clearly NOT Steve Martin, and IMDB credits the role to Kevin Rothery, who admittedly does look vaguely like Martin, but is very clearly a totally different person. I've updated the article to correct this.74.12.2.136 (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rat Race (film)


text:
Talk:Niqqud

Unicode
I've just tried to make some improvements with Unicode. I don't speak Hebrew though and the English is not very clear in this article so I think I've made some mistakes which will need correcting, especially in the specific examples of one consonant plus one vowel.

I think the word "constat" used here should probably be "consonant" but "constant" seems to also be written. I didn't try to fix this. — Hippietrail 02:55, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Kamatz
It would be nice if there were some notes on how and why kamatz gadol and kamatz katan look the same but sound different, and maybe how to tell them apart. — Hippietrail 03:50, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * They can't be told apart because they look the same. However, there are some rules for knowing with is which; for example, if the letter following a kamatz has a sh'va nach under it, then it is always a kamatz katan. Jayjg 04:06, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I thought about trying to explain the difference, but to be honest sometimes I don't know myself. I know that the general rule of thumb is that an open qames is always a qames gadhol, and a shut qames is always a qames qatan.  But without additional nequddoth, it's sometimes hard to tell which is open and which is shut, outside of context. - Gilgamesh 09:48, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * According to Pratico and Van Pelt, the qamets hatuf occurs only in closed, unaccented syllables; whereas, the qamets gathol "prefers" open, pretonic or closed accented syllables. This does leave quite a bit of ambiguity, except where clarified with metheg. --Jonadab

 * From a purely phonological point of view, it should generally be impossible for a qamets to occur in a closed syllable, although the exception in Hebrew is with stressed syllables. This should apply to all long vowels. For this reason we are able to distinguish the qamets hatuf in positions where the syllable is closed and unstressed. Nonetheless, just as we may find a patah in an open syllable, it is impossible to distinguish but phonologically possible that qamets hatuf may exist in an open syllable (or stressed, I guess). I can't think of any examples for the moment, but I'm sure there are some. Thus the rule is only one way. Really if someone wants to know these sorts of details, Wikipedia shouldn't be their only source =). -- jnothman 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I keep thinking of more things (-:
 * The similarity and difference between the dagesh, mapiq, and the dot used with vav to form shureq.
 * How the sin dot and shin dot can coincide with a preceding or follow holem dot (or something similar - I may be wrong).
 * The fact that dagesh has two uses (forte and lene I think) but no need for detail here since it's covered in the dagesh article.
 * Why have the Unicode names been removed? For many involved with computers and internationalization but not Hebrew specifically, these will be the only names they are likely to see.
 * The fact that hateph segol/patah/qamesh are all varieties of sheva.
 * Literal translations of the names of each symbol.
 * How the vowel points from one word are combined with the consonants of another in holy books.

— Hippietrail 12:35, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Also:
 * Maqqef is probably worth discussing. --Jonadab

 * Removing the Unicode names was my oversight, as I more or less rewrote most of the article from scratch. Go ahead and add them if you think they're important. - Gilgamesh 04:30, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Maybe the page should be structured so that there is first a table of vowel-length against vowel quality -- jnothman 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Transliteration vs. transcription
Greetings, I was wondering about the issue of transliteration vs. transcription. I am familiar with the IPA and was wondering if there is a system of Latin letters with diacritics that corresponds exactly with the IPA (eg. the letter "Sin" -in this article it is given a romanized version of "s" with a háček diacritic on top -like above the "a" in háček-. It then gives an IPA equivalent of unvoiced alveolar lateral fricative). Strictly speaking transliteration matches one to one to the original letter while transcription matches one to one with the pronunciation. While I understand in Biblical/Yemenite Hebrew there would be no difference because it is a phonetic alphabet; my question is concerning the romanization system itself. What is it and is it a system for transcription? I am also curious as to the source of information on the sound of "Sin" in Biblical Hebrew. I am searching for data on Yemenite Hebrew pronunciation, specifically the Sharabi "dialect". I have had a hard time getting data on Gimel with no dagesh, and very poor data on "Sin" (dot on left). WRITTEN BY: amatuer Hebrew student and creator of http://e.domaindlx.com/hebrewtalk/hebrewtalk.htm

 * Different people use different systems of transcription. In Biblical Hebrew, the system used in Gesenius' Grammar is probably fairly influential.  He kindly doesn't document it for us, but examples can be seen at http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesenius%27_Hebrew_Grammar/8.  I know my teaching grammar (Pratico and Van Pelt) has documentation on the system it uses, even if it doesn't always agree with itself :).
 * -- TimNelson (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll find the Israeli standard here. Less relevant for extinct forms of Hebrew, though. Dan ☺ 00:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Font/Browser problems
I am unable to verify that most of the markings are shown in the correct positions with Mozilla or IE. I've checked with Firefox under Gnome (Mandrake 9.2) as well as Moz 1.5 and IE 5.5 (under WinMe), and in all cases most of the marking appear in the next space over to the left, after the consonant they should be under. Konqueror does somewhat better, but how many people use that? I've added notes to the article indicating position, but I'm wondering if we should consider adding an image showing some text with the markings positioned correctly (a scan of the first few verses of Genesis perhaps), for clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonadab (talk • contribs) 13:02, 2004 October 19 (UTC)

 * I don't have a problem in Opera (7.50 and later have BiDi support). Maybe this paragraph is just nonsense and too vague and should be scrapped. jnothman 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Firefox 1.5 seems to work, if the cholam is supposed to be on top? (I don't know Hebrew at all although I've tried to learn the alphabet) But in my opinion the dots are really difficult to see in native fonts, so perhaps pictures with the dots bolder and a bit bigger might be used. Also, I don't understand the table - the dots are vowels and the alphabet letters are consonants, right, so why does the transliteration not have the consonant? 219.77.98.222

Correct symbols?
According to the book "Phonetic Symbol Guide" by Geoffrey K. Pullum, and William A. Ladusaw, the IPA symbol for ś is probably not ɬ but ç (in the context of a Semetic language) i.e. a voiceless palatal fricative, not an unvoiced alveolar lateral fricative. But again, I would like to know the source for your information, as I am trying to learn. This particular letter is very hard to get data on (has been so far by me).

