Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

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.