Biblical Hebrew Forum

[dwashbur AT nyx.net]

On 19 Jun 2009 at 6:18, Yitzhak Sapir wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 9:48 PM, Dave Washburn wrote:
>
> >> This regards Dave's earlier comment:
> >> "I believe it was William Chomsky who said that modern Hebrew
> >> has more in common with Indo-European languages than it does
> >> with any Semitic language, including ancient Hebrew."
> >>
> >> Ghilad Zuckerman quotes Chomsky to the effect that Hebrew
> >> never died: http://yiddish.haifa.ac.il/tmr/tmr09/tmr09013.htm
> >> (quoting Chomsky's 1957 "Hebrew: The Eternal Language").
> >> This statement of Chomsky goes at odds with the above
> >> position.  Since Zuckerman's research is focused on this very
> >> idea, I would have expected Zuckerman to mention it if
> >> Chomsky in fact supported his position.
> >>
> >> Regarding the comment itself, how would you prove (or disprove)
> >> such a statement?  What is "more" and what is "less" and what
> >> constitutes "common ground" with Indo European rather than
> >> Semitic?
> >
> > In context I believe he was speaking of grammar, and especially
> the way the modern
> > Hebrew verb system is tensed, among other factors.
>
> Hi, it would be interesting to see the original quote.  All I said
> is that
> off-hand it just seems not to "add up" that Chomsky made a comment
> of that sort if Zuckerman, whose position is that Hebrew is a
> hybrid
> language of mixed European and Semitic portions only quotes
> Chomsky
> in a way that suggests Chomsky sees Hebrew as a pure language
> that "never died" (rather than as a European language in Semitic
> garb).

Yes, I took a look at the Zuckerman quote and it does seem to be at odds with 
this other
statement, at least prima facie.  I'm going to try and track down the book so 
I can get a look
at both quotes in context, assuming the quote I mentioned is from that book 
(I don't recall
offhand and my actual notes are 600 miles away).

> > So, does that mean you don't intend to answer my question?
>
> I do not accept the basic premise that modern Hebrew several
> generations
> ago has more in common with European than with Semitic languages,
> at
> least not until those terms are properly defined and explained.
> That is, how
> do you quantify ("more" vs "less") Europeanness vs Semiticness, how
> do
> you decide whether something is Semitic or European?  Without
> these
> defined, the statement cannot be substantiated, nor can we compare
> modern Hebrew today vs modern Hebrew several generations ago.
> Compare the issue of the Imperial Aramaic with its Old Persian
> influence
> on the verbal system.  Does that mean that Imperial Aramaic is
> more
> European than it is Semitic?

The only person who could answer that in this context is Chomsky himself, 
since I was just
citing what he wrote.  However, again I believe he was speaking in terms of 
grammar and
especially the verb system, which we know is tensed in MH but not tensed in 
BH.  That's the
extent of what I'm qualified to say on this particular subject.

Dave Washburn

http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur