|
 |
Hebrew and Arabic | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Specific Languages | ( Topic Closed) |  |
| Wilco Triglot Senior Member Canada Joined 6331 days ago 160 posts - 247 votes  Speaks: French*, English, Russian | Message 1 of 8 03 January 2011 at 1:19pm | IP Logged | ||
|
Based on many posts on this forum and on the DLI Language difficulty scale, Arabic is
often described as one of the most difficult language to learn for English speakers. Hebrew on the other side is usually considered as a "though" language, but certainly not as difficult as Arabic. Not being familiar with any of them, I would like to know what makes the difficulty so different between these two Semitic languages? (Edit: typos) Edited by Wilco on 03 January 2011 at 1:22pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Préposition Diglot Senior Member France aspectualpairs.wordp Joined 5115 days ago 186 posts - 283 votes Speaks: French*, EnglishC1 Studies: Russian, Arabic (Written), Swedish, Arabic (Levantine) | Message 2 of 8 03 January 2011 at 2:06pm | IP Logged | ||
Being a student of Arabic, I had the same question, and after discussing with my friends studying Hebrew, I realised there were some differences. First of all, Modern Standard Arabic (that would be the difficult one, I don't believe colloquial is nearly as difficult), is rather conservative, it's derived from Qur'anic Arabic and is very structured, with rules for pretty much anything you could think of. It's a very logical language and it's also extremely rich and detailed, not only in its vocabulary but also its grammar. Hebrew, on the other hand, went through a transformation of the language from Biblical Hebrew to Modern Hebrew (that's what I understood, correct me if I'm wrong), and as my friends said, it's a language that's meant to be learnt by immigrants and people converting to Judaism, so it'd better be simple, or at least not too complicated so one can get the hang of it pretty quickly. In my opinion, it works. If I compare the level of the "best" student in my MSA class, she's nowhere near as fluent as my friends are in Hebrew. The fact that no-one really speaks MSA (it's difficult without teachers to have a discussion in it) makes it more difficult to practice, so you generally have a reading knowledge of it, but people will often lack good oral communication skills in it (unless you work for Al-Jazeera :P). The grammar of Hebrew is indeed similar to that of Arabic, but according to my friend who took evening classes in Arabic, it's a lightened version of it, so you'll have fewer verb forms (Arabic has 10/11, Hebrew has 7), and other various rules that don't exist in Hebrew but do in Arabic. That's how far I went in my research. I intend to learn Hebrew and spend some time in Israel, so hopefully I'll have a better understanding of the issue, but in the meanwhile, I'll wait for other answers on this topic :) 7 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| Hashimi Senior Member Oman Joined 6260 days ago 362 posts - 529 votes Speaks: Arabic (Written)* Studies: English, Japanese | Message 3 of 8 03 January 2011 at 5:13pm | IP Logged | ||
|
I agree with Preposition. There is also another major difference between Arabic and Modern Hebrew. Many linguists say that Modern Hebrew is very close to Indo-European languages. Moreover, the linguist Paul Wexler says that Modern Hebrew is not a Semitic language at all, but a dialect of "Judaeo-Sorbian". He argues that the underlying structure of the language is Slavic, but "re-lexified" to absorb much of the vocabulary and inflexional system of Hebrew in much the same way as a creole. Zuckermann compromises between Wexler and the other view: according to him, Hebrew is a Semito-European hybrid language, which is the continuation not only of literary Hebrew but also of Yiddish, as well as Polish, Russian, German, English, Ladino, Arabic and other languages spoken by Hebrew revivalists. Thus, "Yiddish is a primary contributor to Israeli Hebrew because it was the mother tongue of the vast majority of revivalists and first pioneers in Eretz Yisrael at the crucial period of the beginning of Israeli Hebrew". According to Zuckermann, although the revivalists wished to speak Hebrew, with Semitic grammar and pronunciation, they could not avoid the Ashkenazi mindset arising from their European background. He argues that their attempt to deny their European roots, negate diasporism and avoid hybridity (as reflected in Yiddish) failed. "Had the revivalists been Arabic-speaking or Berber-speaking Jews (e.g. from Morocco), Israeli Hebrew would have been a totally different language – both genetically and typologically, much more Semitic. The impact of the founder population on Israeli Hebrew is incomparable with that of later immigrants." http://www.zuckermann.org/mosaic.html 7 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| Meelämmchen Diglot Senior Member Germany Joined 5084 days ago 214 posts - 249 votes Speaks: German*, English Studies: Modern Hebrew | Message 4 of 8 04 January 2011 at 2:50pm | IP Logged | ||
|
I have never heard before that Modern Hebrew should be Indo-European, but all I'm saying derives from my minimal knowledge of that topic, especially Biblical Hebrew.
