The claim that western students read biblical Hebrew better than Israelis is counterintuitive until you sit with it. Knowing the modern version means constantly mishearing the ancient one.
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.
The claim that western students read biblical Hebrew better than Israelis is counterintuitive until you sit with it. Knowing the modern version means constantly mishearing the ancient one.
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.
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
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.
You think that's because we just lack the sufficient vocabulary?