WRITTEN BY: amatuer Hebrew student and creator of http://e.domaindlx.com/hebrewtalk/hebrewtalk.htm

Nov. 14, 2004 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.103.177.244 (talk) 03:16, 2004 November 15 (UTC)

standard singular v biblical plural
I'm just wondering why the introduction gives the singular form for Standard Hebrew (נִיקוּד) but the plural version for Biblical Hebrew (נְקֻדּוֹת). That would be pretty confusing for people who aren't familiary with Hebrew plurals. Or is it actually that the term was once plural but now only singular? — Hippietrail 02:27, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not entirely sure why, as I study more Biblical Hebrew than Standard Hebrew, and I was more used to nəquddôṯ vs. niqqudot. I think the article name is niqqud precisely because it's singular, much like similar conventions for article names for Samaritan, Jew and Arab. - Gilgamesh 02:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * It's a matter of part of speech. Nequddot means "dots," and thus is plural.  It refers to the actual dots used.  Niqqud is, as mentioned below, an abstract noun meaning "pointing" (in the sense of "furnishing with points") or "punctuation".  Clsn 13:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Clsn is exactly right. Anyone who edits here should remember that nequddot is plural and niqqud is singular: The nequddot are helpful..., the niqqud is helpful....  Neither one is older than the other; both are ancient words, both completely alive in modern Hebrew.  You could translate them 'dots' and 'dotting', respectively.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.215.227 (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia terminology for Hebrew is awful! The terms are used inconsistently within Wikipedia and in ways that don't correspond to how specialists outside of Wikipedia use them. In the first sentence of this article, for example, four different terms are used: "Hebrew", "Biblical", "Standard", and "Tiberian", and they refer to only three -- not four -- categories of things: actual Hebrew spelling (two different words, labeled "Hebrew" in one case, "Biblical" in the other, for no reason at all); a phonetic transcription of modern Hebrew pronunciation of one of those two words (labeled "Standard"); and a conventional transliteration of the Hebrew spelling (labeled "Tiberian", although it certainly does not accurately represent what is known about the Tiberian pronunciation of Hebrew back in the 8th century or so, which would be [naqudˈdoːθ], [niqˈquːð].) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.215.227 (talk) 01:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Etymology
I don't suppose there's a point to stating that niqqud simply means "punctuation"? No pun intended. I'm not sure about the archaic roots, but in contemporary Hebrew, a נקודה is simply a "point" or "dot" or "period", and ניקוד is simply the... whatever you call that sorta noun that's like a gerund, but not in the present tense. Y'know, like "electrocution", as opposed to "electocuting", ניקוד as opposed to מנקד\ת. "Pointification". "Punctuation". Grok?

 * "Abstract noun". AnonMoos 04:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Punctuation is everything that isn't letters, and people usually interpret "punctuation" as dots, commas, colons , semicolons , etc. In niqqud, the dots are used to represent vowels and other modifications to letters. In punctuation, they're used to form the sentence better.

 * Yet for some odd reason, I tend to confuse the two also. ailaG (talk) 10:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Mappiq
It should be noted the the mappiq can only appear in a "ה" (and only in very specific cases). Coredumb 09:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Questions from an illiterate
Hi, I have never read or understood the Hebrew alfabet before, so consider me the perfect test case for making this article nitwit-proof. Reading the article, the following questions come to mind but are not answered by it. Let them help you to improve the article:
 * "This table uses the consonants ב ,ח or ש"
 * Is there a reason to use these consonants and not others? Isn't it possible to combine the niqqud with other consonants?
 * "Rafé ... to distinguish פּ /p/ from ֿפ /f/"
 * To me it would seem more logical that the rafe is written right above the pe to make it an f
 * The vowels below are written in several niqqud, and are seperately mentioned. This suggests that they are different from eachother. However, their differences are not explained (nor them not being different). Maybe giving a common word as example for every vowel is the best way of showing their differences:
 * IPA /a/ = חֲ / בַ / בַה / בַא / בָ / בָה / בָא
 * IPA /e/ = בֵ / בֵי / בֵה / בֵא
 * IPA /i/ = בִ / בִי /
 * IPA /o/ = חֳ / בָ / בֹ
 * IPA /u/ = בֻ / בוּ
 * What about many vowels immediately following eachother, like in the word farao: are the patach and cholam combinedly added to the resh? Or in the name or Golda Meir: are the tzeirei and chirik combinedly added to the mem? Probably there are also words with sequences of three vowels.
 * So niqqud indicate the vowel following the consonant. What if a word starts with a vowel? Are the niqqud located around an empty space?
 * chataf is used in several occasions but not explained

Thanks. ActiveSelective 23:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

 * about use of letters: ח is used with chataf vowels, because these only appear with a certain type of letters called gutturals (ח is one of them); sin and shin dots can only appear with letter ש. Points used with ב can be used with any other letter except for gutturals.
 * rafe is written above the letter. If you don't see it that way must be a browser rendering problem.
 * in Tiberian (classical) Hebrew all these vowels had different pronuntiations, but they don't anymore in modern Hembrew.
 * in words like farao etc. there is a consonant (א or ע) in between the two vowels that gets lost when transcribed to roman script (just a matter of convention, I think). The bottom line is (let's put it that way) Hebrew don't have diftongs (sequences of two vowels in the same syllable), so you'll never find tzeirei and chirik together.
 * Hebrew neither has words starting with a vowel (the only exception in the conjunction וּ). Hebrew syllabic structure is pretty fixed: it always starts with a consonant, has a single vowel, and may or may not end with a consonant ( which can be י or ו, acting as a second vowel, these being the only cases of diftongs).
 * chataf translates as something like "hurried", and is used to mean a "really short" patach, qamats or segol.

