Thanks to modern Hebrew doing away with most of the gutteral and dental letters, most Israelis find it difficult to pronounce other languages correctly. The becomes deh, this becomes dis. Think becomes tink. Modern Hebrew is the sound of Eastern Ashkenazim pretending poorly to sound Sephardi. Schools don't teach proper grammar anymore so you get absurdities such as אני יתן. Few Israelis under the age of 40 can pronounce the letter ה correctly. Even in עדות המזרח synagogues, if a youth is called upon to be חזן, you will typically hear everything rushed, garbled, and swallowed. Modern Hebrew isn't just a zombie language, it is a plague. Oh and don't get me started on the brainless habit of filler words in every half sentence even among the elders. Like, you know, say, basically, essentially. כאילו, ת׳יודע, נגיד, פשוט, בעצם. Drives me utterly insane.
It's hard because it's an ingrained cultural habit. Slow down and breathe before every word. Replace "uhm" and "ehh" with silence. If you do this then your use of nonsensical filler words will dramatically reduce. You will have more power in your voice.
I'm sure they did too. I'm also sure it wasn't nearly as pervasive as today. Filler words are a verbal tick. They're a symptom of a hyper stimulation culture that's allergic to silence. It's one thing to talk with sloppy filler in casual settings, it's another to be unable to talk without filler words when the occasion calls for it.
Not primarily. Vocabulary matters, but it’s secondary.
People can have a very large vocabulary and still speak in filler, because filler isn’t about missing words — it’s about not tolerating silence while thinking.
Every language has slang and informal registers. Ancient Hebrew speakers certainly did too. The difference is that cultures used to expect register-switching: you spoke one way in the marketplace and another when teaching, praying, or addressing the ציבור.
What feels broken today is the collapse of register altogether. Casual, rushed, low-attention speech has become the default everywhere — even where precision, dignity, or musicality actually matter (public speech, davening, teaching, leadership).
Filler words aren’t a sign of ignorance; they’re a symptom of a culture that’s overstimulated, impatient with thought, and uncomfortable with pauses. When silence itself feels threatening, people fill it automatically — even when they do know what they want to say.
So no, I’m not claiming the ancients were magically eloquent. I’m saying modern culture has lost the discipline of speech — and Hebrew, because it was revived under pressure and flattened for speed, shows that loss very clearly.
You seem to know little about the current debate over how to classify Modern Hebrew, or the permutations other languages underwent. English, for example, changed radically in the wake of the Viking raids, lost its case structure and much else, became radically simplified. Then the Norman invasion took this bare Germanic language and imposed an entire Latinate layer. And that itself underwent centuries of transformation, each generation with its conservatives insisting the language was being defiled. You misunderstand the meaning of language. It serves and reflects the transformations of the people; the people do not serve it.
Ghilad Zuckerman celebrates the hybrid nature of Modern Hebrew, which he calls Yisraelit. So should we. It is indeed a miracle, and the farther it moves from classical Hebrew the more we can see the vitality of the Jewish people.
The author of the piece is a noted philologist and references Zuckerman’s scholarship in the references. The problem is that “Yisraelit” is an invention, not our heritage. We should return to a purer form of the language. You may disagree with this aim, but don’t dismiss the article because you’re uncomfortable with the conclusion.
There is no such thing as a “pure” form of a language, any more than there is a pure form of an organism. Different forms of language emerge over time in response to the historical experiences of its speakers. No doubt civilizations experience golden ages where linguistic expression achieves new heights. These cannot be engineered, nor those forms the language takes be planned in advance. This fantasy of engineering culture from above is foolish and dangerous.
The language that was “engineered from above” is the very one the author is complaining about. So much for engineering. B’al korchenu it slips the bonds of the engineering.
And no, there are no healthier or less healthy forms of organisms; each is equally adapted to its environment. And according to the ocean slug, a woman is revolting: Beauty is determined from the perspective of the organism, not from some Platonic sphere.
Imagine kvetching because modern English doesn't sound like Shakespeare. No one, linguist or otherwise, denies that Modern hebrew is very very different than biblical hebrew: No language stays unchanged for that long.
