Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Hebrew was linguistically isolated?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
  • To: George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>
  • Cc: "b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Hebrew was linguistically isolated?
  • Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 09:34:44 -0700

George:

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 6:48 AM, George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au> wrote:

Now, could we stick to the question of what evidence there is for Hebrew as a linguistically isolated language—that is, more isolated than any other language in antiquity (eg. Phoenician, Ugaritic, Aramaic, etc.).

I didn’t know you wanted a comparative,  but even there an argument can be made that Hebrew was more linguistically isolated by reference to the populations who spoke the listed languages.

Ugararit — port and trading city where people came from different countries, cultures and languages for trade.

Phoenicia — a group of ports known also for their sailors, with repeated contact with different peoples and languages for trade, diplomacy, etc.

Aramaic — (according to what I was taught) was a lingua franca for much of the Levant for centuries, even centuries before the Babylon of Nebuchadnezzar and for centuries afterward as well. As a lingua franca, educated people from several languages would learn it, and it would be in contact with all those languages.

Hebrew — most of its speakers were farmers, shepherds or small craftsmen, plying their trade locally. Even most of their traders were really peddlers, never needing to know more than Hebrew. As a result, most of the population never even heard a foreign language, let alone learned one.

Based on the above, which of the languages would you say is the most linguistically isolated?

Karl W. Randolph.



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page