 * Hope that helps.--Xavier 22:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does! Thank you very much! Now improvement on the article... The table on the right is -I think- better systemized and helps readers to get grips on the niqqud. Not necessarily as a replacement of the long table, but as an addition. (the transliteration and "sound" should be looked at and corrected, I think) ActiveSelective 08:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

How to enter niqqud?
I couldn't found article from Wikipedia explaining how to enter niqqud from keyboard. Maybe you can help me by writing/linking good article in Wikipedia about niqqud and keyboard? --Thv 20:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

 * press capslock, then shift and one of the numbers,- or + above the letters. Amoruso 06:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

 * This is useful. I will add further details in the article. Dovi 08:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Or get the Tiro keyboard layout, and the documentation that goes with it. It seems to do pretty much everything.
 * -- TimNelson (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Alternate Historical Systems of Niqqud
A useful addition to this article would be a discussion of the extinct varieties of Niqqud, such as the Babylonian, Palestinian, and Samaritan, as well as the evolution of the Tiberian. Ratzd'mishukribo 03:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Edits
I did a serious table and organization redo Epson291 23:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

consonant niqqud?
Is consonant pointing, such as k-dot for [x], or p-dot for [f], considered part of niqqud, the way the difference between sin and shin is? kwami (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it is, and it's called dagesh. It is referred to in the long table. Dan Pelleg (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Shva, Mapik
I didn't change these myself, because there must be a reason they were written that way.

Shva - makes the vowel very short? I disagree.. Even in the word "shva", the "sh" isn't short at all. It means no vowels. A yud or vav can have no niqqud on them when they function as niqqud themselves - for example, in the word צירה, the yud has no niqqud because it's part of the tsadi's niqqud. But other than these cases - all letters have niqqud, and if there's no vowel, they get a shva. I'm not a scholar though, so this is only my intuitive reasoning here. Regarding mapik and shuruk - they may look the same and share the same key in Windows keyboard layouts, but they're very different, and IMHO deserve two different rows in the table. ailaG (talk) 11:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Meaning of unpointed consonant
--JWB (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Under what circumstances is a consonant not pointed at all?
 * 2) Does lack of pointing always mean lack of a following vowel, or are there other possibilities?

Depends on the level of poining of that text. If the text is mostly pointed, then one letter without niqqud means it doesn't have a vowel. If the text is mostly unpointed, then letters without niqqud should be read the way it is "obvious" (to hebrew speakers). In such text, the usage of niqqud would be in order to clarify disambiguation between words that spell the same but sound differently. TaBaZzz (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Plus: also in texts fully marked with nikud, in the following cases letters aren't marked with nikud: silent alephs and hes, yuds which are part of a chirik male or a tsere male, and in most cases final letters which aren't folowed by a vowel, with the exception of words in which both the last and second last letter aren't followed by vowels (in this case both the last and second last letter are marked with two consecutive shva nach, plus the dagesh-kal in the last letter if needed). And there's one case in which the nikud-mark signifies a vowel before the letter under which it's written: a patach under a final chet, ayin or non silent he. Dan Pelleg (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

merger
It has been suggested that Hebrew_phonology be merged here. I would also suggest that dagesh be merged, and that the combined article be renamed Hebrew diacritics in keeping with Wikipedia's naming conventions (see Greek diacritics, Arabic diacritics, etc.). Practically no English speaker knows what the words niqqud or dagesh mean unless they are already familiar with the Hebrew alphabet, which makes the current names far from user friendly. kwami (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, I think dagesh is perfectly fine where it is, it contains to much information to add here. And if dagesh was merged, so would Mappiq, Rafe, Gershayim, and Geresh all here too, they're all Hebrew diacritics. Epson291 (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Not at all. There's no problem with having specialized articles. Circumflex gets its own article, so there's no reason mappiq can't as well.

 * I just noticed that dagesh is already discussed in the article. That means that it is misnamed, since dagesh is not a niqqud. What about leaving the dagesh article separate, but renaming this article Hebrew diacritics? (Or if I'm wrong and dagesh is considered a niqqud, then the latter would be synonymous with "Hebrew diacritics", which would be the preferable name per Wikipedia naming conventions.) kwami (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Dagesh is classified as "nikud". The term "nikud" doesn't exactly parallel "diacritics", a more precise translation would have to be "vowel signs and diacritics". On the other hand, not all Hebrew vowel signs are nikud, since some are letters, and not all Hebrew diacritics are nikud, e.g. geresh. Dan Pelleg (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

move

 * Can you give an example of a vowel sign niqqud that is neither a diacritic nor a letter? I'm not following.

 * We should have a 'Hebrew diacritics' article, if only to make searching the topic easier. The question is whether to move this article, or part of it, to that name (if this is too much detail, we could leave those details here under the name niqqud), or whether to create an entirely new article. The main article per WP naming conventions should have an English name, with the Hebrew only used where English won't do, such as the geresh article. kwami (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Okay, moved from niqqud to Hebrew diacritics, in keeping with coverage of other scripts. The content of the article hasn't been changed, except for a few minor changes of wording mostly in keeping with the new title. kwami (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I wish you'd be a little more patient, I'm sorry for not answering earlier but just don't have the time lately. The Point is: "Nikud" is the established term for a group of graphemes used in written Hebrew, that doesn't correlate with the term "diacritics". As explained before, "Nikud" comprises both diacritics (like dagesh kal or shin dot) and Hebrew vowel signs, themselves comprising letters, diacritic-like symbols, or combinations of both. I say "diacritic-like symbols" and not "diacritics", because they may appear graphically to be diacritics, but they are actually self contained graphemes and not modifiers, as a "real" diacritic is, e.g. segol is always a grapheme for the phoneme and is therefore not a diacritic. On the other hand, geresh is a Hebrew diacritic which is not a nikud sign. The title "Hebrew diacritics" enforces a foreign concept onto an existing and established system with its own tradition and ultimately is more confusing than enlightening: If you want to learn Hebrew, you'll have to learn what "nikud" means, rather than starting to figure out when which part of "Hebrew diacritics" is Nikud and vice versa. Dan Pelleg (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As to your request ("Can you give an example of a vowel sign niqqud that is neither a diacritic nor a letter "): Most Nikud signs are not diacritics: as mentioned above, segol ֶ is a grapheme for /e/, similarly tseyre ֵ the grapheme for /e/ or /ej/, kamats ָ, patach ַ and chataf-patach ֲ for /a/, kubuts ֻ for /u/, chirik chaser ִ for /i/, cholam chaser ֹ for /o/, all are not letters. Dan Pelleg (talk) 15:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you had consensus to move the page, so I reverted it. I agree with Dan Pelleg, I don't think diacritics and niqqud are synomonous. Epson291 (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Sorry for the quick move, but it looks like it was correct. All the examples Dan gave are diacritics. In the Latin script, diacritics do not represent phonemes. However, in abjads and abugidas they do. Richard Goerwitz (Northwest Semitic historical linguist, U. Chicago) calls the niqqud "diacritics". The vowel marks of Hindi, Divehi, etc. are also called "diacritics" in the literature. No, niqqud and 'diacritic' are not synonymous—there are also cantillation marks etc.—but niqqud are a subset of diacritics. Per Wiki naming conventions, we should go with the English name as used in academic literature. (Of course, we'd need to restore something like my edit, to at least mention the non-niqqud diacritics, which could remain at their current locations if they'd be too much to merge. Or we could split this article, with the long table remaining at niqqud, and the short table forming the core of a Hebrew diacritics article.) kwami (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If niqqud is a subset of diacritics then how about creating a new page at "Hebrew diacritics" and this way avoid losing the individual articles? Epson291 (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Okay. I think foreign words as titles are fine, as long as someone looking up the English is supported too. How about I take the short table out of this article, so as not to be redundant? kwami (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

