Talk:Hebrew languages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also Talk:Modern Hebrew language.

Moved from Wikipedia:Requests for mediation

Contents

[edit] Request for assistance in a conflict between users regarding Canaanite and Hebrew linguistics articles

I am Gilgamesh. Mustafaa and I have been having charged conflicts with IZAK over the articles concerning Canaanite languages and Hebrew language. In particular, he seems to dispute the entire science of linguistics and language families, imposing historicity of the Abrahamic religion scripture without regard to other people's disputes over it, and has tried to eliminate "Category:Canaanite languages" altogether. The relevant articles are Hebrew language, Canaanite languages, Ammonite language, Moabite language, Edomite language, Biblical Hebrew language, Hebrew alphabet, and the categories "Category:Canaanite languages" and "Category:Hebrew language". Edit histories are available for those articles, and most of the discussion is at User_talk:IZAK, apparently recently mirrored at Talk:Modern Hebrew language. - Gilgamesh 08:23, 7 July 2004 (UTC)

  • Hi, I am IZAK , recently I was reading freshly re-written articles by Gilgamesh and Mustafaa on the above topics. Firstly: I am NOT trying to "to eliminate Category:Canaanite languages altogether". On the contrary, I agree that it should be there. I have no problem with it. My problem is that this category is attempting to encompass the totality of the Hebrew language, including Modern Hebrew language even as spoken in modern-day Israel. No-one associates the Hebrew language with anything "Canaanite" except for a few obscure linguists. For most general scholars and laymen Hebrew has always been classified as a Semitic language, without reference to a dubious "Canaanite" sub-group. The position/s put forward by Mustafaa and Gilgamesh is that there were more than one "Hebrew" language and hence more than one "Hebrew" people. This runs counter to the teachings of Judaism that the ancient Hebrews are the ancestors and direct progenitors of today's Jews. Mustafaa and Gilgamesh want to have it both ways: They seek to impose their own dichotomies and theories about the BIBLICAL Hebrew Language and the BIBLICAL Hebrews aka the Children of Israel, yet when one wants to refer to the contents of that self-same primary source as a framework for discussion they switch-and-bait and declare that now it is all a case of "imposing historicity of the Abrahamic religion scripture without regard to other people's disputes over it". If they do not accept the "historicity" of the Hebrew language in its original then they are in effect rejecting 99.99% of all information about the Hebrew people and language as their sources about "Ammonites", "Edomites", "Moabites", and "Cananites" are almost exclusively provided in the Hebrew Bible itself. It is NOT a case of: "In particular, he seems to dispute the entire science of linguistics and language families, imposing historicity of the Abrahamic religion scripture without regard to other people's disputes over it". On the contrary, I am asking for MORE inclusivity by calling for recognition that there are hundred of millions of people, not just Jews, who believe in the truth of the Hebrew Bible in its original language. And, it is in that context that note must be taken that nowhere in the Bible does it say that there were "several" Hebrew people with several Hebrew "languages". Thus, it is ONLY one group that spoke Hebrew and one group that held onto it for millenia and that is the Jewish people as they are known today. If anything, they and their language should be classified as Semitic, they most definitely do NOT belong in Category:Canaanite languages as the Hebrew language is its OWN unique sub-group. Thank you. IZAK 09:02, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You do not understand my arguments at all... Though conversely I may have also misunderstood many of your points. I believe Mustafaa and I are correct, as the Canaanite linguistic classification of Hebrew languages in ancient Canaan is attested in linguistics books and academic websites such as Ethnologue and Linguist List. The very historicity of the Hebrews itself is disputed, though I believe in them. But I think the sticking points here are (1) whether Ammon, Moab and Edom can be called Hebrew nations alongside Israel, and (2) whether Hebrew can be classified among the Canaanite languages, and (3) whether "Hebrew" means "descendant of Eber" or more simply "non-pagan". Oh, and I truly resent being accused of "bait-and-switch". I'm just a bookworm and an editor, and malice is unethical as well as a sin. I do not understand the vehement opposition to what is valid concensus in the linguistics field, and I don't see how it can be contrary to the Torah beliefs either (see Eber and Hebrew and the believed genealogies of Ammon, Moab, Edom and Israel). What on earth did I do to warrant such attacks? I don't believe the Hebrews were Canaanites, nor that the Canaanites were Hebrews; that established, what is so offensive about the idea of Biblical Hebrew being an adopted Canaanite language? I really don't want to step on anyone's toes here. - Gilgamesh 09:21, 7 July 2004 (UTC)
  • Firstly, please calm down as this is only an academic, albeit vigorous, debate.
  • You must see:Why are the Jews called "Hebrews"?: "The word "Hebrew" comes from the Hebrew word "Ivri." Jews are called Hebrews because their ancestor and founder, Abraham, is called (Genesis 14:13) "Abraham the Ivri." The word Ivri means "from the [other] side," and Abraham came to the Land of Canaan from Mesopotamia which was "on the other side" of the Euphrates. Additionally, Abraham, with his monotheistic beliefs, was on one side while the rest of the world was on the other (pagan) side."

You will note that it is Abraham who is the original Hebrew as regards the origins of the Hebrew people. You are again injecting your own speculations about Eber for whatever reasons.

  • With regards to your "points":

"(1) whether Ammon, Moab and Edom can be called Hebrew nations alongside Israel, and (2) whether Hebrew can be classified among the Canaanite languages, and (3) whether "Hebrew" means "descendant of Eber" or more simply "non-pagan"."

  • Number (3) I answered above showing you the correct path of interpretation as far as Jewish scholraship goes.
    • As I said before, it is a theological issue, and is open to opinion and interpretation. The various Jewish interpretations is disputable, just as the various Christian, Islamic and atheist interpretations are also disputable. - Gilgamesh 10:37, 7 July 2004 (UTC)

The "various Jewish interpretations" you disparage do not even apply here. It is a black and white citation in the Book of Genesis : In Genesis 14:13 [1] : Abraham, is called "Abraham the Ivri. (HEBREW)" IZAK 03:06, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • With number (2) it is sheer speculation on anyone's part to place Hebrew as a "Canaanite" language. The Book of Genesis records that in Abraham's time there were TEN nations living in Canaan, and they were enemies of Abraham. Were they also "Hebrews" and "Hebrew-speakers" by dint of living in Canaan, or is Abraham an independent and wholy new "Hebrew" who brings his own language with him. Amon, Moab and Edom are all derived from groups that moved AWAY from Abraham's route and developed as their own people and cultures, whatever they spoke has no relation to the later Hebrew language as presented in the written Bible/Torah that Jews had refered to as Lashon HaKodesh the "Holy Tongue (Language)" suitable for their religious rites and holy studies.
  • And (1)You tell me who considers the Ammonites, Moabites and Edomites to be "Hebrews" no different to the Hebrews who became the Children of Israel ? IZAK 10:02, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, though I believe the Torah says they were different in that they split and became different and went on different paths. See these articles' discussions on Eber and Hebrews. [5], [6], [7] - Gilgamesh 10:37, 7 July 2004 (UTC)