Personally I think modern Hebrew should change more, and faster, it's extremely clunky and would benefit greatly from old (and now meaningless) grammar/spelling rules fading away with time.
I’m not “kvetching that Modern Hebrew doesn’t sound like Biblical Hebrew,” and I’m not denying that languages change. Of course they do.
The issue is how Modern Hebrew changed.
English didn’t lose half its phonemes because a committee of foreigners decided they were inconvenient. Modern Hebrew didn’t evolve away from gutturals and dentals — it was intentionally flattened by European revivalists who either couldn’t or wouldn’t acquire Semitic pronunciation, and then canonised their limitations as the new norm.
That has real downstream effects:
massive homophony → spelling erosion
loss of phonetic contrast → weaker articulation overall
collapse of register → everything sounds rushed and casual
and yes, difficulty pronouncing other languages correctly
That’s not the same process as Shakespeare → modern English. That’s more like simplified colonial French or classroom Latin.
As for “old grammar/spelling rules fading away”: fine — but what we actually lost wasn’t dead weight, it was structure and musicality. The result isn’t efficiency; it’s sloppiness. Faster, not clearer.
So no, this isn’t nostalgia or anti-change. It’s criticism of a specific, historically contingent intervention that produced a shallow spoken register and a population that struggles with precision in speech.
If you want to defend that outcome, defend it — but “languages evolve” isn’t an argument. It’s a truism.
Thanks to modern Hebrew doing away with most of the gutteral and dental letters, most Israelis find it difficult to pronounce other languages correctly. The becomes deh, this becomes dis. Think becomes tink. Modern Hebrew is the sound of Eastern Ashkenazim pretending poorly to sound Sephardi. Schools don't teach proper grammar anymore so you get absurdities such as אני יתן. Few Israelis under the age of 40 can pronounce the letter ה correctly. Even in עדות המזרח synagogues, if a youth is called upon to be חזן, you will typically hear everything rushed, garbled, and swallowed. Modern Hebrew isn't just a zombie language, it is a plague. Oh and don't get me started on the brainless habit of filler words in every half sentence even among the elders. Like, you know, say, basically, essentially. כאילו, ת׳יודע, נגיד, פשוט, בעצם. Drives me utterly insane.
I agree with this, but it’s hard not to use כאילו or פשוט all the time. I almost use it in English some times
It's hard because it's an ingrained cultural habit. Slow down and breathe before every word. Replace "uhm" and "ehh" with silence. If you do this then your use of nonsensical filler words will dramatically reduce. You will have more power in your voice.
You think ancient Hebrew speakers were more articulate? I'm sure they had their own street slang and filler words Which never made it into the Tanach.
Correct, that’s exactly what the article says.
I'm sure they did too. I'm also sure it wasn't nearly as pervasive as today. Filler words are a verbal tick. They're a symptom of a hyper stimulation culture that's allergic to silence. It's one thing to talk with sloppy filler in casual settings, it's another to be unable to talk without filler words when the occasion calls for it.
You think that's because we just lack the sufficient vocabulary?
Not primarily. Vocabulary matters, but it’s secondary.
People can have a very large vocabulary and still speak in filler, because filler isn’t about missing words — it’s about not tolerating silence while thinking.
Every language has slang and informal registers. Ancient Hebrew speakers certainly did too. The difference is that cultures used to expect register-switching: you spoke one way in the marketplace and another when teaching, praying, or addressing the ציבור.
What feels broken today is the collapse of register altogether. Casual, rushed, low-attention speech has become the default everywhere — even where precision, dignity, or musicality actually matter (public speech, davening, teaching, leadership).
Filler words aren’t a sign of ignorance; they’re a symptom of a culture that’s overstimulated, impatient with thought, and uncomfortable with pauses. When silence itself feels threatening, people fill it automatically — even when they do know what they want to say.
So no, I’m not claiming the ancients were magically eloquent. I’m saying modern culture has lost the discipline of speech — and Hebrew, because it was revived under pressure and flattened for speed, shows that loss very clearly.
