# Is Hebrew unique in not changing? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 18, 2012, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hebrew-unique-in-not-changing/635107 "2012-09-18T21:07:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2012, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hebrew-unique-in-not-changing/635107/21 "2012-09-18T22:22:51Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Methinks thou knowest the answer! > > Yes, I know that is mock Elizabethan English. I just realized you probably meant 1900, not 1600. ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2012, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hebrew-unique-in-not-changing/635107/22 "2012-09-18T22:27:14Z")
Classical Arabic is intended to freeze the language used at the time of the writing of the Koran (c. seventh century AD), primarily for religious study but Modern Standard Arabic is closely related and used throughout the Arab world for formal purposes. Everyday colloquial language in Arab countries is various dialects of Arabic. My wife is Egyptian and speaks Egyptian Arabic fluently but has never studied Classical Arabic and cannot understand speeches or news broadcasts on Egyptian TV. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2012, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hebrew-unique-in-not-changing/635107/23 "2012-09-18T22:43:51Z")
I have no expertise at all, so I’m posting this mostly to be educated by responses from the more informed, but I had always heard that Hebrew HAS changed over time, especially with regard to marks indicating vowels, e.g. Jehovah vs Yaweh. It also seems to me that if you are less strict, and consider a language unchanged if it can just be figured out, even with some difficulty, by modern readers, then many languages seem to stop “changing” once they are enshrined in a dominant culture’s holy scriptures. For English, it’s the King James Bible that is about the limit how far back a modern layman can go before English becomes unintelligible — Chaucer is too far, and Beowulf might as well be Greek. You could argue that Shakespeare might have been as great an influence, but IMO the tie is broken by looking at Arabic, where (I have heard) that the original text of the Quran, which is older than Beowulf, is approximately as easy to read for modern Arabs as the original KJV is for English readers, and the OP’s example of ancient Hebrew, going back another thousand+ years. Does this work for other religions? Can a modern Sanskrit reader understand the oldest copies of the Vedas, or a modern Chinese understand the oldest copies of the Analects? ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2012, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hebrew-unique-in-not-changing/635107/24 "2012-09-18T22:46:03Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I just realized you probably meant 1900, not 1600. Actually. my guess is that the process started around 1600. It seems obvious to me that print, widespread literacy, mass media and centralized education have stabilized languages - while vocabulary and colloquialisms continue to evolve, grammar changes much slower these days than it did in the past. ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2012, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hebrew-unique-in-not-changing/635107/25 "2012-09-18T23:11:43Z")
Question: Since Hebrew is now spoken within the Jewish population. Is Yiddish a dying language? ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2012, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hebrew-unique-in-not-changing/635107/26 "2012-09-18T23:13:38Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > Does this work for other religions? Can a modern Sanskrit reader understand the oldest copies of the Vedas, or a modern Chinese understand the oldest copies of the Analects? Isn’t Sanskrit a liturgical language at this point? And Chinese has gone through a couple of writing reforms since Confucius. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2012, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hebrew-unique-in-not-changing/635107/27 "2012-09-18T23:14:06Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > It also seems to me that if you are less strict, and consider a language unchanged if it can just be figured out, even with some difficulty, by modern readers, then many languages seem to stop “changing” once they are enshrined in a dominant culture’s holy scriptures. […] > > You could argue that Shakespeare might have been as great an influence, but IMO the tie is broken by looking at Arabic, where (I have heard) that the original text of the Quran, which is older than Beowulf, is approximately as easy to read for modern Arabs as the original KJV is for English readers, and the OP’s example of ancient Hebrew, going back another thousand+ years. Neither of those examples quite supports your thesis. As **CookingWithGas** notes, speakers of **vernacular** Arabic dialects, which have evolved from Qur’anic or Classical Arabic as spoken languages, aren’t necessarily going to be able to understand Classical Arabic or its present-day variant, Modern Standard Arabic. Yes, people who have studied Modern Standard Arabic can read the Qur’an, but MSA is a **learned** language for at least the vast majority of Arabic speakers. Similarly, modern Hebrew speakers can read ancient Hebrew only because modern Hebrew was deliberately and artificially **reconstructed** from ancient Hebrew and then consciously adopted as a spoken language. So neither of those is a good example