Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

George:

Are we using two different definitions of “isolated” in reference to languages?

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 6:45 PM, George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au> wrote:

I asked for comparison because when you say a language is 'isolated', it begs the question, 'Isolated from what and how?' My appeal to cognates was not to ask whether Hebrew was more isolated than these other languages, but rather how there is a connection and commonality with these languages at all in the first places (the fact there is one suggests anything but isolation). I suspect that what you mean by 'isolated' is 'static', such that Hebrew does not change at all across many centuries. Is that correct?

No, Hebrew changed, but it changed very slowly. The Bible itself mentions one change, and a few others can be documented. But on the whole, there’s very little change that can be documented from the Bible.

When I think of isolated, my reference is that, except for a small coterie of traders and diplomats, there was almost no contact of the people with other languages. As a result, there was very little pressure for change.

That changed with the Babylonian Exile. I don’t know Aramaic beyond that small smattering that allows me to read those chapters of Daniel and Ezra in Aramaic, but is the grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew reflective of Aramaic? From what little I’ve read from Mishnaic Hebrew, it is significantly different from Biblical Hebrew in both grammar and vocabulary.

GEORGE ATHAS

Karl W. Randolph.