You seem to know little about the current debate over how to classify Modern Hebrew, or the permutations other languages underwent. English, for example, changed radically in the wake of the Viking raids, lost its case structure and much else, became radically simplified. Then the Norman invasion took this bare Germanic language and imposed an entire Latinate layer. And that itself underwent centuries of transformation, each generation with its conservatives insisting the language was being defiled. You misunderstand the meaning of language. It serves and reflects the transformations of the people; the people do not serve it.
Ghilad Zuckerman celebrates the hybrid nature of Modern Hebrew, which he calls Yisraelit. So should we. It is indeed a miracle, and the farther it moves from classical Hebrew the more we can see the vitality of the Jewish people.
The author of the piece is a noted philologist and references Zuckerman’s scholarship in the references. The problem is that “Yisraelit” is an invention, not our heritage. We should return to a purer form of the language. You may disagree with this aim, but don’t dismiss the article because you’re uncomfortable with the conclusion.
I missed the reference to Zuckerman. Thank you.
There is no such thing as a “pure” form of a language, any more than there is a pure form of an organism. Different forms of language emerge over time in response to the historical experiences of its speakers. No doubt civilizations experience golden ages where linguistic expression achieves new heights. These cannot be engineered, nor those forms the language takes be planned in advance. This fantasy of engineering culture from above is foolish and dangerous.
"There is no such thing as a “pure” form of a language, any more than there is a pure form of an organism"
But there are healthier and unhealthier organisms, more and less beautiful ones, more and less native ones.
"These cannot be engineered"
Actually, they really were engineered, from above.
The language that was “engineered from above” is the very one the author is complaining about. So much for engineering. B’al korchenu it slips the bonds of the engineering.
And no, there are no healthier or less healthy forms of organisms; each is equally adapted to its environment. And according to the ocean slug, a woman is revolting: Beauty is determined from the perspective of the organism, not from some Platonic sphere.
Maybe you know why the word Sanhedrin was used to name a mesachta and the court and not the Hewbrew 'beis din'?
I’m confused about the authorship of this post. Was it written by Ephraim or Hadesh? I read it in Ephraim’s voice.
Hadesh is an organization and journal dedicated to bringing many voices together from across the Jewish world who advocate for civilizational renewal.
The article was written by Ephraim S. Ayil, a friend of the editor, who wished to contribute to us.
Got it.
Imagine kvetching because modern English doesn't sound like Shakespeare. No one, linguist or otherwise, denies that Modern hebrew is very very different than biblical hebrew: No language stays unchanged for that long.
Personally I think modern Hebrew should change more, and faster, it's extremely clunky and would benefit greatly from old (and now meaningless) grammar/spelling rules fading away with time.
You’re arguing against a point I didn’t make.
I’m not “kvetching that Modern Hebrew doesn’t sound like Biblical Hebrew,” and I’m not denying that languages change. Of course they do.
The issue is how Modern Hebrew changed.
English didn’t lose half its phonemes because a committee of foreigners decided they were inconvenient. Modern Hebrew didn’t evolve away from gutturals and dentals — it was intentionally flattened by European revivalists who either couldn’t or wouldn’t acquire Semitic pronunciation, and then canonised their limitations as the new norm.
That has real downstream effects:
massive homophony → spelling erosion
loss of phonetic contrast → weaker articulation overall
collapse of register → everything sounds rushed and casual
and yes, difficulty pronouncing other languages correctly
That’s not the same process as Shakespeare → modern English. That’s more like simplified colonial French or classroom Latin.
As for “old grammar/spelling rules fading away”: fine — but what we actually lost wasn’t dead weight, it was structure and musicality. The result isn’t efficiency; it’s sloppiness. Faster, not clearer.
So no, this isn’t nostalgia or anti-change. It’s criticism of a specific, historically contingent intervention that produced a shallow spoken register and a population that struggles with precision in speech.
If you want to defend that outcome, defend it — but “languages evolve” isn’t an argument. It’s a truism.