of the ancient **scriptural** form of a language successfully slowing down the linguistic evolution of its **spoken** form to a really significant extent. The scriptural or “learned” form itself does get somewhat mummified and stops evolving rapidly, but the vernacular or “living” spoken form just charges ahead regardless. After a few centuries, the vernacular speakers will need to consciously study the learned form of the language in order to understand the scriptures written in it. (This will doubtless happen to spoken Hebrew in another few hundred years too; Hebrew-speaking children’s mother tongue will be different enough from Biblical Hebrew that they won’t be able to read the Hebrew Bible without studying the ancient language.) [QUOTE=TonySinclair] Does this work for other religions? Can a modern Sanskrit reader understand the oldest copies of the Vedas, or a modern Chinese understand the oldest copies of the Analects? [/QUOTE] Sanskrit, like Latin, stopped being a living spoken language about a couple thousand years ago, although like Latin it has retained a very strong liturgical and scholarly role since then. The standard learned form of the language is called Classical Sanskrit, and it bears about the same relationship to Vedic Sanskrit (or “Old Indo-Aryan”) that Classical Latin or maybe Late Latin does to Old Latin, the most archaic known form of Latin. So yes, somebody who’s studied Classical Sanskrit can understand a lot of the content of Vedic texts, although there are lots of archaic forms and vocabulary that they’ll need help with. Chinese, AFAICT, is a whole other kettle of fish, given that the same ideographic script can represent quite different spoken languages; but I know almost nothing about it. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2012, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hebrew-unique-in-not-changing/635107/28 "2012-09-19T00:34:10Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > [Linguistic prism in Icelandic](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_purism_in_Icelandic) is the law… Just like the speed limit is the law and no one ever exceeds that? Just because something is the law does not mean it is not subject to change nor does that mean that the law corresponds with reality. > [@](#): > > So I’m calling total bullcrap on Hebrew being “the only language that does not change.” You can call total bullcrap if you want but that simply doesn’t jibe with reality. Just because something ‘is a law’ doesn’t make it true. ---
**Author:** ![FuzzyOgre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@FuzzyOgre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FuzzyOgre)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2012, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hebrew-unique-in-not-changing/635107/29 "2012-09-19T01:05:52Z")
To be truly unchanged, ancient Hebrews should be able to understand modern Hebrew speakers. But if that is so, then modern Hebrew speakers must not be able to talk about modern things, since they cannot have created new words. But they can, they have, and the ancient Jews could not fully understand them. To put a point to it: the claim is bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![Mississippienne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d2c977/32.png) [@Mississippienne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mississippienne)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2012, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hebrew-unique-in-not-changing/635107/30 "2012-09-19T01:28:43Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > For English, it’s the King James Bible that is about the limit how far back a modern layman can go before English becomes unintelligible — Chaucer is too far, and Beowulf might as well be Greek. I find Chaucer, and to a much lesser extent Beowulf, are much more comprehensible if read aloud, rather than trying to puzzle it out in your head. For example, try saying the following portion of The Legend of Good Women aloud: This woful Cleopatre hath mad swich routhe That ther nis tonge noon that may hit telle. But on the morwe she wol no lenger dwelle, But made hir subtil werkmen make a shryne Of alle the rubies and the stones fyne In al Egipte that she coude espye; And putte ful the shryne of spycerye, And leet the cors embaume; and forth she fette This dede cors, and in the shryne hit shette. Almost the whole thing is intelligible. Cleopatra has chosen to die, and to this end she has made her workmen construct a bejewelled shrine, in which she will bring a serpent to bite her and send her to the afterlife. Beowulf is almost unintelligible, but its strange to read it aloud and to almost, \*almost \*know what its trying to say. Ic þé nú ðá | I then now you brego Beorht-Dena, | prince of bright Danes biddan wille, | bid will eodor Scyldinga, | Scyldinging’s protector, ánre béne: | one boon þæt ðú mé ne forwyrne, | That you me not refuse wígendra hléo | warrior’s shield fréawine folca, | loving-liege of the folk nú ic þus feorran cóm | Now I this far come. To make the one-to-one connection between the OE words and the modern words evident, I had to muck up the grammar a bit, but even so this speech from Bewulf is easily understood. The only words that are not clearly derived from their OE equivalent are protector (from Latin, _protegere_), refuse (from Latin, _refusare_), prince (from Latin, _princeps_), warrior (from Latin, _guerra_), and liege, of uncertain etymology. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2012, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hebrew-unique-in-not-changing/635107/31 "2012-09-19T02:04:10Z")
