�&����^���ǧ~�g��'1���^v�n6�N�z۫��6��'�z�"z���%�Uή("��S��^n���+-�&�nX���zX�z��N��y���X��ț��b���E���~�&�����Z�M��W(�yfj)kzV��k(��'�]�ێw�]<o)b��"n&劊+��,���+a#>'tOz�-4�+n���%��l����*(�(�m�k-�ӭyۭzӍ44�yǢ��_����n;��8��h
Herman:
Depends on how you define "dead language".
If your definition is that people use it for
official records, literature, religious treatises
and other such, then Hebrew never died, just as in
the West Latin is still being used and developed.
But if your definition refers to the language that
people learn at their mothers' knees, then I think
the evidence indicates that Hebrew died during the
Babylonian Captivity and that it was on artificial
support (used as a scholarly language that people
learn in school other than the language used on the
street and in the home) from then until the modern
version was developed.
One of the evidences that I consider is that I
think Daniel wrote his book after retirement. Even
though he himself was a native Hebrew speaker from
before the Babylonian Captivity, by the time he put
pen to parchment, he expected his audience to be
fluent in Aramaic, hence wrote half his book in Aramaic.
Another evidence is that pre-Exile works, like
Qohelet, Isaiah and others show complexity in
vocabulary and literary style, but post-Exile
writings tend to be simpler in both, as is typical
of authors writing in a language that they do not
speak at home nor on the street.
But this is indirect evidence, which leads to
disagreements as to the conclusions. It suffices to
say that Hebrew continued to be used and developed,
and let's not argue over whether or not it was a
dead language, at least not before we have a
consensus as to what is a "dead language".
Karl W. Randolph
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.