 * I moved the short table & vowel comparison chart. Much of the intro repeats itself, but this can be cleaned up later. kwami (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

kwami, The thing is, nikud (and cantillation) signs don't modify the phonetic value of the letters they're assigned to; they just add their own phonetic values. Well, if you perceive "diacritic" to be "any written symbol which isn't a letter or a punctuation mark" then "diacritic" applies both to nikud and cantillation marks, and if the term is in fact used in this sense, then that's how it is... However die.net for example defines it as "a mark added to a letter to indicate a special pronunciation"; the American Heritage Dictionary says it's "a mark ... added to a letter to indicate a special phonetic value or distinguish words that are otherwise graphically identical" etc. Just as the "a" in "da" doesn't change the phonetic value of the "d" but rather just adds to its /d/ its own /a/, so it is with nikud: the nikud signs don't change the phonetic value of the letters they're assigned to, they just add their own values as vowel graphemes. Dan Pelleg (talk) 11:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

 * English dictionaries take the Latin alphabet as their starting point, so their definitions won't necessarily work very well for something like Hebrew. I've always seen the vowel marks of both abjads and Brahmic abugidas described as "diacritics" in the lit. Comrie, for example, in The World Atlas of Language Structures, p. 568, states that "In many consonantal scripts, it is possible to add diacritics to indicate vowels," and uses Hebrew po 'here' vs pe 'mouth' as the example. kwami (talk) 11:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Actually, now that I think about it, the AH def works pretty well: Diacritics "distinguish words that are otherwise graphically identical". That's just what niqqud do: po and pe are both written פה; it's the diacritics that disambiguate. And they "indicate a special phonetic value": That's also not far off. There's long been a tradition that Hebrew isn't an alphabet, but a syllabary. (Granted, that has been partially motivated by antisemitism, and partially by a desire to credit the alphabet to the Greeks, but even people without such motivation see some validity in this.) You could argue (though I personally don't find it very convincing) that פ does not represent the consonant /p/, but the syllable /pV/, where /V/ is undefined and perhaps zero. A diacritic can therefore be used to indicate the phonetic value of /V/, much the same way that a diacritic differentiates sin vs. shin, or French é vs. è, etc. But regardless of whether you buy that, the point is that the niqqud are an auxiliary system of glyphs, supplementary to the letters which form the core of the script. That's pretty much the definition of a diacritic. kwami (talk) 11:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Well this analysis of Hebrew orthography seems pretty warped to me. But listen: if, as you say – and I believe you – "diacritic" is in any case used in the literature to refer to nikud, then of course it's legitimate to use it in that way here. So no argument there. And it's ok to use the same word for two functionally different sets of glyphs, too. I mean, I think we shouldn't try to legitimise this by looking for ways in which they're the same while blurring the distinction. For clarity's sake, the distinction should, if at all, be made as clear as possible – after all, Wikipedia wants to inform and clarify. I mean, there's obviously a functional difference e.g. between the shin dot, a diacritic in the "latin" sense, which can be assigned to the letter ש to make its value either /s/ or /ʃ/, and the cholam chaser, which is simply and always a self contained symbol for /o/, no matter what it's added to, i.e. it is a vowel grapheme.

So could we agree on the following approach: classifying "nikud" under "diacritics" is good, but wherever relevant, the functional distinction should be made clear between the way "diacritic" is used for Latin alphabets ("modifiers of phonetic value"), nikud ("vowel graphemes or modifiers of phonetic value") and cantillation marks ("punctuation marks with tonal or melodic value"). Dan Pelleg (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Except that I'm not aware of any such distinction being made in the lit. It's not true, pace the AHD, that diacritics modify the pronunciation of words: that's just one of the uses to which they're put. In many languages using the Latin alphabet, diacritics are used to distinguish homonyms, such as French la "the" vs là "there", which are both pronounced [la]. The basic definition of 'diacritic' is an ancillary glyph added to a character (basic glyph). Some change pronunciations, some add pronunciations, some remove pronunciations (killer strokes), some make letters silent (i.e. Irish), and some are purely visual, as French là. The different uses to which diacritics are put have more to do with the kind of script than subcategories of the diacritics themselves. kwami (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Ok, you've convinced me, your definition seems perfectly adequate. Could you site a source that also defines diacritic that way (i.e., not primarily as a "pronunciation changer", but also a "pronunciation adder, remover" etc.)? If so, then also the Wikipedia definition should be corrected. (By the way, please don't misunderstand me, I suggested that "wherever relevant, the functional distinction should be made clear between the different ways "diacritic" is used". All I'm saying is that whenever such a clarification might prevent confusion, it should appear. It is after all perceivable that readers of this Wikipedia, if not informed otherwise, may assume that "diacritic" applies to Hebrew exactly as it applies to French, for example.) Dan Pelleg (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