> [@Mississippienne](#): > > I find Chaucer, and to a much lesser extent Beowulf, are much more comprehensible if read aloud, rather than trying to puzzle it out in your head. For example, try saying the following portion of The Legend of Good Women aloud: > > This woful Cleopatre hath mad swich routhe > That ther nis tonge noon that may hit telle. > But on the morwe she wol no lenger dwelle, > But made hir subtil werkmen make a shryne > Of alle the rubies and the stones fyne > In al Egipte that she coude espye; > And putte ful the shryne of spycerye, > And leet the cors embaume; and forth she fette > This dede cors, and in the shryne hit shette. > > Almost the whole thing is intelligible. Cleopatra has chosen to die, and to this end she has made her workmen construct a bejewelled shrine, in which she will bring a serpent to bite her and send her to the afterlife. > > Beowulf is almost unintelligible, but its strange to read it aloud and to almost, \*almost \*know what its trying to say. > > Ic þé nú ðá | I then now you > brego Beorht-Dena, | prince of bright Danes > biddan wille, | bid will > eodor Scyldinga, | Scyldinging’s protector, > ánre béne: | one boon > þæt ðú mé ne forwyrne, | That you me not refuse > wígendra hléo | warrior’s shield > fréawine folca, | loving-liege of the folk > nú ic þus feorran cóm | Now I this far come. > > To make the one-to-one connection between the OE words and the modern words evident, I had to muck up the grammar a bit, but even so this speech from Bewulf is easily understood. The only words that are not clearly derived from their OE equivalent are protector (from Latin, _protegere_), refuse (from Latin, _refusare_), prince (from Latin, _princeps_), warrior (from Latin, _guerra_), and liege, of uncertain etymology. I agree that Chaucer is not completely opaque, and you can puzzle out the gist of it, but it’s clearly, IMO at least, a different language. As an analogy, I have a couple of years of high school French, and I wouldn’t dream of claiming I had any facility with it, but given a page of French I would know the pronouns and common verbs, a few dozen common nouns, and be able to recognize cognates for probably several hundred words. That lets me get the gist of it, not quite as well as I could with Chaucer, but probably within an order of magnitude. I’m afraid I’m missing your point about Beowulf being easily understood, though. Your _translation_ of Beowulf is of course intelligible, but as I said before, the original might as well be Greek. That doesn’t mean it’s complete gibberish, because I know the Greek alphabet and a lot of Greek words from their English descendants, but it’s certainly a foreign language to me. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2012, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hebrew-unique-in-not-changing/635107/32 "2012-09-19T02:21:37Z")
> [@Mississippienne](#): > > I find Chaucer, and to a much lesser extent Beowulf, are much more comprehensible if read aloud, rather than trying to puzzle it out in your head. For example, try saying the following portion of The Legend of Good Women aloud: Chaucer is fairly understandable, and reading aloud might help, but it would not help to have it read aloud in the original accent. The spelling has changed less than the pronunciation has. Old English, maybe with some practice, but it is as much a foreign language as Dutch or German is to the modern speaker since we’ve replaced so may Germanic words with Romance ones. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2012, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hebrew-unique-in-not-changing/635107/33 "2012-09-19T02:32:25Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > Does this work for other religions? Can a modern Sanskrit reader understand the oldest copies of the Vedas, or a modern Chinese understand the oldest copies of the Analects? > [@Kimstu](#): > > Sanskrit, like Latin, stopped being a living spoken language about a couple thousand years ago, although like Latin it has retained a very strong liturgical and scholarly role since then. The standard learned form of the language is called Classical Sanskrit, and it bears about the same relationship to Vedic Sanskrit (or “Old Indo-Aryan”) that Classical Latin or maybe Late Latin does to Old Latin, the most archaic known form of Latin. > > So yes, somebody who’s studied Classical Sanskrit can understand a lot of the content of Vedic texts, although there are lots of archaic forms and vocabulary that they’ll need help with. Most Sanskrit readers learn Sanskrit from the Vedas, so they won’t need much help with the forms. Unlike Latin, there isn’t a large number of ancient Sanskrit texts other than the Vedas. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2012, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hebrew-unique-in-not-changing/635107/34 "2012-09-19T02:35:28Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Unless the reason is that “official” Italian is \*based \*on Dante. Interesting to note that there is a lengthy sequence in Dante that is written in an older variety of Italian. ---
