Why did the Aramaic language overtake Hebrew? Was Hebrew in use at all in the last two thousand years (before being reintroduced in Israel)?
How did they go about bringing a dead and lost language to life?
Fun fact: Yiddish is not German-Hebrew, but German-Aramaic
>Why did the Aramaic language overtake Hebrew?
Hebrew shifted from being an everyday language to a scholarly language sometime around 5-600 B.C., I'm not entirely sure why, but at a guess, I would say it had something to do with the Babylonian diaspora.
Aramaic, on the other hand, was a trade language and spoken relatively widely regionally, so it's not a huge logical leap to assume it became the common, everyday language.
>Was Hebrew in use at all in the last two thousand years (before being reintroduced in Israel)?
It wasn't widespread. I mean, you had religious texts and services written in Hebrew, and even the occasional odd Hebrew work in a non-religious setting, like this
A 13th century King Arthur story that appeared in Italy. But it wasn't a widespread tongue, and almost certainly more read and written in than spoken.
>How did they go about bringing a dead and lost language to life?
Immigrant culture; when you have a nation that's comprised of people moving in, it's easier to get them to learn a new language.
Very likely it was just the nobility and a lot of the clergy.
But picture it, if you will. The "intelligentsia" is taken away, and the new conquerors probably force everyone to at least learn Babylonian because the conquerors never learn the languages of their pleb victims. Things stay that way for the better part of a century, until a fraction of the descendents of that nobility are allowed back.
I can see that causing a decline in Hebrew day to day usage. And remember, it wasn't' like Hebrew vanished overnight; it was a slow decline/transition to Aramaic.
Thank you for the insight. Persians did eventually include Aramaic as an administrative language, so I guess they had to pleb themselves eventually.
Did the Aramaens become the populace of Israel. Did they become Jews?
I also must ask this question: How did the Jews get to Spain? Is it possible that the punic population became 'Jews' after worship of Ba'al was prosecuted and Carthaginian culture squashed?
>Did the Aramaens become the populace of Israel. Did they become Jews?
No idea, I'm afraid.
>How did the Jews get to Spain? Is it possible that the punic population became 'Jews' after worship of Ba'al was prosecuted and Carthaginian culture squashed?
IIRC, Jewish communities in Spain first started appearing a bit before 300 AD; which means that it's far more likely that they came from elsewhere in the Roman empire after either the Bar Kokhba revolt or some other impetus pushed them there. I very much doubt that they were punic or Ba'al worshippers, the origin of the Spanish Jewish community is too young for that, but then again, I'm no historian.
No idea, desu. I'm not even sure what alphabet Phoenician used, let alone what the language itself was like.
As you can see the emergence of the Hebrew square script coincides with the period of the Babylonian exile.
The rabbinical apologist claim is that the original ten commandments had been handed down in the square script because the Canaanite script was riddled with "paganism". After Moses broke the first set of tablets God redelivered them using the more profane script. Predictably the square script is then said to have been restored after the Babylonian captivity by the scribe Ezra
>Immigrant culture; when you have a nation that's comprised of people moving in, it's easier to get them to learn a new language.
That's actually a fascinating point to think about, You'd think some slavic melting pot language between Yiddish/Russian/german/etc would become the every day language and Hebrew the language used only really in parliament, law codification or some shit.
Good question. A buddy of mine well read in the bible always accused some political conspiracy of changing his bible. He says there was a land called Hebrea. No longer found in the testaments.
You have to understand that the region known as the philistines was a major center point for east-west trade. The kingdoms in the region became vassals. And for official and lawful purposes they had to speak the language of their invaders, however for social or religious conduct they had to speak hebrew, a dialect of canaanite. Remember it was not a language but a dialect.
The philistines, since king david, was invaded by three eastern empires, at different times ofcourse. Babylonian Empire, Assyrian empire and Seleucids. Those who stayed suffered the Samaritan's curse. Those who left were accused of being liars and creators fictitious lineages; sellouts.
They spoke the language of Aram.
The western empires were phoenicians, egyptians, and greeks.
The Phoenicians spoke a canaanite dialect said to often be confused with Hebrew. The Phoenicians were disliked by other empire and for historical purposes they can be seen as the vikings of the mediterranean. Their cities and colonies stretched throughout the mediterranean.
The destruction of the second temple came at the conquest of the Romans. You will have to remember the eastern half of the Roman empire spoke Greek.
The Phoenicians had a style of fighting very similar to the zulus of south africa. In a U shape. They guarded the Mediterranean sea.
If you study history, language makes an ethnic cluster. A super flawed one but ethnicity comes by necessity. King David made a small empire in the region by beating the Canaanites to their posts. If David spoke Hebrew, then they'd be of a similar ethnicity. Now racial, that is different. The only two tribes that formed a self administrated empire/kingdom in the area were Benjamin and Judah. Saul of the tribe of Judah came from a people called Matrite.
According to conspiracy modern Hebrew was made recently like Esperanto. Esperanto is called Esperanto while it waits for a political schism. Then it'll be classed as crypto-latin. So if you apply that concept, Hebrew is just an auxiliary (constructed) language. Remember it was "dead" for a long time.
the script that is used for hebrew, as i'm reading is not hebrew script but aramaean script. So op may have a point.
A jewish historian told me that modern jewry originated from a priest that was excommunicated. His parishioners left with him. And their ideology reveres canon law. You know everyone has something to input even though they may cancel eachother out.
now let me tell you something from sociology. when the western empire mandated the people of the region to write books from where they get their laws and dogmas. They made sure that every tribe, empire, or peoples along the mediterranean to have a representation therein. a history of the peoples in a given area focused around its most busy trading spot. because they know the whims of the people to say they are this or that when they are not this but that. Meaning if a group comes and claims something as theirs. It would be bs because they dont have the rest of the testament of what happened to a tribe or what truly occurred. It wouldnt even be contested from a religious stand point. From there, specific books are burned and the people prepare themselves for a tabula rasa that may last hundred or so years. Because one side will see the monetary value of it and will start moving stuff around. Despite not truly fulfilling testament. And you'd see over lapping accords in written history.
I don't see how it makes it mediocre or debases it. Actually it makes it quite logical. Moreover, such punctuation is crucial for my language because it doesn't have a fixed word order. So in order to get rid of ambiguousness in texts one has to separate all the clauses etc.
Anyway, you still didn't prove that I used commas improperly in that post of mine. I'm waiting for proofs.
I think they really did convince people that Jews were Khazars for awhile. But I am not sure how you can still today buy it. Unless a shit ton of genetic research has been faked... They have shown through and through that a small group of Middle Eastern men took Southern European women and went to Spain. From there it was exile after exile to get to Poland/Lithuania/Russia and finally USA/Israel.
Does anyone else use single quotes to indicate a phrase that is not a literal quotation?
So for example, if I wanted to coin a phrase 'nonliteral quotation', I feel like it wouldn't be appropriate to use double quotes, but leaving it undecorated would make it seem like a conventional phrase. Intuitively I would use a single quote but I don't think there is any precedent for that.
There were Spanish communities all throughout the Roman Empire, but because of the tolerance of both the Visogothic and Muslim kingdoms, Jews from North Africa and the rest of Europe often migrated to Spain to avoid persecution