Maybe this should resume, if at all, on Talk:Hebrew language. I did not envision the argument to resume here when this place (that we're cluttering) could be reserved for more mediation requests. It's partially my fault for always responding when and where something is said. - Gilgamesh 11:28, 7 July 2004 (UTC)

It's a bit hard to figure out exactly what the argument is about, but it looks like IZAK is pushing a particular fundamentalist view based on tradition and Gilgamesh+Mustafaa are pushing the generally accepted scientific classifications based on evidence. As you can infer from the biased way I phrased it, I'm with Gilgamesh+Mustafaa on this. By the way, another source that classifies Hebrew amongst the Canaanite languages is the Jewish Encyclopedia. I suspect there is no modern academic literature that does otherwise, though it would be interesting to see some. --Zero 14:08, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

there is a basic diffarence between jewish data and scientific data. while the jews preserve all their knoledge, including arguments and minority opinions from the begining of those traditions till today, science is trying to backtrack everything from how it is today to what it was in the past. if you have a videotape of someone doing something, and at the same time logic and reasoning show that it couldn't be done, what would you believe? --y man 19:23, 03 May 2006 (UTC)


  • Zero: Please note that Gilgamesh on Talk:Modern Hebrew language believes that "..."Also, to say that the default assumed form of Hebrew is Israeli Hebrew is pro-Israel POV. I'm not anti-Israel (I'm a LDSEphrathite)..." (i.e. Mormons), and that Mustafaa openly proclaims that he is an "anti-Zionist" (on his User:Mustafaa). Thus both Mustafaa and Gilgamesh are heavily self-admited POV and therefore whatever they say pertaining to Hebrew, Israel and Jewish issues and topics should be regarded as self-serving POV. IZAK 04:30, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Pardon me, but using "Mormons" in such a matter is not only pejorative, but in this case it is also an incendiary slur. I will kindly ask you never to say such a slur again. Ever. (It's also possible you didn't know it was a slur, but please stop nonetheless.) Additionally, any attempt to stigmatize either of us purely by identity or association is completely invalid as a scientific argument, and is also a personal attack. And don't even try to make any of this about Zionism nor anti-Zionism, neither of which I have any problems with. I demand you cease personal attacks immediately.

  • Since "you" did not sign your name to this reaction/objection it cannot be known if what you say here is true or just a joke of sorts. Furthermore, quoting the words that both Gilgamesh and Mustafaa said is helpful regarding POV vs NPOV on the subject at hand, as it gets you thinking about where they are coming from when they write articles about sensitive subjects pertinent to all Jews/Hebrews. (And by the way, most people do not know what "LDS" is, they may think it's a mis-spelling for "LSD" or something, so defining it as Mormons is NOT a slur! So pardon me if that is what you thought). The world at large does not think it is a slur to be called Mormons, and NO more nor less than it is a slur to be called a "Jew". So cool it, whoever you are. IZAK 06:09, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Now that really is offensive. You blithely claim that being a "Mormon" automatically implies that "whatever they say pertaining to Hebrew, Israel and Jewish issues and topics should be regarded as self-serving POV"! Ad hominem attacks are merely immature, but ad religionem attacks are actively offensive and should not be tolerated. Imagine if I told you that, because you were a Jew, anything you wrote in Arab-related topics should automatically be assumed to be "self-serving POV"! You owe Gilgamesh a serious apology. - Mustafaa 06:21, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Is this a hydra or what? Does Mustafaa believe what Gilgamesh believes as well? Then the POV problems are truly compounded as they are working in tandem on the Hebrew articles. It is impossible to tell with people speaking at loggerheads. How about if everyone speaks and SIGNS for themselves then one can get a sense of who it is that is saying what and why. Thank you. I still do not see the insult of defining a "LDS" as Mormons. I do not agree to call someone a "saint" merely because that person adopts the title "saint". In Judaism a "saint" is a tzadik in HEBREW and to call oneself a "saint" is both presumptious and arrogant. No-one should take this title. It should be bestowed or earned perhaps. IZAK 07:04, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What annoys me most about this discussion is that for addmitedly religious, not encyclopedic or even linguistics, Gilgamesh and Mustafa are causing the Hebrew language article to drift farther and farther from the modern realitity and pure information, and more and more into historical religious information that the vast majority of humanity doesn't share. There is one Hebrew language, just like there is one English language and one Greek language. The former, exactly like the latter, had a number of historical dialiects, some of more important and some less important, but none of them are spoken today. the "XXX language" article should be about the current, modern language XXX. ISO has standards for these language names, these languages are spoken by millions of people in certain countries, and so on. The "XXX language" articles should mention the history of the language, but should write on the XXX language from the perspective of a living language, not as a perverted dialect of a "holy" language that used to exist. The fact that Mustafa and Gilgamesh appear to hold some religious view of "Abrahamic religion" making certain ancient dialects remotely similar to classical Hebrew, doesn't make this a topic worth mentioning on the "Hebrew language" page, except as see also, or on a separate "Ancient Hebrew" or "Ancient dialects of Hebrew" etc.. IZAK's talk about the one and only Hebrew being holy is also irrevant. I also join Izak's bemusement in the fact of Gilgamesh and Mustafa insist of using terms like "canaanite", "abrahamic" and worst of all, "hebrew languages". If you know languages like Hebrew, Arabic and Arameic, you'll see immediately how close these languages are, and how obvious they are from one family, called the Semitic languages. All the languages you mention (Edomite, Moavite, etc.) were probably even closer to Hebrew than the modern Arabic and Arameic, and perhaps even close enough to be mutually inteligable, but nevertheless these languages traditionally have different names, just like Spanish and Portugese, or Danish and Norwegian, have different names. Calling Adomite a "Hebrew language" is just as strange (in the context of an encyclopedia, which is meant to explain, not to confuse), as calling the Portuguese language a "Spanish Language". I also suggested to Mustafa and Gilgamesh to look at all the pages that already link to Hebrew language, and see what the linkers expected that page to explain - the existing language that the whole world calls Hebrew, or a group of languages dead for at least 2500 years that are somewhat related to that language. The silliest thing is that I have been speeking Hebrew all my life, and until a week ago I never even heard the concept of "Hebrew languages" in plural. It may be a useful concept, but not in the Hebrew language article...

