Talk:Hebrew language

See also Talk:Modern Hebrew language.

Direct Heir of Biblical Hebrew

I was interested in this question, and would like to know the source for the claims between the Mizrahi and Yemenite dialects being considered direct heirs. I'd be very interested in more information and current research on this topic. Also, is this something that should be flagged as needing citation? wjd (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Any claim which is not obvious should be cited. However I can tell you from personal knowledge that these so-called "dialects" (really reading traditions) are certainly descended from at least some stage of Biblical Hebrew -- however they might not be descended from Tiberian Hebrew. Mo-Al (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no agreement either way among any academics, most scholars tend to see Temani Hebrew (or Yemenite Hebrew) pronunciation style as likely being closest to what "Biblical Hebrew" may have sounded like; but its all conjecture.Historylover4 (talk) 04:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Any claim that Hebrew is Afro-Asiatic is completely noncorrect because Hebrew is Judaist of the house of Aaron and Seth in so much as communications of timeline between the heaven and the earth over the whole stretch of time and earth. That is why insomuch as an assertion by someone out there that Hebrew is Afro-Asiatic this assertion is absolutely stupid and therefore Hebrew is not Afro-Asiatic; it is Judaist and Ongoingly full of governance of the civilization and the people of the chosen proper peoples. Please edit this page and take off the stupid assertion listed which is absolutely contested by all righteous Jews that Arian Hebrew and Rebbeinical Hebrew and simply Hebrew should be listed as AfroAsiatic. Signed, Joyashrei-Leigh Mueller. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.181.90 (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources for your input. Dan ☺ 14:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

"Any claim that Hebrew is Afro-Asiatic is completely noncorrect because Hebrew is Judaist of the house of Aaron and Seth in so much as communications of timeline between the heaven and the earth over the whole stretch of time and earth." Does anyone out there really have their teaching this totally garbled, or is this some kind of a put-on? "House of Aaron" refers to a non-Judahite tribe, while "Seth" is someone who would be even before Noah. So, you say you object to "Arian Hebrews" wrongly being categorized as having originated in Asia and Africa? Really? Who is miseducating you not only to believe such lies but to think many centuries worth of sources stating actual history are in error? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Opinions needed ...

... from Hebrews speakers about an apparent discrepancy between Hebrew Wikipedia and English Wikipedia, at Talk:Natalie Portman#First Name. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Cresix, how are you today? Yes, these discrepencies exist due to the difference in language family, English is considered a Greco-Roman Language, much like Italian, French, and Spanish; whereas, Hebrew is a Semitic Language, much like Aramaic, Arabic, and Samaritan. The rules in Semitic languages are different than the rules in Greco-Roman Languages, in short.AurumSpiral1235813 (talk) 03:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Wexler and Zuckermann 2011

Hi Francis :)

I restored most of the paragraph about Wexler. Both Wexler and Zuckermann are cited in Modern Hebrew curriculum in my university; not as necessarily correct, but as notable dissenting views.

Saying that they "have not been accepted by most scholars" is indeed weasel wording and it's not really needed anyway, so i removed it. Calling them "minor" is also rather meaningless. Whether one likes it or not, both of them are mentioned in nearly every modern discussion of the nature of Modern Hebrew, so it's reasonable to call them "notable".Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, if a person is going to add something like that, they should at least give the sources (if it were true, in this case, there would be many) in which drew them to that conclusion.AurumSpiral1235813 (talk) 02:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I removed this part from the article:

This view forms part of a larger complex of theories, such as that Ashkenazi Jews are predominantly descended from Slavic and Turkic tribes rather than from the ancient Israelites, none of which are accepted by mainstream scholarship.

This information is correct as far as i heard, but a better source is needed. I'll try to find one.