 * All the lit I know just takes it for granted. Sometimes I see "diacritics and accents", but that seems to just be a way of covering all bases, as the two words are frequently synonymous. Just looked it up in the OED and found "diacritical accents" to describe French. The etymological meaning is a mark that distinguishes characters. Distinguishing pronunciation is not assumed when dealing with non-Latin scripts. For example (skimming The World's Writing Systems), when describing Linear B, where two characters are transcribed ra and ra2, Emmett Bennett calls the subscript <2> a 'diacritic'. He has no idea what its actual value is. When Greek letters are used as numerals, they take a mark to indicate this; that mark is also called a diacritic. William Bright, discussing the Kannada and Telugu scripts, calls both the vowel marks and the virama (killer stroke) 'diacritics'. Richard Goerwitz on Jewish scripts: "Three main Hebrew diacritic vowel/cantillation systems are known to scholars today [Tiberian, Babylonian, & Palestinian]." Ghair & Cain on Dhivehi: "Like other South Asian languages, Taana writes vowels as diacritics on consonants." kwami (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

May I refer to these sources and adjust the definition at Diacritic? Dan Pelleg (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Of course. Don't need to ask me. Though in The World's Writing Systems I only see the Greek numeral diacritic described as an "acute accent". kwami (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Made the change, maybe you'd like to take a look, Dan Pelleg (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Spelling of sin/shin dots
I've noticed that the sin dot and shin dot have their Hebrew names listed; this is great. However, I think it would be both more consistent with the rest of the table, and more useful (at least to me) if the gereshayim were eliminated, and if vowel pointing were used on these names (I'm assuming here that the gereshayim are being used as an abbreviation of some kind). Unfortunately I don't know enough Hebrew to make this change. Thanks,

-- TimNelson (talk) 00:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Hmm, in this case the gershaim don't signify abbreviations, but signify that the word is the name of a letter, see this guideline, §31/ז.. This isn't always done and personally I don't know if the gershaim are obligatory. Maybe someone else around here knows? Dan ☺ 00:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Dan is right - it means that it is the name of the letter. It is useful for conveying that אלף refers to the letter aleph and not the word "thousand", בית is the letter bet and not "house", etc.
 * The normative spelling rule do say, for example, that the word tav (mark, sign) should be spelled תו, and the name of the letter tav, which has the same etymology, should be spelled תי״ו - with י and gershayim. This, however, refers to spelling without niqqud; in spelling with full niqqud the י definitely must not be written and the gershayim can be omitted when it's clear that it's a name of a letter.
 * In the table it may be useful to write both spellings, with and without niqqud - Wikipedia is not paper. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Vowel Points
Vowel points redirects here. However, all languages which have no written vowels now use a vowel point system: most notably Arabic. Why does the term redirect here? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

"Among those who do not speak Hebrew..."
This seems ... I don't know what. Tendentious? Full of mystery? A source would be nice, otherwise it sounds like original research. "Among those who do not speak Hebrew, niqqud are the sometimes unnamed focus of controversy regarding the interpretation of the name written with the Tetragrammaton"--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 02:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

 * I agree, and it looks to me like provocation. I am removing this sentence. Nobody seems to have had anything to say for it in the past 5 years... 238-Gdn (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hebrew diacritics (nikud) with Windows 10
This article needs updating to include instructions on how to include nikud with Windows 10. 238-Gdn (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOTHOWTO. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Largoplazo (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Lesser use
The last paragraph of the lead begins "One reason for the lesser use of niqqud is that it no longer reflects the current pronunciation. In modern Hebrew, ...". Lesser than what? There's no indication in the article that niqqud was ever in day-to-day use. Conversely, as far as I know, it's still in use today for the same pedagogical and liturgical purposes and, possibly, in dictionaries, since pronunciation has to be supplied in some manner. If the sentence is accurate overall, we should supply some explanation of the manner in which it was used previously in which it's being used less today. Largoplazo (talk) 12:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Is a clarification needed?
The last paragraph of the lead reads, "One reason for the lesser use of niqqud is that it no longer reflects the current pronunciation. In modern Hebrew, tzere is pronounced the same as segol, although they were distinct in Tiberian Hebrew, and pataḥ the same as qamatz. To the younger generation of native Hebrew speakers, these distinctions seem arbitrary and meaningless; on the other hand, Hebrew language purists have rejected out of hand the idea of changing the basics of niqqud and fitting them to the current pronunciation – with the result that in practice niqqud is increasingly going out of use."

Though it had already been stated that niqqud is little used in modern Israeli orthography this paragraph provides one reason for the lesser use without having established previously that there is lesser use. Lesser than what? Before Israel, or before Eliezer ben Yehuda, was it common for Hebrew to be written (apart from pedagogical or liturgical publications) with niqqud? Or is it that, while niqqud has traditionally been used for pedagogical purposes, it isn't even being used for that any more—which seems to be the point that the cited source is making.

Either way, the paragraph should be edited to state explicitly what today's practice is being compared to. If the context is restricted to pedagogical use, then that should be stated explicitly. Largoplazo (talk) 14:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Ha, I'd completely forgotten that I'd already posted about this in the previous section, just last year. I guess my reaction was the same upon encountering the text a second time. And maybe this is an indication of the importance of addressing this. Largoplazo (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Don't have time to work on this at the moment but I understand your dilemma. The source cited from Ze'ev Galilee seems to be anecdotal and not a reliable academic source. I suggest looking here: and here: as better sources, presuming you can cope with the Hebrew. Be good :)238-Gdn (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Same alphabet and nikkud as the Western Neo-Aramaic script used in villages in Syria?
According to the Western_Neo-Aramaic article, the Aramaic villages in Syria use almost exactly the same alphabet and nikkud as modern Hebrew. The reasoning that they use the same alphabet, is that they were so isolated that they continued to use the old Aramaic block alphabet before the Syriac-Aramaic script was developed. So how and when did they get the same vowel points? This should be addressed in one of the articles.Jimhoward72 (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect assertions in article text
The article text includes this assertion:

> In modern Hebrew, tzere is pronounced the same as segol,

This is plain wrong. I know that when transliterating Hebrew to English both are transliterated as "E" but that is because English lacks distinct letters, not because the two are pronounced the same - segol is longer, what English speakers would say "putting emphasis on the syllable". Shall I simply remove this assertion?