**Author:** ![Mississippienne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d2c977/32.png) [@Mississippienne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mississippienne)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2012, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hebrew-unique-in-not-changing/635107/35 "2012-09-19T03:43:58Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Chaucer is fairly understandable, and reading aloud might help, but it would not help to have it read aloud in the original accent. The spelling has changed less than the pronunciation has. Old English, maybe with some practice, but it is as much a foreign language as Dutch or German is to the modern speaker since we’ve replaced so may Germanic words with Romance ones. Very few people know how to read Chaucer with period-appropriate pronunciation. And I disagree with your second statement; Chaucer’s English is much, much more understandable to a modern English-speaker than either Dutch or German. Compare this German passage: Der Türmer, der schaut zu Mitten der Nacht Hinab auf die Gräber in Lage; Der Mond, der hat alles ins Helle gebracht Der Kirchhof, er liegt wie am Tage. To this passage from Chaucer: This Minos hath a monstre, a wikked beste, That was so cruel that, without areste, Whan that a man was broght in his presence, He wolde him ete, ther helpeth no defence. And every thridde yeer, with-outen doute, They casten lot, and, as hit com aboute If you tell me that the Chaucer passage is as difficult to comprehend as the German passage, and that it is clearly an entirely separate language from that which I am now typing to you, then I will be forced to disbelieve you and all you have to say on the subject. If you say it is not fair, as that German passage is from Goethe, long after Chaucer’s time, then let me present this passage from the late medieval German poet Johannes Hadlaub: Wa vunde man sament so manig liet? Man vund ir niet in dim künigriche als in Zürich an buochen stat. Des prüevet man dike da meister sang Der Manesse rank darnach endeliche des er diu liederbuoch nu hat **Edit** : On reread, I see you were referring to Old English, while Chaucer wrote in Middle English. OE, while still clearly the ancestor of our language, is substantially different. My point stands that Chaucer’s is very comprehensible. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2012, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hebrew-unique-in-not-changing/635107/36 "2012-09-19T04:23:12Z")
> [@Mississippienne](#): > > Very few people know how to read Chaucer with period-appropriate pronunciation. Yep. But that doesn’t change the validity of what I said. You’ll understand more of Chaucer reading it than listening to it spoken as it was at the time. > [@](#): > > And I disagree with your second statement; Chaucer’s English is much, much more understandable to a modern English-speaker than either Dutch or German. Old English. Chaucer is Middle English. Beowulf is Old English. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2012, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hebrew-unique-in-not-changing/635107/37 "2012-09-19T04:35:48Z")
> [@Mississippienne](#): > > Very few people know how to read Chaucer with period-appropriate pronunciation. And I disagree with your second statement; Chaucer’s English is much, much more understandable to a modern English-speaker than either Dutch or German. Chaucer isn’t Old English. He was referring to the segment of Beowulf. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2012, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hebrew-unique-in-not-changing/635107/38 "2012-09-19T04:41:37Z")
> [@Mississippienne](#): > > **Edit** : On reread, I see you were referring to Old English, while Chaucer wrote in Middle English. OE, while still clearly the ancestor of our language, is substantially different. My point stands that Chaucer’s is very comprehensible. OK, but that’s exactly what I said. Written Chaucer is pretty accessible to the modern reader. So your point stands inasmuch as it agrees with me. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2012, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hebrew-unique-in-not-changing/635107/39 "2012-09-19T06:24:30Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > Question: Since Hebrew is now spoken within the Jewish population. Is Yiddish a dying language? There are a few radical ultra-Orthodox sects that still use Yiddish in day-to-day life, but other than them, I’d say the age of the average Yiddish-speaker is somewhere around 80. ---
**Author:** ![Bpelta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eb8c5e/32.png) [@Bpelta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bpelta)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2012, 9:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hebrew-unique-in-not-changing/635107/40 "2012-09-19T09:02:09Z")
The Talmud has a bunch of requirements – nay, entitlements – the master is required to fulfill in obligation to the “eved ivri” (Jewish slave). Kiddushin 20a basically says you have to give him a bed, food, and drink that’s the same quality as yours. It derives these rules from a ridiculously, well, Talmudic interpretation of a Biblical verse. The treatment of the eved ivri, among Orthodox Jews, is one of the more well-known rules; because the existence of slavery in the Bible is so problematic for fundamentalists, some rabbis (and Dennis Prager) like to point to how nicely this type of slave – or as they sometimes call him, “indentured servant” – is treated. As an Orthodox rabbi, Rabbi Lapin either accepts that entitlements were _mandated_ for the “eved ivri” or finds himself outside the mainstream of what is standard, accepted, well-known Orthodox Jewish tradition. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hebrew-unique-in-not-changing/635107.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hebrew-unique-in-not-changing/635107.md?page=3)