Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Yodan:

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 8:30 AM, Yodan <yodan AT yodanco.com> wrote:

> Responding to James Read's statement:
>
> "The simple facts of the matter are that Hebrew is a dead language."
>
>
> …
>
> Perhaps we should define "dead language" so that we can reconcile the view
> that Hebrew "is a dead language" with the facts arguing against it. To me,
> a
> "dead language" is a language that is not used (or has not been used for a
> period of time) at all - neither in speaking nor in writing/reading. This
> is
> not true for Hebrew, a language that has continued to be used throughout
> the
> ages without interruption.
>
> I have the same reaction to this discussion. What defines a “dead
language”?

According to the above definition, the little ditty my mother taught me,

“Latin is a dead language, dead as dead can be,
First it killed the Romans, and now it’s killing me!”


is wrong, because Latin is still used, continuously since the Roman Empire.

Hebrew has changed more than Latin in its history. However, I agree with you
that it has been continuously used since ancient times. But at the same time
it has changed so much that I cannot understand modern Israeli Hebrew even
while I prefer to read Tanakh without points.

So what’s the definition of “dead language”?

Karl W. Randolph.


>
>
>
>
> Bruryah Yodan
>
>