Nyh 14:15, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nyh, you bring up and excellent point and I wish I had thought about it before... "Hebrew languages" does seem like a good place to put the article, and considering that it was intended as a category, it would fit well with other language family articles. I never wished to marginalize Modern Hebrew, and I felt it unfair that other languages weren't well addressed. I suppose I just never thought in terms of the plural. - Gilgamesh 17:22, 7 July 2004 (UTC)
Excellent points, nyh Jayjg 19:59, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • It should be noted that Gilagamesh seems to have an agenda to "cut down to size" the status of the vibrant modern Hebrew language as Gilgamesh states on Talk:Modern Hebrew language : ..."Also, to say that the default assumed form of Hebrew is Israeli Hebrew is pro-Israel POV. I'm not anti-Israel (I'm a LDS Ephrathite), but Hebrew is regarded just as important as a historical and religious language as it is regarded as a modern vernacular. Hebrew is rich in history, and rich in heritage to Abrahamic religions alike, and some of us felt that the previous Hebrew article focused too much on only the Modern Israeli dialect, and was too uncomfortably monolithic to edit to reflect the greater variety of Hebrew that exists and has existed."... ...Is this not an attempt to minimise an important article about a current language spoken by millions of Jews in Israel by "drowning it" in academic gobbledygook that it's part of umpteen old defunct basically un-knowable "Canaanite" languages? IZAK 02:43, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hi - could someone explain the argument to me, please? I've read through quite a bit of what is up here, as well as some of what is up on IZAK's talk page, and by now I am confused. I don't want to step into the argument without understanding it completely. Here is my impression of the facts up to now, please correct me if I have misunderstood something:
  1. Users are attempting to create categories for different groups or families of languages, including Hebrew
  2. Mustafaa and Gilgamesh are utilizing as a classification tool, a "tree" of languages which has been drawn up by linguists and is agreed upon in the academic world
  3. according to the aformentioned tree, Hebrew is a Canaanite language (as English is a Germanic language) and Canaanite languages are Semitic languages (as Germanic languages are Indo-European languages)
  4. IZAK takes objection to the use of this tree
  5. IZAK's reason for objection is that it implies that Hebrew evolved from earlier languages, which contradicts the Biblical account of the Tower of Babel
  6. IZAK is suggesting an alternative method of categorization
  7. The classification method preferred by IZAK is ... [this is still unclear to me, please help me out]
Thanks, --Woggly 14:21, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As I understand it, there are two issues in question here:

  • Is Hebrew a Canaanite language?
  • Are Moabite, Ammonite, and Edomite Hebrew languages?

The former point is supported unanimously by linguists. "Canaanite" in this context is a technical term referring to the close relationship of the languages of the area traditionally called Canaan, and should not be confused with any Biblical or other issues. The latter appears to be partly a theological issue based on the interpretation of the word "Hebrew"; I offer no opinions as to the theologically correct interpretation of Ivri, but as regards the linguistics of it, I can attest that the southern Canaanite languages are more closely related to each other than to the northern Canaanite ones, and Moabite is quite often seen as a dialect of Hebrew (in the words of Jouon and Muraoka, "The inscription of Mesha, King of Moab... is in a language that does not differ from Hebrew except in minor details.") - Mustafaa 17:15, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

On the one hand, it is pretty widely agreed that Hebrew is one of the Canaanite family of languages. On the other hand, as nyh points out, people looking for an article on the Hebrew language should be presented with an article which discusses it as it exists today, while mentioning the history, and with links to articles discussing historical variants. As for Moabite et al, while certain inscriptions in them may have differed little from Hebrew, that still does not make them Hebrew in any conventional sense. Rather, they, like Hebrew, are related Canaanite languages. Jayjg 19:59, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • It should be noted that Mustafaa may have an agenda of reducing the unique status of Hebrew as it is the language of the "Zionists" whom he dislikes as stated by Mustafaa on User:Mustafaa : ..."I think the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, tragic though it is, is massively overhyped ... and I'm not an expert on Islamic theology, but the persistent tendency of some people to add Islamophobic and anti-Arab propaganda to articles on both those topics is a real danger, and one I am often forced to respond to. I should add that I am a proud anti-Zionist of the second type: that is, I advocate the quixotic notion that everybody ought to just get along and live together peacefully..." ...Is Mustafaa as concerned about cultural and academic anti-Semitism in the same way as about "Islamophobic and anti-Arab propaganda" ? IZAK 02:55, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

IZAK's criticisms mostly don't stand up.

From Jewish Encyclopedia: Hebrew language:

In Hebrew literature the term is first met in the Mishnah (Yad. v. 4; Giṭ, ix. 8); Biblical writers use the expression "the language of Canaan" (Isa. xix. 18) or "the Jews' language" (II Kings xviii. 26, 28; comp. Isa. xxxvi. 11, 13; Neh. xiii. 24; comp. also the modern use of "Yiddish").

That is, in the Tanakh the spoken language used in writing the Tanakh is called the "language of Canaan" or the "language of the Judaeans". That in the Mishnah it was called ‘Ibrî 'Hebrew' and is still so-called rather than something like Yehûdai or Ysra’elî suggests that had long been the common name from the language, a name which it would not have born if it was not a speech also used by at least some of those, besides Israelites, who were not Israelites yet were classified as Hebrews. It was remembered as being the language of the Hebrews. What exactly "Hebrew" actually means is scope for other articles. That moderns tend to equate Hebrew, Israelite and Jew in old sources confuses the matter.

From the same source:

The Hebrew language might be appropriately called the Israelitish dialect of Canaanitish, a branch of the Semitic Languages spoken in Palestine and in the Phenician colonies. Almost identical with it is Moabitish, as seen in the stele of Mesha (See Moabite Stone). Closely akin to it was Phenician, and in all probability also the languages of Ammon, Edom, and Philistia. The language used in the Zenjirli inscriptions approaches Hebrew closely.

The Jewish Encyclopedia was published from 1901 to 1906. IZAK himself cites from this source though it doesn't indicate in the Eber article much of what IZAK wants to say, notably that Abraham was the "original" Hebrew. A full discussion in this matter, either under Hebrew people or Eber should include various theories. Currently there is much to be done on these two articles which are now very poor (but also much to be done on many other articles).

IZAK rejects longstanding consensus linguistic scholarship in a field where there is very high proportion of Jews. He can do this for himself if he wishes. But attempting to place a fringe linguistic view into Wikipedia articles without both documentation and without indication that it is a minority view is not proper. If he is aware of what he is doing, then he is being dishonest. If he is not aware of standard linguistic findings established for over a century which are based on innumerable studies of Phoenician, Canaanite, and Paleo-Hebrew inscriptions then he should not meddle with articles that present such research. Anyone who cares to can track down Phoenician inscriptions and Canaanite inscriptions and paleo-Hebrew inscriptions and read them and simply see the similarities between them. I've even encountered the suggestion that Punic, Phoenician and Hebrew should not be counted as separate languages but as differing dialects of the same language.

If indeed IZAK wishes to ignore the views of archaelogists and epigraphers and linguists in favor of some Theologians, then he might at least cite those theologians by providing quotes from the Talmud and so forth, which could and should then be included as what is said by the Talmud or what was part of Jewish tradition or Jewish legend (or Christian tradition or legend or Islamic tradition or legend or Samaritan tradition or legend). A secion or entire article about Jewish traditions about the Hebrew language would be quite proper for Wikipedia.

That said, what traditionally people have meant by the Hebrew language is the language of the Tranakh and later forms of that language: Rabbinical Hebrew, Yemanite Hebrew and so forth. After all, that was all what survived. Then modern Hebrew was created. But all these are recognizably Hebrew. All the sub-varieties should, I think, unless one can cite numerous linguists to the contrary, by classified as dialects, as mostly mutually undestandable, especially when written. They are not, I believe, in normal use, considered separate languages.

As to pre-exilic Hebrew, we really have very little beyond the Tanakh. Inscription are sparse, most of them very short, to the point where sholars often purposely avoid even trying to decide whether something is a variety of Hebrew or a non-Hebrew Canaanite dialect, or even Aramaic. That said, Moabite (which provides our longest surviving example) is usually called a separate language. But it is also usually noted as being very little different from normal Biblical Hebrew. Indeed, it is unarguably less different than is the Hebrew of the Book of Job which some think might be Edomite Hebrew. Anyone fluent in standard Classical Hebrew can read the Moabite stone with little or no difficulty, (once translitered into modern Hebrew characters) with far less difficulty than most English-speaking people would have in reading something that was written in broad Scots English dialect (if unfamiliar with that dialect).

Some scholarly classifications can be misleading. For example, it is reasonable to classfy an inscription as written Ammonite Hebrew with the understanding that it means an insciption found in what according to the Tanakh was Ammonite terrority. It is more daring to suggest that there was necessarily one distinct Ammonite Hebrew language or dialect distinct from one variety of Moabite Hebrew from one variety of northern Israelite Hebrew from one variety of Judaean Hebrew ... and so forth. We just don't know.

But back to the main issue:

Does IZAK really believe he can and should unilaterally ignore every Jewish (and non-Jewish) scholar who agrees in general with standard classifications of the Semitic languages, that he can and should suppress anything that disagrees with his own minority POV in an area in which, as far as I can see, he has little knowledge? The statement that only "a few obscure linguists" associate the Hebrew language with Canaanite is like saying only "a few obscure linguists" believe English is associated with the Germanic languages. Both statements are simply not true.

As to what an article on Hebrew should present, Hebrew as it exists today was very much based on Biblical Hebrew and Hebrew has a special status as the language of the Tanakh. Accordingly it does make sense to go into the relationships of Classical Hebrew to other languages in more detail than perhaps might be done with Portuguese or German, to make clear how closely Hebrew and Phoenician are related and to discuss what we know of the development of Biblical Hebrew, comparing it with Ugaritic and Phoenician and so on.

One could write an entire article about how Phoenician texts and Ugaritic texts have aided (and sometimes confused) understanding of the Hebrew text of the tanakh.

This is the Wikipedia. As articles grow pieces can be cut out and made articles or their own or combined in a new article. Indeed some who come to the article may be mostly interested in etymological relationships between Hebrew and other Semeitic languages. Others may want instead a history of varous attempts to revive modern Hebrew, of the different versions of Hebrew, of what changes Modern Hebrew has undergone in its existance.

Perhaps there might be a page entitle Hebrew language, Hebrew dialects, and closely related languages. That's a clumsy title, but it covers exactly the kind of material that a linguist would be likely to want to know about Hebrew. The related languages might be partially covered by discussion and partially be links, links not oly to discussion of the language found in old inscriptions (such a Moabite, Ammonite, and Philistine inscriptions) but also to partially Hebrew languages like Yiddish.

I agree that POV "Abrahamic religion" material mostly doesn't belong here. Especially ISAK's idiosyncratic personal POV version of what really happened doesn't belong here.

jallan 21:07, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Taking Nyh's good point into consideration, I moved Hebrew language to Hebrew languages, and had an admin assist me in moving Modern Hebrew language back to Hebrew language, with a convenient link to Hebrew languages. I know the debate over whether the other Eberite peoples can be called "Hebrew" will probably continue, though I'm sure we can find a fair and equitable compromise that everyone (except maybe IZAK) can agree to. I still prefer "Hebrew languages" and think that extra notes can be tacked on. But if that should inevitably fail (which I hope not), possibly alternative names are "Hebrew Canaanite languages", "Eberite Canaanite languages"...though I really don't see why we should have to use "Eberite" when "Hebrew" is an established word and both words are identical in Hebrew. Oh and BTW, now that Hebrew languages and Hebrew language are now most definately separate articles and separate (but related) issues of discussion, I think maybe they should have separate talk pages, with "see also" links between the two. :) - Gilgamesh 21:42, 7 July 2004 (UTC)
Jallan, I want you to know that you said it more clearly and more comprehensibly than I could have ever dreamed. I also conceed that in some ways I may have been unclear: I called these languages "Hebrew languages", but I did not necessarily say they were separate languages. In fact, I often said "dialect", and in fact it may be more like a transitional dialect continuum. I was just thinking that Ammonites spoke a language, and Moabites spoke a language, and Israelites spoke a language, Phoenicians spoke a language, etc. etc., and that those languages were theirs, their own. But not necessarily all to themselves. They were not necessarily separate languages, but one can call them languages by more than one name when they have more than one local tradition. Compare other language continua such as Baltic-Finnic languages, where each transitional dialect has a name and is called a language, but has very few difficult differences from their neighbors. - Gilgamesh 0:23, 7 July 2004 (UTC)