Some notes on Zuckermann to better understand his position. He at least is conceding an underlying almost exclusively Semitic "morphology and basic vocabulary". The thesis of Wexler sounds really wild in comparison. And Zuckermann also concedes the important literary and liturgical tradition. That chain, I think, is the important one. And Zuckermann also said that there still has to be "exhaustive study" to show that Modern Hebrew is "Jiddish by heart". I don't know Jiddish, only heard it, but I can't believe that Modern Hebrew should be Jiddish by heart. Some more critical notes. Zuckermann has claimed a genetic difference between Biblical and Modern Hebrew and he is right that they don't differentiate both in Israel. But isn't it a bit harsh to say they brainwash the kids in Israel by doing so? I am not customed with all the debates but are there really scholars who say that Modern Hebrew is exactly like Biblical Hebrew? If Zuckermann is arguing against that I think he can be supported but the claim of a genetic difference... Does he say that it is the same here with Dutch and German? And then he is making a case against a "direct continuation" of Hebrew. I don't know who claims such a thing. I always thought that it is still Biblical Hebrew in its core but with a lot of arrangements to make it fit the everyday life. He also mentioned the use of the constructed forms "saba sheli" and "sawi" and the masculine and feminin numbers. Yes, in everyday life people tend to speak the easy going versions but that is not producing a genetic difference. So what? As if German would be a complete new language with a restricted use of the genitive case. But the brainwashing thing was hard stuff concerning that the scholarship seems to be at least balanced on this question. You also could say that Zuckermann is trying to brainwash people by claiming Modern Hebrew to be "Israeli". I think the philosophical problem behind Zuckermann's thesis is the question "at which point you can speak of a genetic difference between two languages" and I think he has very low criteria on that. Edited by Meelämmchen on 04 January 2011 at 2:55pm 4 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| olhazar Pentaglot Newbie Croatia Joined 5728 days ago 13 posts - 20 votes Speaks: Croatian*, English, Spanish, Russian, Italian Studies: Arabic (Written), Turkish, Georgian, Kurdish, Modern Hebrew | Message 5 of 8 04 January 2011 at 9:50pm | IP Logged | ||
|
Saying that Hebrew is not semitic language, is just another pathetic attempt to show the world ''that Jews are not nation''.
Yes, jewish people have mixed with other nations in the past, but one mustn't forget that Jews were not very popular in Europe, so they married among themselves. I read that only 10 percent of jewish genetic pool is related to other nations. There are many Arabs living in western Europe, also mixing with local population. One could say that it's also a problem. 4 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| Hashimi Senior Member Oman Joined 6260 days ago 362 posts - 529 votes Speaks: Arabic (Written)* Studies: English, Japanese | Message 6 of 8 05 January 2011 at 7:12am | IP Logged | ||
Who says that? We are talking about Modern Hebrew not Hebrew. As for the Jews, yes, they are an ethnicity, and genetically, they are more pure than the so-called Arabs. But definitely not a nation. According to my dictionary, a nation is "a people who live in a country under one politically organized body." There are more Jews in other countries than those in Israel. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| HenryMW Tetraglot Senior Member United States Joined 5175 days ago 125 posts - 179 votes Speaks: English*, German, Spanish, French Studies: Modern Hebrew | Message 7 of 8 05 January 2011 at 8:35am | IP Logged | ||
|
Nations are people. The German nation(ality) originated in Europe and has spread throughout the world. States are political entities. Germany is a state. It is also a nation-state. Some nations have no state. Before 1948, the Jews were a stateless nation: an ethnic group (nation) without a country (state). Are the Germans no longer a nation because so many Germans left for America?
Don't let yourself get confused between lay and technical definitions. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
 newyorkeric Diglot Moderator Singapore Joined 6380 days ago 1598 posts - 2174 votes Speaks: English*, Italian Studies: Mandarin, Malay Personal Language Map | Message 8 of 8 05 January 2011 at 9:05am | IP Logged | ||
|
This is heading nowhere good so I'm closing the thread.
2 persons have voted this message useful |
Sorry, you can NOT post a reply.
This topic is closed.
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