And Zuckermann approach is indeed a compromise; not just because he himself calls it a compromise, but because it really is. Wexler says that Modern Hebrew is Semitic only by typology and Slavic but all other parameters and Zuckermann is not so extreme. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Restructuring

This article seems to suffer from indecision about what topic it is really discussing -- in places it is an overview of all the varieties of Hebrew, and in places it is a description of Modern Hebrew. I would like to restructure this page in the model of the Greek language article -- a summary of the issues surrounding "Hebrew" as a whole, with links to articles about specific varieties (Biblical Hebrew, Modern Hebrew, etc.). Are there any objections? Mo-Al (talk) 23:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad has mentioned by name in the holy book Moses in Hebrew

Details are declred by the following link: http://www.archive.org/details/The_Absolute_Truth_About_Muhammad_in_the_Bible_With_Arabic_Subtitles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.150.34.104 (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Please show a more reliable proof, you are wrong, look for that word in the old Bible on the internet-- Someone35 (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

"Law of attenuation"?

I see this in the Hebrew language template, but no article exists. Is this an established term, or could something like Lenition be redirected to? I'm not familiar with Hebrew, so forgive my stab in the dark. Thanks! Matttoothman (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

the Hebrew language template... which, surprisingly, isn't on this page. You can see it at Tsade, among other places. Matttoothman (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Oldest Hebrew inscriptions

"The language is attested from the 10th century BCE [3]" "The earliest Hebrew writing yet discovered was found at Khirbet Qeiyafa in July 2008 by Israeli archaeologist Yossi Garfinkel.[6][7]"

These statements are not supported by the Khirbet Qeiyafa find. 1) The inscription on the Qeiyafa ostracon is NOT written in Hebrew. That fact is not contested by any scholar. It is written in Proto-Phonecian which is a precursor language to Hebrew and other semitic dialects. 2) Professor Gershon Galil, who did not discover the artifact, suggests that the contents and of the text indicate that this was a Hebrew speaker writing Hebrew, but using the Proto-Phoenician alphabet. 2a)This is so subtle, like saying this is a Scot writing in Queens English before the Scots might have invented their own alphabet? 3) This is regarded as, though not impossible, a huge stretch and having somewhat less likli-hood than other possibilities.See Prof. Christopher A. Rollston of Johns Hopkins University at http://www.rollstonepigraphy.com/?p=56 4) Moreover the inscription is in ink and several of the Galil's examples are not even agreed to read what Galil suggests by all scholars. 5) But on top of all that, the dating of the shard is an average estimate and not at all a date certain. http://isfn.skytech.co.il/articles/Qeiyafa%20absolute%20chronology.pdf

This reference is not Science, it is one person's theory which is not supported by his peers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wittym (talk • contribs) 08:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, hebrew was and is in samaritian hebrew still written with the phoenician script. The hebrew alphabet is actually an Aramaic script, and quite new for the hebrew language.83.253.253.27 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC).

While it is true that Modern Hebrew has been influenced by Aramaic, the history of Hebrew as a whole goes back further into the past than the birth of Aramaic, according to this verified chart from the Ancient Hebrew Research Center.AurumSpiral1235813 (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems that during the developement of Late Archaic Hebrew(c. 500 - 400 BCE) is when Hebrew starts becoming influenced by Aramaic; however, before this time period, there is no evidence of Aramaic influence on Hebrew, according to the previously mentioned chart.AurumSpiral1235813 (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no mention in the article as to when the final forms of six letters were introduced. Modern liturgical Hebrew script employs the final forms where they occur at the end of a word. So, how far back can this use be traced? I would like to see the article make this explicit. --DStanB (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The famous book by Joseph Naveh on the history of the alphabet says that the final forms came first and the medial forms came later. But that book is pretty old now and I wonder what the modern opinion is. Zero^talk 14:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Zero, my comment/request may have been a bit ambiguous. What I really want is clarification as to when certain Hebrew letters (I said 'six', but meant five) began to be written using two forms instead of one. That is, one form when the letter occurs either at the beginning of or within a word, and an alternative form when the same letter occurs at the end of a word. I am not especially interested in the look or style of the final and medial forms (though others may be), as much as the date when the practice was introduced. --DStanB (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

VSO?