Dotancohen (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, and I agree with the removal of the incorrect information. warshy (¥¥) 15:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Modern Hebrew phonology says Modern Hebrew has only five vowels, essentially disagreeing with you, as well as on the matter of Modern Hebrew featuring vowel length. If you disagree, you might want to take it up there.
 * Would you say that שֶׁקֶט and טֵבֵת as spoken by modern Israeli Hebrew speakers differ in vowel quality or length? Largoplazo (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a significant gap between technical pronunciation and casual usage. Compare the pronunciation of מלעיל (which even has a yod) here in a pronunciation guide with the same word in a sentence here in the first YouTube result. Not sure which we should reflect. GordonGlottal (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what distinction you're drawing when you say "technical pronunciation". A phonological analysis describes actual speech. Are the vowels in שֶׁקֶט pronounced differently from the vowels in טֵבֵת. (Or if the first vowel in each differs from the second vowel in each, then the question, more precisely, is "Are the first and second vowels, respectively, of the first word pronounced the same as the corresponding vowels of the second word?") Looking at a single word like מלעיל won't answer that question. That pronunciation varies from one person to another isn't the topic of this discussion, which is about "In modern Hebrew, tzere is pronounced the same as segol". Largoplazo (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought מלעיל was a good example because -eil endings are the hardest tzeres to pronounce, but pronunciation guides still indicate you should try. Anyway I think the answer is, in normal pronunciation you probably can't tell but there's still a phonetic awareness. If the situation called for emphasis, like someone asked you to repeat the word because they hadn't heard, Modern speakers would be able to correctly predict which words have a tzere and pronounce those with a longer vowel for the benefit of the hearer. GordonGlottal (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you answer my earlier question, the one that deals with the respective pronunciations of tsere and segol, which was the basis for the objection that launched this discussion? Particularly in the respective second syllables, both of which end in /t/ in Israeli Hebrew, is there any difference between the vowels in שֶׁקֶט and the vowels in טֵבֵת? Whether either of these varies allophonically from one word to another is a separate matter from a comparison between the two of them.
 * Actually, I don't know why I didn't come up with this other example in the first place: Is there a difference in pronunciation between אֵל and אֶל ("god" and "to")? Largoplazo (talk) 02:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Tzere vs Zeire
Tzere appears to be spelled unhelpfully. Zeire is neither the name of the letter, the Unicode character, the page that describes Tzere, nor does googling it produce a useful result. Admittedly Zeire redirects to Zeire, but aside from that it seems mostly unhelpful for it to be used.

If no-one objects, I'll replace it with Tzere. Coalsoffire (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. Tzere should be the correct transliteration/spelling for the mark, in my view. warshy (¥¥) 17:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually is Tsere. מושא עקיף (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Transliteration
I don't know much about Tiberian Hebrew, so I'm just gonna leave the transliteration as it is. But for Modern Hebrew, as a native speaker of it, the transliteration makes my blood boil a bit, honestly. I propose a change:
 * In Hebrew orthography, niqqud or nikud ( or )...

The steps
1. In Modern Hebrew, kuf (or qoph; that spelling also makes my blood boil a bit) is not pronounced as a voiceless uvular stop, rather a voiceless velar stop. This turns the ⟨q⟩ into ⟨k⟩. This results in:
 * In Hebrew orthography, niqqud or nikud ( or )...

2. There is no vowel length in Modern Hebrew to my knowledge. The macrons on vowels signify vowel length to my knowledge, so they can be removed, resulting in:
 * In Hebrew orthography, niqqud or nikud ( or )...

3. Historically "double" consonants are turned into single in Modern Hebrew, so we can just trim those off, resulting in:
 * In Hebrew orthography, niqqud or nikud ( or )...

4. I think someone might have got confused between Tiberian and Modern Hebrew. For ⟨nekudot⟩, the ⟨e⟩ for the shva is in Tiberian transliteration and the schwa in the Modern. In Modern Hebrew, the shva na is pronounced as an /e/. We can just flip this around, resulting in the finalized version:
 * In Hebrew orthography, niqqud or nikud ( or )...

Now, this is just a proposal, so if anyone can, share your thoughts about my proposal. I'm not sure if macrons on vowels do really signify vowel length or not, so I might be wrong on that part. Ⲕրⲁիօրետ (tɒk) 11:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

 * We have rules for that! Actually, I added a subject – this is the next one. I think it should be Nikkud. 147.235.219.123 (talk) 02:20, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of your proposals except I think  helps to make it clear that you have to pronounce it as   and not
 * I also agree with your overall sentiment. If you think this page is bad, wait until you see the page for Tseirei... Emdosis (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Nikkud
In Hebrew there are two standards of transcription: simple and scientific. In both of them, Dagesh H̱azak requires doubling the letter (unless the transcription of a Hebrew letter is a diagraph, like 'ts' for צד"י). Therefore, the proper spelling is Nikkud. Niqqud is the scientific transcription, it shouldn't be used in the title because we don't talk about the word itself.