I am still rather amused by this debate, as someone who speaks Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic, and who has some background in Akkadian. Obviously, the three languages are related, closely in fact, though they represent different Semitic sub-groupings. For IZAK, anyone who has studied a page of Talmud knows that there is a consonantal shift between Hebrew and Aramaic (shin to tav, zayin to daled, etc. so that Aramaic tora, dehaba = shor and zahav in Hebrew, noting that b/v are interchangeable in Hebrew). I am also quite surprised that we are using biblical legends as reliable genealogies here in attempting to understand the evolution of language. However, given that this is a starting point for the discussion with IZAK, I will throw in my two cents, using that unscientific hypothesis as a given. IZAK: the name Canaanite was picked randomly to designate the geographical area in which these languages were spoken. It is not an indication of their ethnic origin. After all, Canaan was a descendent of Ham, not Shem, so the language(s) of Canaan would not even be Semitic in that context (though we know that all except Hittite were). The especially close proximity of Hebrew, Moabite, Ammonite, and Edomite should not surprise you either if we assume the biblical genealogy: Abraham migrated speaking the language, but Lot, the ancestor of Moab and Ammon, came with him, and they only parted in Canaan. Edomite was spoken by the descendents of Edom, i.e., Esau, himself a grandson of Abraham through Isaac, and brother of Yaakov, i.e., Israel. Why would it bother you that their languages are lumped together as being closer, say, than Aramaic, which split off earlier, or Arabic? Or is the problem simply one of nomenclature, that linguists who use the terminology chose to label Abraham's language Canaanite? Of course, this is assuming that the biblical narrative of descent is correst, something I am loathe to do, but even assuming this, the classification of Moabite and Edomite with Hebrew makes perfect sense. Danny 01:49, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Danny: You know I am a little saddened that you should automatically reach for the views espoused by those who would tear down all the reliable Jewish texts of the Torah etc. After all, academic scholarship rests upon the availability of coherent "primary texts" and it has always been both the good fortune and misfortune of Judaism that due to it being a faith of and for the "People of the Book" it has both a rich source for its own life of study as well as being a source for those (Like Wellhausen at al) who delight in tearing to shreds and chopping up all that Judaism holds dear, particularly its Hebrew Holy Language. Now, you seek to engage me on my own grounds so to speak, but your words cause you to fall flat on you face! For example:
You say: "I am also quite surprised that we are using biblical legends as reliable genealogies here in attempting to understand the evolution of language." Why use that loaded word "legends". If you think it's all legends then wash the Hebrew language out of your head as it's the language that is inextricably tied up with those so-called "legends". Furthermore, we are not focused on "legends" as on the fact that we have a language before us in the Torah which is Hebrew and it is that language which conveys a reliable message strong enough to endure for 3,500 years, so why should we doubt the contents if we agree that the language is good in itself?
You say: "the name Canaanite was picked randomly to designate the geographical area in which these languages were spoken". Well, I don't for a second believe this. Who exactly did this "random" picking, maybe it was the anti-Zionist Arafat's figurative academic brother-in-law who just "randomly" came up with the idea that Hebrew belongs with the "Cananites"? :-(
You say:"After all, Canaan was a descendent of Ham, not Shem, so the language(s) of Canaan would not even be Semitic in that context". Then this should support my contention that the word "Canaanite" is not just a poor choice but a MISTAKEN choice as well. "Just say no" to Canaanite! And class Hebrew with Semitic languages as it always has been. :-)
You say "Abraham migrated speaking the language, but Lot, the ancestor of Moab and Ammon, came with him, and they only parted in Canaan. Edomite was spoken by the descendents of Edom, i.e., Esau, himself a grandson of Abraham through Isaac, and brother of Yaakov, i.e., Israel. Why would it bother you that their languages are lumped together as being closer, say, than Aramaic, which split off earlier, or Arabic?" My point is that all three: Moab, Ammon, and Edom are dead and gone and as the Wiki articles indicate their languages and cultures are DEAD and gone and are today NOT knowable at all except for a few scratchings in forlorn caves somewhere in the Jordanian and Saudi deserts (maybe). Thus Moab, Ammon, and Edom, while having a link to Abraham are defunct and of no consequence particularly as they left nothing in comparison to the Hebrew Bible of the Jews and they therefore do not merit a posthumous rehabilitation by "linguists" with time on their hands and an anti-Jewish, anti-religious, and even anti-Hebrew and anti-Israel attitude to boot. Shame on them. And yes, Hebrew, Arabic and Aramaic are in a class of their own as they are presently living and spoken languages that can be studied and comprehended at the present time.(Aramaic less so, but it's still around).
You say: "Of course, this is assuming that the biblical narrative of descent is correst, something I am loathe to do, but even assuming this, the classification of Moabite and Edomite with Hebrew makes perfect sense." Now, I ask, when you say that you are "loathe" to accept the "biblical narrative" does that not smack of your own very strong POV? As for the "Moabite" and the "Edomite", arch-enemies of the ancient Hebrews, it should not be a surprise then that you are so accepting of them, in spite of their absence from the world stage for over 2,500 years, and welcoming them into a linguistic alliance with the Hebrew that is both false and misleading and as you have said was just plucked out of a hat. IZAK 03:48, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Wow. All we need now are bleachers and a popcorn stand. This show is free too. - Gilgamesh 03:58, 8 July 2004 (UTC)
  • Gilgamesh:Get real buddy! You cannot trash the Hebrew language and then make jokes about it. IZAK 04:01, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Let the fireworks begin! I never thought I'd live to hear someone accused of "rehabilitating" the Moabites... - Mustafaa 04:05, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Question:Mustafaa tell us little more about your self-confessed "anti-Zionism" (of the "second type", whatever that may mean) as per your User:Mustafaa. Does it not show your POV about the language of the Zionists i.e. Hebrew ? IZAK 04:15, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
See the anti-Zionism article, unless it's been messed up since I last checked; anti-Zionism of the second sort is advocating a binational one-state solution.
I presume the Encyclopedia Britannica classifies Hebrew as a Canaanite language out of its anti-Zionist bias as well? - Mustafaa 04:18, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh, and will it be a mostly Hebrew or Arabic speaking anti-Zionist/Zionist state? And yes, the British "talking head classes" have sadly had a pro-Arabist outlook from day one. So they strike out on NPOV in a big way. IZAK 05:03, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually, this looks like a good policy: Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Zero personal attacks. Now, this is very wise. We are all Wikipedians, and we must respect each other's right to think. (Just in case it may have seemed ambiguous, I'm going to stop the humor posts too. I didn't have any Advil on hand so I did that instead.) IZAK, an earlier recommendation sounds good: Contribute to an article about theological perceptions of the Hebrew language. Hebrew languages is for science. It's actually very rude and mean to accuse another person of racism, linguistic cleansing, etc. You've accused Mustafaa of being friendly to anti-Semitism, you've accused me of trying to destroy the Hebrew language, and you really need to graciously accept the duty of doing your homework in the NPOV scientific field instead of making this page gigantic. Now, I'm not going to change linguistic information taught in colleges and universities around the world and in Israel. If you truly want to pitch an argument, you must be dispassionate and discuss linguistics in terms of linguistic science, not theology. And when an article concerns theology that overlaps many religious boundaries, you cannot say say some interpretations are "better" or "more correct" than others or that others are "wrong". You must respect every interpretation equally, which is all I've ever tried to do. As of now, we've been going in circles, covering some of the same issues over and over again, and I've noticed a few times that you've claimed that someone has claimed something that they did not. And in this academic discussion page, shouting "scare tactics" and "agenda" and "anti-Semitic" does not help you, it does not help me, it does not help anyone here, and it does not help the article. In fact, I'd venture to say that it borders on trolling and flaming, which is far better suited for Wrestlemania than Wikipedia. Now, I demand that you show us all more respect as scientific researchers, just as we've been very patient for you. Because, like it don't like it, we all have the same right to discuss Tanakh interpretations and to apply empirically attested science to the text of the Tanakh, and nothing is going to take that right away from you, me, nor anyone else, so long as we do it as equals, each of whom has ideas regarded no better and no worse than anyone else's. Period. - Gilgamesh 04:26, 8 July 2004 (UTC)

[edit] A resolution?