According to Modern Hebrew grammar, Hebrew is SVO, but this article is categorized as Category:VSO languages. Which is it?--Louiedog (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The unmarked order is is SVO. aní shoté máim = I drink water. Dan ☺ 15:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Then it should be recategorized, yes?--Louiedog (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hebrew is a VSO language, modern hebrew is just simplified.83.253.253.27 (talk)

A brief review of many verses in Genesis reveals a clear VSO trend in Ancient Hebrew. I don't know about today's Hebrew so much. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 03:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Evidence? I don't know much about it. The first thing that I find is an academic's blog post "Basic Word Order in the Biblical Hebrew Verbal Clause, Part 6" suggesting that the topic is currently under discussion. On the other hand, in part 1 of 6 he characterizes the status in 2010 as that "the very small minority position—that Hebrew is basically a Subject-Verb (SV) language—has been promoted from D.O.A. status (and an unceremonious burial in a footnote) to meriting serious engagement". So I'm left to suppose that VSO is indeed the conventional wisdom about Hebrew in its historical development. I doubt that anyone regards Modern Hebrew as VSO, but again I don't know much about it. It's just my guess after my limited experience with Modern Hebrew, such as reading some stories and novels. --Hoziron (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Translation Request: Please add literal translation for Exanthem subitum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exanthem_subitum — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.61.63.7 (talk) 01:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Question reliability of source

This source used in the article appears to be a self-published page of one Elina Shkolnikova. She seems to have some relevant qualifications but it isn't at all clear that WP:RS applies. Please forgive my lack of Russian expertise and correct me if I'm not reading it correctly: Our text said "The Soviet authorities considered the use of Hebrew "reactionary" since it was associated with both Judaism and Zionism" until an anon removed "both Judaism and" a few minutes ago. Anon is correct as the source says "Борьба с ивритом рассматривалась и как борьба с сионистской идеологией." (The struggle against Hebrew was considered an anti-Zionist struggle.) and "Подавление иврита стало отражением борьбы с сионистским движением." (The suppression of Hebrew was a reflection of the struggle with the Zionist movement.) The article also indicates that the struggle against Hebrew was not only from the authorities but also within the Jewish community. Finally, it isn't clear why this is in a section called "Status" rather than in some history section. Zero^talk 07:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hebrew, Ivrit or Israeli?

Is the present-day majority language of Israel and Classical Hebrew mutually understandable? If not the use of the word “Hebrew” for it is misleading. Then I would prefer to call it Ivrit or Israeli instead.

2012-08-01 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

That depends on what you mean by "mutually understandable". Though there is a great deal of relative archaisms involved, a speaker/reader of Modern Hebrew is completely capable of reading texts written in Classical Hebrew. When you start to talk about speaking the language, though, you're likely to run into problems. A fluent speaker of Modern Hebrew, thrown 2,700 years into the past, is not likely to be able to communicate with anyone. This is a facet of any language, really, but is especially true of Hebrew, where pronunciation and articulation has been especially fluid and changing from time period to time period, and from community to community. That said, I don't think there is any modern language that is mutually intelligible with its past counterpart back more than 500-800 years or so. The articles Classical Hebrew and Modern Hebrew go into more detail with it than I can. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

That's like saying we should call Greek "Demotic" instead of Greek just because it is not the same as ancient Greek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.238.93 (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

No, let's call Modern Greek "Ellinikí" – Dan ☺ 12:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, “Ellinikí” is the language’s word for itself. I use the word “Greek” for the modern language, “Bysantine” about its Medival counterpart and “Ancient Greek” about the Antiquity version. I think this make the distinctions clear enough.

2013-08-16 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Dating Error in Intro, end of 2nd paragraph.

It says, "The earliest examples of written Hebrew date from the 10th century BCE [2] to the late Second Temple period," BUT the Second Temple period was from 530 BCE and 70 CE, so either the date is wrong or it means "First Temple period." I don't know which is correct, so I didn't fix it. Will someone who knows please correct it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.123.137 (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe the lead is summarizing here both archaic and "classical" Hebrew. Need a linguist Wiki-editor to step in and make the call.HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The IP is absolutely right, there was an error in the lead. The source says quite clearly that the earliest written Hebrew dates from the 10th century BCE, so I corrected that. It has nothing to do with the Second Temple period.Jeppiz (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hebrews ,Canaanites and Arabs by Ninorta Dawood.

presented in Arabic with English translation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKJtb_KCx1I&feature=youtu.be Syrian10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)