Jump to content

Talk:Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Ancient Hebrew

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Ilanfrm

--GerardM : why you locked the page? how can i open the request? --Ilan David Frumer 20:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Its not fare that you lock me and not letting me respond with arguments. That is not a smart way to win on a debate. at least let me explain my idea.

And for --evertype - Modern Hebrew is not like English which has been created by a natural process over centuries. Modern Hebrew is a planned language that came out of nowhere by few people that wanted to change the original Hebrew to fit their minds. When i say Pure i do not intend to take out of the language words that do not fit, i intend to talk in our dialect which is pure(clean), and this is the dialect that was called Hebrew the past thousand years.

I think you need to learn a little about Hebrew and modern Hebrew before you oppose cause maybe you do not know what the matter is about. If you say those things, so say them to the "Zionists" which changed our language - dumped words and added words like they wanted. --Ilan David Frumer 23:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

English is not holly language as far as i am concerned so its just a practical language for talking. Hebrew is holly language for the Jews and is tied with Judaism - if you change our language its like you force us change our religion. All our scripts and books are not written in modern Hebrew so there is nothing to pure from, it is already purred. --Ilan David Frumer 23:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think your ideas are wrong-headed. There are many reasons.
  1. In the first place, I and others on the Language Committee do know what Hebrew is. in fact, we know that your assessment of Hebrew is incorrect. Modern Hebrew did not "come out of nowhere". Modern Hebrew arose naturally when in the early State of Israel native speakers of Yiddish, Russian, Polish, and Arabic found themselves together without a common language. They spoke from the traditional knowledge of Hebrew which they had preserved over the centuries (young Jewish men in America still learn Hebrew for their bar mitzvahs, for instance, though they usually do not learn to speak Hebrew beyond that). The Modern Hebrew which arose was not identical to Biblical Hebrew—a language which had died out centuries before. But it arose naturally.
  2. "Zionists" are of no consequence here, as far as I can tell. Perhaps that is because I never know what anyone means when they use that word. (Please don't go out of your way to explain it.)
  3. Holly is a very nice plant. You mean holy. And languages are not "holy". Hebrew is nothing but one of many Semitic languages. It is spoken by fewer people than Arabic, Amharic, or Tigrinya are; it is spoken by more people than Syriac Aramaic, Silt'e, Tigre, Sebat Bet Gurage, Maltese, Inor, Soddo, or Harari. It is used as the chief liturgical language of one religion. But so what? So what if someone else uses Arabic in their religious language, or Sanskrit, or Mandaic, or Coptic, or Japanese, or English? None of those languages are more special or less special just because someone uses them in a religious context.
  4. Just because I disagree with your ideas of linguistic purism does not mean that I don't "know what the matter is about". In fact I have worked to encode various letters used in Hebrew in the Unicode Standard (like cantillation marks, and Holam Haser) , and I have encoded Phoenician and Samaritan as well.
The Language Committee disagreed with your proposal because it wasn't well-thought out. Sorry, but that's the way it is. You have some wrong notions about linguistic purism which has no place in the Wiki community. Evertype 09:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Maybe you learned linguistics more than i did but as it comes to Hebrew - I'm a native speaker, everyday i read Hebrew both Modern and Former.
  1. What you wrote about Hebrew that "Zionists" are no consequence and the immigrants created the language, i don't know where you heard that! Eliezer Ben Yehuda invented the Modern Hebrew as it known today and thought it to the immigrants.
  2. If you talk about the words that the immigrants derived, most of the words are slang and no author writes his issues with those words anyway despite of being talk by the people. You can't require authors to write encyclopedia with argot!
  3. The way you divide Hebrew into two groups: Ancient and Modern , is not correct at all even if it was written by some linguistics. I didn't intend to write in Hebrew like it is on the bible. You ignore all of the Hebrew that was talked over the centuries on the Mishnah and the Halakha. There are lots of thousands of words used by Hebrew that are not written in the bible before Modern Hebrew started to rise. The former Hebrew is a mix of (Aramaic \ Greek \ Latin \ Persian \ Ancient Hebrew).
I already told you that i don't intend to do a linguistic purism! I just want to use Hebrew like been used 100 years ago! if you say it's dead i say it's not! cause rabbis still write books like 100 years ago and there is a big community reading their books. Every religious Jew which reads the issues on Modern Hebrew fills it's a strange language for him with foreign attitude.
If Wikipedia is about bring knowledge to all society so the Committee have to reconsider her approach. If my society won't get her knowledge written in their dialect so they will avoid searching in WP no need to say not participate with it. WP is about societies that builds knowledge and every society have her codes and ethics. Hebrew WP is not our society!--Ilan David Frumer 12:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Reply