Holy Crud, I had no clue that the debates about this subject were so heated. While I do not have a problem with it personally, I can understand why some would be offended by categorizing Hebrew as a Caananite language. However, It should be noted that the Jewish Encylopedia from 1906 does term it this way, on the *Hebrew Language] article. Might I suggest the following compromise? A term sometimes used to describe the script used in paleo-hebrew writings, and also other semetic languages from the land of Israel, is sometimes called 'Old Negev'. If a substantial amount of people feel the title needs to be change, perhaps it would be best to change 'Caananite Languages' to 'Old Negev Languages'? What do y'all think?--Josiah 09:07, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Uniqueness of the Hebrew language according to Judaism

The following are a few sources both from university professors and rabbis on the subject of Hebrew as the Lashon Kakodesh ("Holy Tongue/Language") and why it's important.

  • Article by Dr. Mayer Gruber, Associate Professor in the Department of Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Studies at Ben-Gurion University:

Hebrew is the original language of humanity and the language spoken by God

  • Article by By Alvin I. Schiff, Ph.D., Irving I. Stone Distinguished Professor of Education Azrieli Graduate School, Yeshiva University President, National Center for the Hebrew Language:

Why Hebrew is Fundamental

  • Article by Rabbi Bar-Hayim, head of the Makhon Ben Yishai Institute for Tora Research in Jerusalem:

Lashon Haqodesh (Loshon Ha Kodesh)

"Rambam (Maimonides)is of the opinion that there is no intrinsic sanctity in 'Lashon Hakodesh' but rather its sanctity is derived from its lack of vulgar and coarse language. Though he speaks of the "kedushah" of Hebrew (Kedushat Halashon), Rambam does not mean that there is a sacred quality in the language. He uses "kedushah" in the sense of moral restraint, pointing out that Hebrew has avoided coining words for the reproductive organs nor for semen, nor for urination or excretion, excepting in indirect language or for the act of intercourse. Ramban (Nachmanides) however states that Hebrew is a holy language because it was the vehicle used by G-d to create the world and communicate with man, through the Torah. He states that according to Rambam Hebrew should have been only been called the 'modest language' not a Holy Language.... I am of the opinion that this is the same reason why our Rabbis call the language of the Torah "The Sacred Language," because the words of the Torah, and the prophecies, and all words of holiness were all expressed in that language. It is thus the language in which the Holy One, blessed be He, spoke with His prophets, and with His people. In this tongue He is called by His sacred names. In that tongue He created His world, and called the names shamayim (heavens), eretz (earth) and all that is in them, His angels and all His hosts - he called them all by name. In that language He called the names of the holy ones that are in the earth: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Solomon, and others."

What is going on here is not a civilised debate, it is a farce. I'm sorry to say there is one person responsible for this: IZAK. For IZAK, with whom I have previously attempted to debate on other matters (See Category talk:Jewish mythology), there is one truth only, and that is the truth as laid out in the Tanakh according to his own interpretation. He reads the Bible as literal fact, and regularly ridicules established scientific theories which go against these "facts". He is unwilling to consider any other view of reality, and lumps anyone and anything that disagrees with his opinions together in one camp. Arafat, Darwin, Freud, Gershom Scholem, Martin Buber, Hitler - they are all one and the same to IZAK, as they all promote[d] philosophies destructive to his own beliefs. There are others who share IZAK's opinions, but most of them would not bother wasting time on the internet debating with gentiles, epikoroses (epikoroi?) and women. And I refuse to waste any more of my own time debating with him. --Woggly 06:33, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC) P.S.: I can't believe there's no wikipedia article on Scholem, or Shabtai Zvi for that matter... what an oversight! Or am I not searching correctly?

Woggly calm down. Debate the facts. All you have done is spewed your own (very angry) stream of consciousness here and it is really not necessary. After all, I am not interfering with areas outside my purvue. I do claim to have some knowledge about Jews and Judaism but I do try my best to maintain a NPOV. So relax! IZAK 07:04, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Kettle. Pot. Black. --Woggly 08:15, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
With all due respect, IZAK, you generally understand Judaism - but only from your POV. You do not understand Conservative or Karaite POV's, for example.--Josiah 09:19, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Josiah 'ol buddy, since when does Karaism = Conservative Judaism? The former "swear" by the literal written GODLY-given Torah, and the latter think it's man-made hocus pocus. Or are you just refering to that when it comes down to a figurative "lynch mob" then it is a case of "politics makes for some strange bed-fellows" and in that sense a Karaite will clutch at any straw, as long as all can both take "pot shots" at their "Orthodox" grand-daddy. Present company excluded of course. :-) IZAK 07:29, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hmm... So you're saying that, if someone does not understand A or B, that implies that A and B are the same thing? Explains a lot! ;) - Mustafaa 00:24, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
On [http://www.myjewishlearning.com/culture/Languages/Languages_Hebrew_TO/Languages_HebHis_Jacobs/Languages_Hebrew_Theo.htm
Hebrew is the original language of humanity and the language spoken by God]:
Part of the title has been dishonestly removed by IZAK. As originally titled it reads: "According to Jewish tradition, Hebrew is the original language of humanity and the language spoken by God." In the second part of the article the author is not making POV claims but citing traditions that make such claims, a very important distinction as Wikipedians know. For example, the articles gives three separate interpretations of the Tower of Babel story, only one of which takes the tradition literally and claims that the original language was Hebrew. The other two do not take it literally. The author does not indicate belief in any of these interpretations. In any case the Talmud often gives contradictory explanations and teachings, being intended as a record of what various respected teachers said on various issues rather than a necessarily binding rule, especially in the matter of haggadah.
On Why Hebrew is Fundamental:

Hebrew was the common everyday language of the Israelite masses from the time they conquered the land of Canaan until the end of the First Commonwealth with the destruction of the First Temple in Jerusalem in 586 BCE.

This suggests the author accepts a theory that Israelites learned the language which later became Hebrew only when they "conquered the land of Canaan". This article actually opposes IZAK's claims.
On Lashon Haqodesh (Loshon Ha Kodesh):
Begins with a claim that traces Hebrew back to the creation of Eve at least. But not a single piece of information as to how this relates to archaelogical and epigraphical discoveries. Very weak support. Just normal creationist talk. Won't impress most people. The article itself simply explains, in part, Masoretic pronunciation with great fuss.
On Learning and Speaking Hebrew
This begins with the words:

No definitive Halacha LeMa'aseh conclusions should be applied to practical situations based on any of these Shiurim.

The author considers the traditions that follow as not binding and to be used, if at all, with great care.
On The Holiness of Hebrew, Lashon Hakodesh:
Rambam claims that there is no inner sanctity in Hebrew. Ramban disagrees. Presumably both opinions are allowed in Judaism.