Check the Rules of Transcription for more information. מושא עקיף (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

 * @מושא עקיף Qaph and Q are from the same Phoenician letter and the former was originally pronounced /q/ like Arabic quf still is today. It only makes sense that in an article which doesn't merely discuss Hebrew in an Israeli context such historical distinctions should be recognized - especially since nikkud could be misinterpreted as transliterating ניככוד instead.
 * Wikipedia doesn't use Hebrew Academy romanization and you can see that in the way heth is typically romanized here - Ḥ, neither Ḫ nor Ħ nor H̱.
 * Cheers, Kyoto Grand (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Cholam (+Kamatz Katan)
As I do not want to enter an edit war I'll just say it here: 'Cholam' is clearly at the very least, pronounced as an Open-mid back rounded vowel [ɔ]. To provide some backup to my claim: here and [here]. I don't know what is basing themselves on but they're free to defend themselves here if they want. Emdosis (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Same goes for Kamatz Katan. Should be [ɔ] [ɒ], [definitely] not [o̞]. Emdosis (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah two YouTube videos are neither reliable sources, nor do they supersede the authority of the literal governing institution for the entire language. Sinclairian (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Please point me to the part where the Hebrew language academy labels holam as being pronounced as /o̞/ or /oː/ Emdosis (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, they weren't meant to be used as reliable sources, just as examples of clearly Israeli native/Hebrew speaking people pronouncing the word cholem. Unfortunately, I could not find an easily accessible online copy of 'Ha-'Ivrit' or 'Haniqqud halakha lema′ase', but at the very least, the wikisource does not mention phonetic symbols for holem. Just transliterations such as ô and ō, the first one of which isn't necessarily pronounced as /o̞/. The second one is also ambiguous as it's just a lengthened o which admittedly, is usually interpreted to mean /oː/, it can just as well be interpreted as /ɔː/. Emdosis (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This page isn't just about Israeli Hebrew, which is what the Akademia attempts to administrate. In many historical/Ashkenazic/American Jewish dialects, cholam is clearly /o/ or /o:/ or /o̞/. The overwhelming majority of native English speakers who read Hebrew (exception being some reconstructionist Biblical academic settings) pronounce cholam with /o:/. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I know that, but this is about a hebrew niqqud and the proper pronunciation. Not about the American or British accent-version of said Hebrew vowel. Emdosis (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC) Besides, it's under the header "Israeli". I don't see why 'non-Israeli' pronunciation should be placed under there. Emdosis (talk) 06:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, imagine making this argument for any other language... Emdosis (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Why does "proper" = Israeli? And it has nothing whatsoever to do with an American or British "accent." The political organs developing Israeli/Modern Hebrew adopted sephardic vowels in like 1910, but Ashkenazic speakers never pronounced cholam that way, and it isn't any more historically legitimate. Almost all American Jews are Ashkenazim, very few of whom have intentionally altered their accents as did the early Zionists, so they retain the /o:/ cholam, as do other non-Israeli speakers and the majority of all Hebrew readers around the world. Also true of many Ashkenazic Israeli speakers when in a religious context. GordonGlottal (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Niqqud


text:
Christine Chubbuck

Christine Chubbuck (August 24, 1944 – July 15, 1974) was an American television news reporter who worked for stations WTOG and WXLT-TV in Sarasota, Florida. She was the first person to die by suicide on a live television broadcast.

Early life
Christine Chubbuck was born in Hudson, Ohio, the daughter of Margretha D. "Peg" (1921–1994) and George Fairbanks Chubbuck (1918–2015). She had two brothers, Greg and Tim. Chubbuck attended the Laurel School for Girls in Shaker Heights, a suburb of Cleveland. During her years at Laurel, she jokingly formed a "Dateless Wonder Club" with other "rejected" girls who did not have dates on Saturday nights. Chubbuck attended Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, for one year, majoring in theater arts, then attended Endicott College in Beverly, Massachusetts, before earning a degree in broadcasting at Boston University in 1965.

According to Christine Chubbuck's brother, Greg, she began dating a man in his 30s when she was 21, but her father did not approve of the relationship and she had never dated another man since then.

Early work
Chubbuck worked for WVIZ in Cleveland between 1966 and 1967, and attended a summer workshop in radio and television at New York University in 1967. That same year, she worked in Canton, Ohio, and, for three months, at WQED-TV in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, as an assistant producer for two local shows, Women's World and Keys to the City. In 1968, Chubbuck left WQED to spend four years as a hospital computer operator and two years with a cable television firm in Sarasota, Florida. Immediately before joining ABC affiliate WXLT-TV (now WWSB), she worked in the traffic department of WTOG in St. Petersburg.

Several years before her death, Chubbuck had moved into her family's summer cottage on Siesta Key. Sally Quinn of The Washington Post later reported that she had painted the bedroom and canopied bed to look like that of a young teenager. After Chubbuck's parents were divorced, her mother Peg and younger brother Greg came to live in the Florida home. When Greg left, her elder brother Tim moved in. Chubbuck had a close relationship with her family, describing her mother and Greg as her closest friends.

WXLT-TV
WXLT's owner, Bob Nelson, hired Chubbuck as a reporter, but later gave her a community affairs talk show, Suncoast Digest, which ran at 9:00am. Production Manager Gordon J. Acker described Chubbuck's new show to a local paper: "It will feature local people and local activities. It will give attention, for instance, to the storefront organizations that are concerned with alcoholics, drug users, and other 'lost' segments of the community." Page five of the article showed a smiling Chubbuck posed with a WXLT camera.

Chubbuck took her position seriously, inviting local officials from Sarasota and Bradenton to discuss matters of interest to the growing beach community. After her death, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune reported that she had been nominated for a Forestry and Conservation Recognition Award by the Bradenton district office of the Florida Division of Forestry. Chubbuck was considered a "strong contender" by district forester Mike Keel. He had been scheduled to appear as a guest on Chubbuck's show the morning of her suicide, but canceled because of the birth of his son. On occasion, Chubbuck incorporated homemade puppets she had used to entertain children with intellectual disabilities during her volunteer work at Sarasota Memorial Hospital.

Depression
Chubbuck spoke to her family at length about her struggles with depression and suicidal tendencies, though she did not inform them of her intent to die by suicide on live television. She had attempted to overdose on drugs in 1970 and frequently made reference to that event. Chubbuck had been seeing a psychiatrist up until several weeks before her death. Her mother chose not to tell WXLT management about her daughter's suicidal tendencies because she feared Chubbuck would be fired.

