![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 13, 2012. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Xinyu Ye.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article anachronistically refers to "Israel" when it was still Ottoman or British Palestine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lollk ( talk • contribs)
This article contains the following paragraph:
"The term "revival" may not exactly fit the circumstances of this process as Hebrew was never a dead language. Contrarily, it was widely used and recognized by many and had undergone numerous developments over the course of time. The process of Hebrew's return to regular usage, nevertheless, is entirely unique, and modern linguistics has no other incident in which a language devoid of native speakers became a national and multisystematic language of wide usage in a number of decades."
A "dead language" is defined as one which no longer has any native speakers, no matter how widely it is used by people who speak it as a second language. Latin was quite widely used in the church and in academia, and even underwent changes, for centuries after it had become "dead." Likewise, Hebrew was used for centuries as a religious and academic language among the Jews long after it ran out of native speakers and became dead.
Linguofreak 03:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
As an Israeli Jewish person I am very curious; what scientific/encyclopedic/logical proof is there that the Hebrew language, or something which may be recognized as such (no matter the name by which it was called), was actually ever used for a spoken language? (Who spoke hebrew? when? etc.) 217.132.7.90 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
If you review the reports of travelers and consulate workers from the 19th century before Eliezer Ben Yehudah, you find that the lingua franca between the Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews was Hebrew. Not only that, completely secular documents such as sales contracts were written in Hebrew. One can easily go to JPress.org.il and read Hebrew newspapers from the 1860's written in a very modern Hebrew. In short, spoken Hebrew never died. What happened is that the secular Zionist movement's leaders didn't know Hebrew that well, and assumed incorrectly that Hebrew only existed in its written form, and couldn't be the basis of a modern state. Ben Yehudah led the fight to continue Hebrew as the lingua franca of the Jews of the Land of Israel, and in this respect his contribution was enormous. However, he did not revive Hebrew, as it was alive and flourishing at all times throughout Jewish history, and especially in the wake of the true 1st Aliyah, which was the followers of Rabbi Eliahu of Vilna (the Gra) and various chassidic groups, who came in large numbers starting in 1808. The more one reads the Hebrew of the pre-Zionist Jewish community of the Holy Land, the more one realizes how unhistorical is the claim that Hebrew was ever even remotely close to dying. ( talk —Preceding undated comment added 08:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
"Throughout all periods, Hebrew signified for both its proponents and detractors the antithesis of Yiddish" really? How about a cite?
"Against the exilic, rabbinical, and bourgeois Yiddish language stood revived Hebrew, a language of secularism, Zionism, of grassroots pioneers," What dumbfuck wrote that? If anything, hebrew was the 'rabbinical, bourgeois' language. Why do you think the soviets encouraged yiddish and suppressed hebrew in the jewish oblast?
"and above all of the transformation of the Jewish nation to a Hebrew nation with its own land." What the * does that mean, *? We're not privy to your internal thought processes. 75.56.63.233 ( talk)
NO - This article is fine the way it is (although it needs more referencing). It is a history article and should remain that way-- Gilabrand ( talk) 04:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC).
I strongly object to User:Lhynard's suggestion to merge this article into Revival of the Hebrew language. This clearly violates the standard set by sets of articles related to other languages, and seems unmotivated. Mo-Al ( talk) 04:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I just undid some edits that added some new information, but did so in a seemingly biased way. I'm unsure whether the factual information is correct so I wanted to open up discussion here to see if it could be added in without also expressing a POV. Here are the parts I removed:
Is this information sourced enough to warrant including? Is it covered by the mention of subsets of pronunciation?
Thanks! Banjaloupe ( talk) 21:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
The process of Hebrew's return to regular usage is unique; there are no other examples of a natural language without any native speakers subsequently acquiring several million such native speakers. Really??? What about Czech? (I realize that this isn't 100% natural, much being 'reconstructed' (invented) by Josef Jungmann, but it sounds as though the same is true for modern Hebrew). -- catslash ( talk) 00:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
While the article speaks about the opponents and opposition, it fails to actually discuss their point of view. There are still many critics of modern Hebrew, especially within the large religious community. 66.87.69.13 ( talk) 20:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Fascinating article. In some sections, American English readers may have difficulty following the narrative and its sequence of events. In particular, where the previous edit stated "the whole of the Yishuv rose up against this standpoint and forced the group to admit defeat," it is unclear whom "group" means; readers can infer either the Company to Aid or a subgroup within the Yishuv itself. The phrase "rose against" suggests force or violence where only opinion about the school's language is almost certainly at issue. That Hebrew in fact became the curricular language should be emphasized by a clause at the end. So I rewrote the one paragraph for style, noting the Technion's campus already under construction and pointing to Technion's web site. Also added brief description of calque and put in parentheses. Jessegalebaker ( talk) 20:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Is there a source for "Hebrew ended in the 2nd century CE, Hebrew had not been spoken as a mother tongue."? -- Lu Wunsch-Rolshoven ( talk) 19:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure that the title is correct. Hebrew is largely an invented language. Only a minority of words were from the original Hebrew. Grammar and pronunciation are new. ~I submit that the language was created, rather than revived, and that the title of the article should be "Creation of the modern Hebrew language". Royalcourtier ( talk) 21:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
The current text (and going back at least several years) states, "From the 2nd century CE until the revival of Hebrew as a spoken language circa 1880, Hebrew served as a literary and official language and as the Judaic language of prayer." Is this accurate? If so, where/what was it an 'offical' language of/for during this period? 50.53.35.229 ( talk) 06:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I see mentioned in the Hebrew language article that "Hebrew persevered through the ages as the main language for written purposes...for a large range of uses—not only liturgy, but also...commerce...and contracts. ". Could this be what was meant, and if so would "served as a literary and contractual language and as the Judaic language of prayer" be more to the point? 50.53.35.229 ( talk) 07:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I have removed some unreferenced material.
Wikipedia:Verifiability All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.
I would be happy to see references added and the content restored. Until then, it fails.
2601:204:F100:83B0:E1C4:4964:FC7F:5162 (
talk)
11:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
In the fourth paragraph, a quote and the context leading up to it claims that leaders of the Hebrew revival intended to continue "from the place where Hebrew's vitality was ended."
The trouble is, there is no source for this, nor is the leader in question who stated this named. KayvK ( talk) 14:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)