No strong evidence here that IZAK's claims were ever an integral part of Judaism that would impress anyone but a creationist. That there are many Talmudic legends is well known, many of them contradictory. Belief in them is not binding even on the most orthodox and conservative Jews.
There is the nucleus of a Wikipedia article here on various traditions about special status of the Hebrew language in Rabbinic traditions. But that should not and cannot replace the normal linguistic categorization of Hebrew as a sister language to Phoenician and a daughter language to Canaanite.
IZAK is attempting to replace a universal POV among linguists by a particular Talmudic POV. Instead, if he cares, he should be adding traditional Talmudic traditions identified as Talmudic tradtions to the standard linguistic classification identified as standard linguistic classification. This could either be a separate article with links or part of the same article, depending on spacing and flow, etc. What IZAK seems to miss is that no matter what he does, anyone can later change it or add to it, that his attempts at suppression are doomed to failure, that he can no more inforce his personal POV interpretation of Jewish religion on Wikipedia than he can on the world.
IZAK doesn't understand NPOV at all or is trolling. I think it is time for mediation if IZAK is willing. If not, then perhaps stronger measures.
jallan 09:01, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I might add that I, a "heretical" Karaite Jew consider this debate a little off-hand. If we want to get technical, the idea that Hebrew is the original language is a tradition associated with the Bible, but is not actually taught in the Bible, IIRC. Because it is a Tradition, it shouldn't be presented as fact simply because other cultures (Christian, Hindu, etc..) have their own Oral Traditions, which are not presented as fact. I, and I'm sure IZAK, would be equally offended if the Christian belief that Jesus fulfilled the Messianic Prophecies was presented as a fact on Wikipedia.--Josiah 09:19, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Note to User:Jallan: I cannot fathom why you have to resort to talk about "stronger measures" in the context of an open, honest, intellectual debate. Humbly, may I say, that the views I share with you are not "my" views, they are readily shared by the bulk of those who abide by the teachings of the Torah, Tanakh, Talmud, Shulkhan Arukh, and the sages who have faithfully transmitted them for over 3,300 years. You probably know this and I am not "ashamed" of my very thorough Torah guided education. May I add that I also have higher academic degrees from advanced universities (which explains my good English, amongst other things). The quotes that I have cited above are not meant to "trick" anyone, how could anyone when they can click on them as you have. I was asked to cite some sources to explain "where I am coming from" and I have done so using the Internet to some degree. They were not meant as the final or best say on the matter either, just some thoughts to stimulate the discussion/s. If you need further enlightenment that a limited and limiting medium such as Wikipedia cannot provide then as they say in the classics: "Please consult your local Orthodox rabbi" (again, this phrase, of "Please consult your local Orthodox rabbi" was not coined by me, it's a well-used piece of "advice" that should be utilized, especially by people such as yourself who seem so POV and hostile and angry towards that section of Yiddishkeit. ("Judaism").) And that is all I wish to say to you right now, unless you have something positive to say or add to YOU right now. Thank you. IZAK 06:23, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The descent into idiocy continues at breakneck speed. IZAK, are you seriously stating that the only sources that have legitimacy in this discussion are traditional rabbinical homiletics on the Bible or sources that are in accord with them? If so, are you then accusing me of POV violation? Are you seriously contending that Hebrew, the grammer, syntax, and vocabulary of ancient Hebrew cannot be compared with that of Moabite because Moabite is dead and Hebrew survived/was revived? Can we not compare French to Latin either? As someone said above, this is not an article about theology; it is an article about science. It should not be used to make a theological statement. Danny 10:57, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Danny, poor comparison, Latin is around and is used in the Catholic Church and left a wide literature. "Moabite"? "Edomite"? "Ammonite"? Sound more like names for detergents than languages that left virtually NOTHING. How on Earth can you compare them to Hebrew with its vast ongoing literature (now in secular form as well as the continuation of Hebrew Torah writings) and spoken as well as studied by millions of Jews both now and throughout all time. IZAK 06:23, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

First of all I have to say that it is wrong to use angry words which might be taken as ad Hominem attacks when it is clear that the argument IZAK is presenting is from his personal standpoint of faith. We should all respect each other's personal stands of faith but at the same time gently try to open each-other's eyes to where individual points of faith cannot be presented to the public as fact. Wikipaedia is here for us to report views not monopolise which views get presented. IZAK is guilty of this but he is not the only one and now he is experiencing what it is like to be on the other side. IZAK is a man of deep faith in search of Jewish identity and he has put his faith in certain pillars which though not being the pillars of Jewishness all of us accept are important pillars for him and so we should all be treadding gently around such sensitivity. I do believe IZAK deserves some kind of appologies for hurting his sensibilities. I am also however very sorry to have to state this here, but I have had confirmation that the authentic rabbinic tradition is that the Children of Eber are indeed Hebrews, and Abraham was just as Hebrew as Isaac's & Jacob's Naharaim-Aramean (Aram of the two Nahors) wives. In fact this is a fundamental for Jewish faith since we all declare that our father was a wandering Aramaean meaning Naharaim-Aramea (if this were not the case we couldn't claim a Hebrew birthright). This means that the view that has been presented is not part of the traditional rabbinical "homiletics on the Bible". Secondly the teaching that Hebrew is the original language of the creator and thus also of Eden and the world which has only faithfully been preserved by the Jews is quite a recent rabbinical argument with no Biblical basis. However this idea and the idea that Abraham was the first Hebrew are popular in Protestant circles with a fair ammount published on the internet with regards to them. Thus why not allow a small statement about the existence of these alternative views and the objection to the conventional scientific terminology that circulates as a result. But please also make it clear that this is not the standard orthodox Jewish view which has no objection to scientific process.Zestauferov 15:59, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Zest, thank you, even though I don't agree with all you say. IZAK 06:23, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I agree. The different viewpoints should be stated. I never contested that viewpoints shouldn't be represented. There is already a neat section for that. What I objected to were the initial spree of edits destroying the established classification systems, the attempts to destroy the reverts, and then accusing people of nasty things when they disagree with. IZAK could be a very useful part of this conversation if he could dump the inflated pride, the personal attacks, and the vitriolic responses. He needs to respect us, all of us. I was never opposed to respecting him either. But when he doesn't respect us, and doesn't want to, and resorts to hurtful contempt and McCarthyistic attacks of association, then how on earth are we supposed to be able to respect him as another editor? It's made this place a living hell, which it should not be, nor should it ever have been. Zestauferov, I should let you know that I think you have been nothing but reasonable and diplomatic. I always thought I was trying to be reasonable, and to respect his religious and ethnic distinctions, just as I expected him to respect mine. But he hasn't respected mine, nor anyone else's here. I know this because we all have developed terrible headaches. - Gilgamesh 20:41, 8 July 2004 (UTC)
Pardon me, but is it really necessary to write everything in bold? Anyway, this is linguistic classification systems, not the Wikipedia categories. As for the categories, there are two because Canaanite languages are a linguistic classification, while Hebrew is an association. Mustafaa and I were discussing how later non-Canaanite languages spoken by Jews and Samaritans could be categorized under Hebrew language, such as Judeo-Aramaic language, Samaritan Aramaic language, Karaim language, Yevanic language, Judeo-Arabic language, Ladino language, Yiddish language, etc. Hebrew languages in Canaan, distinctly Samaritan languages, distinctly Jewish languages, etc. But that would need a bit more discussion first before anyone does anything. - Gilgamesh 08:50, 9 July 2004 (UTC)