Chubbuck's focus on her lack of intimate relationships is generally considered to be the driving force for her depression. Her mother later summarized that "her suicide was simply because her personal life was not enough." She lamented to co-workers that her 30th birthday was approaching, and she was still a virgin who had never been on more than two dates with a man. Her brother Greg later recalled a man that she had gone out with several times before moving to Sarasota, but agreed that his sister had trouble connecting socially in the beach resort town. He believed her constant self-deprecation for being "dateless" contributed to her ongoing depression.

According to Quinn, Chubbuck had an unrequited crush on co-worker George Peter Ryan. She baked him a cake for his birthday and sought his romantic attention, only to find out he was already involved with sports reporter Andrea Kirby. Kirby had been the co-worker closest to Chubbuck, but she was offered a new job in Baltimore, which had further depressed Chubbuck. Her lack of a romantic partner was considered a tangent of her desperate need to have close friends, though co-workers said she tended to be brusque and defensive whenever they made friendly gestures toward her. She was self-deprecating, criticizing herself constantly and rejecting any compliments others paid her.

Chubbuck had her right ovary removed in an operation the year before her suicide, and had been told that if she did not become pregnant within two to three years, it was unlikely she would ever be able to conceive.

A week before her suicide, she told night news editor Rob Smith that she had bought a gun and joked about killing herself on air. Smith later stated that he did not respond to what he thought was Chubbuck's "sick" attempt at humor, and changed the subject. She had also hosted a party just days before the incident. Craig Sager, a WXLT sportscaster who later gained fame as a sideline reporter for Turner Sports, was among those who attended. "She was having a great time. It was like, 'Oh My God' this is such a different side to her," Sager recalled. "That was her going away party and it was her chance to say goodbye to everyone, but of course we didn't realize it at the time. It was just so shocking." Sager had been covering spring training for baseball when he learned of Chubbuck's suicide.

Suicide
On the morning of July 15, 1974, Chubbuck confused co-workers by claiming she had to read a newscast to open Suncoast Digest, something she had never done before. That morning's guest waited across the studio while Chubbuck sat at the news anchor's desk. During the first eight minutes of her program, Chubbuck covered three national news stories and then a shooting from the previous day at a local restaurant, Beef & Bottle, at the Sarasota-Bradenton Airport.

The film reel of the restaurant shooting had jammed and would not run, so Chubbuck shrugged it off and said on-camera, "In keeping with the WXLT practice of presenting the most immediate and complete reports of local blood and guts news, TV 40 presents what is believed to be a television first. In living color, an exclusive coverage of an attempted suicide." She drew a .38-caliber Smith & Wesson Model 36 revolver and shot herself behind her right ear. Chubbuck fell forward violently and the technical director faded the broadcast rapidly to black.

The station quickly ran a standard public service announcement and then a movie. Some television viewers called the police, while others called the station to inquire if the shooting was staged.

After the shooting, news director Mike Simmons found the papers from which Chubbuck had been reading her newscast contained a complete script of her program, including not only the shooting but also a third-person account to be read by whichever staff member took over the broadcast after the incident. He said her script called for her condition to be listed as "critical".

Chubbuck was taken to Sarasota Memorial Hospital, where she was pronounced dead fourteen hours later. Upon receiving the news, a WXLT staffer released the information to other stations using Chubbuck's script. For a time, WXLT aired reruns of the TV series Gentle Ben in place of Suncoast Digest.

Aftermath
Chubbuck's body was cremated. The funeral ceremony was held on the beach, where her ashes were scattered into the Gulf of Mexico. Approximately 120 people attended, including local officials who had appeared on her show. Three songs by her favorite singer, Roberta Flack, were played. Presbyterian minister Thomas Beason delivered the eulogy, stating, "We suffer at our sense of loss, we are frightened by her rage, we are guilty in the face of her rejection, we are hurt by her choice of isolation and we are confused by her message."

Suncoast Digest stayed on the air for several years with new hosts. Simmons, the station director, said Chubbuck's suicide was unrelated to the station. "The crux of the situation was that she was a 29-year-old girl who wanted to be married and who wasn't," he said in 1977.

The broadcast of Chubbuck's death has not been seen since its airing, and numerous theories on what happened to the recording have been advanced. One was that the station owner Robert Nelson kept it, and it was in the possession of his widow, Mollie. It was confirmed in June 2016 that the recording of Chubbuck's death exists and had indeed been in Nelson's possession, but was handed over to a "very large law firm" for safekeeping by Mollie. She has no plans to make it publicly available.

In 2007, Greg Chubbuck spoke publicly about his sister for the first time since 1974 in an E! television special. In 2008, the suicide hoax blog 90 Day Jane cited Chubbuck's death as inspiration.

In popular culture
An urban legend states that Chubbuck's suicide inspired Paddy Chayefsky's script for the 1976 film Network. In Network, news anchor Howard Beale (Peter Finch) claims he will kill himself live on-air. Dave Itzkoff, author of Mad as Hell: The Making of Network and the Fateful Vision of the Angriest Man in Movies, claims this is false, as there was no mention of Chubbuck in any of Chayefsky's papers. However, a later draft of the screenplay includes Beale saying he will commit suicide “right on the air... like that girl in Florida,” but the line was later removed. When shooting Kate Plays Christine, director Robert Greene stated that everyone he met in Sarasota believed that there was a connection between Chubbuck and Network. Greene stated “But I don’t mind that it’s wrong... It’s about how her story reverberates in all these other ways. That being not quite true seems completely appropriate.” Nonetheless, the claim that she influenced the film Network is often passed off as true.

In 2003, Christopher Sorrentino published "Condition", a short story based on Chubbuck's suicide, in the literary magazine Conjunctions.

In 2016, two films about Chubbuck played at the 2016 Sundance Film Festival. The first, Christine, was directed by Antonio Campos, and starred Rebecca Hall as Christine Chubbuck and Michael C. Hall as George Peter Ryan. The second was the documentary Kate Plays Christine, which depicts actress Kate Lyn Sheil's preparation for the role of Chubbuck in a hypothetical film.

title: Christine Chubbuck