OK, I haven't read the whole debate in its immense verbiage but I think that we need to remember that a potential extension of the NPOV policy is that, if there are significant disagreements within the world, then that should be presented without stating one of the sides as a fact. From what I've seen, one of the issues is whether Hebrew is a Canaanite language. This is certainly stated in the article. However, the case is not that Hebrew IS a Canaanite language, rather, it is CLASSIFIED as one. I think the dispute can be tempered by stating that it is "classified by Modern Linguists as" a Canaanite language. And the fact that a large number of people who speak the modern Hebrew language disagree with this should certainly be mentioned. However, anything more seems overkill. The same could be done for the other related pages - simply state both sides as referring to either a secular classification or otherwise and leave it. We shouldn't be trying to develop new theories and scholarship here. The question might be asked whether it's legitimate to include a religious viewpoint on a "scientific" article. But, even an almost totally scientific article (such as evolution) should have reference to an opposing POV, even if it forms a small bulk of the article. For Hebrew, we simply don't know whether most people are interested in secular linguistics or cultural references. Because it's likely that the article will be read by both information-seekers, I think we should include (at least references to) both points of view. Frikle 03:43, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reconciliation

Anyone can argue, and a few can compromise, but sometimes it takes a lot to reconcile. IZAK, I never intended insult to your personal religious convictions, but I know it may have seemed that way. So I want to apologize for doing anything to offend you, especially those humor posts which tried to deflect my headaches. We must work together to make these articles better. So, a truce: I try my best not to do anything to knock your theology or identity nor to appear as if I'm doing so, and I beg of you to respect my unending personal attempts at NPOV as well as my personal religious convictions and my right to believe myself as part of Ephraim, just as you believe yourself as part of Judah. You don't have to agree with me, but we must respect each other's personal POV, including sacred theologies and personal convictions, as we respect all our neighbors on Wikipedia. - Gilgamesh 00:45, 10 July 2004 (UTC)

Gilgamesh: I was away for a few days. I too am sorry to have said things in ways that may have felt prickly to you. I really do not think anyone owes anyone else apologies, so I am surprized to even read about it here, as Wikipedia is a forum for scholarly discussions (both indirectly via edits and directly on talk pages). So yes, we can both agree to disagree yet remain civil about it. You must understand that there is also a notion called the objective TRUTH which classical Judaism believes exists and to which I do subscribe (after all the Torah is called Torat Emet, the "Torah of Truth") and I do believe that Wikipedia, being a human project is subject to errors and many falsehoods, misconceptions, distortions, fantasies, and misrepresentations of the truth which I come across all the time the more I read on, on the very subjects of Jews and Judaism, Israel and Zionism etc. "You" and "I" cannot decide questions concerning the Jewish faith (or the Hebrew language for that matter) just to "get along". That is why Judaism and Christianity (of whatever variety) are DIFFERENT even opposing and opposite religions that can never be "reconciled". "Never the 'twain shall meet" no matter how much "huffing and puffing" there may be taking place. Just get over it. There are deeper issues at work when discussing questions pertaining to Jews and Judaism that will never allow for "consensus" no matter how hard "we" or "anyone" else tries, as these matters are ultimately of a Divine nature, and are of the domain belonging to the one true God (and not to "all" the "gods" Wikipedia has given the opportunity to proliferate on its site). So let us continue to do the impossible as we tip-toe forwards, trying to do a "balancing act" in order to arrive at the truth as we traverse mountains and oceans full of lies. Wikipedia and truth may one day be synonymous, if only enough people will so desire it to be ! IZAK 15:14, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Variations of Hebrew spelling

I am looking for a brief story of Hebrew spelling. It seems I can over ever find small pieces on the subject and not everything in one place. It seems that Hebrew was originally written without matres lectionis and without niqqud. At what time did the matres appear? Which holy works or other writing was originally written without either? Do all four combinations exist? 1) No matres and no niqqud. 2) Matres but no niqqud. 3) Niqqud but no matres. 4) Both niqqud and matres. Number 3) is the one I am least certain of. Does the term "matres lectionis" date to a time when Latin speakers studied biblic Hebrew or is it a modern coinage? Are the terms "plene" and "defective" spelling synonymous? At roughly which times in history did each spelling change occur? What forms are used today by various sections of the Hebrew-using community? What forms are supported by spell-checkers? How do the various other marks such as dagesh, geresh, gershayim, rape fit into the picture?

I feel the answers to these questions in the various relevant articles will be very useful improvements. — Hippietrail 09:39, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] References needed

Why is this article completely unreferenced? Is this classification of languages used by linguists? Is it used in encyclopedias? If not, the information should either be merged with Hebrews or something similar. We can't have an article that so closely follows our standard formula for seperate languages but that really is about "languages spoken by Hebrews" and now Hebrew. There's a significant difference.

Peter Isotalo 00:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hebrew naming conventions

Urgent: see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) to add your opinions about this important matter. Thank you. IZAK 17:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No quantum leap between Biblical Hebrew and Modern Hebrew !

There is no mention on this page of medieval/Rabbinical Hebrew. Why is that? There is no quantum leap from Biblical (or Mishnaic) Hebrew to Modern Hebrew. Such a POV is a fairy tale related to the reconstruction of the Hebrew language in the modern era. Hebrew was used and is used in Rabbinical works. Someone please ... write back a page on Medieval/Rabbinical Hebrew. hasofer 15:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Input needed for fuck/לדפק

If a domain expert is available, an anonymous user just added this to fuck:

In Hebrew, the word for "to bang" or "to knock" is lid'foke (he: לדפק). The words are now almost interchangable. In much the same way, the Hebrew word can be used as most any part of speech.

I am seeking confirmation that this is correct. Could someone comment on the talk page? Thanks. -Harmil 20:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] There may in fact be an actual linguistic basis for distinguishing "Hebrew languages" from othe Canaanite dialects

Hebrew, Moabite, Edomite, and especially Ammonite are all believed to have a higher degree of Aramaic influence than lowland (Phoenician and Philistine) dialects. This may be due to Aramean elements among the highland population which formed the core of the former four groups, and the biblical tradition of common descent for those four groups is probably due to a shared tribal highland (as opposed to urban lowland) identity. Just an observation.--Rob117 01:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This page is nonsense

These are not "Hebrew languages". They are known in all the linguistic literature as Canaanite languages. The bible does not refer to them as Hebrew languages, nor does Rabbinic literature.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/e/b/Talk%7EHebrew_languages_5706.html"