Depends on whether the modern Icelandic people were communicating with those from 1000 AD with written text or spoken language. If they were only using writing, then, yes they could probably decipher each other, but if they were talking back and forth, the pronounciations have transformed so profoundly, they would probably think they were talking to a person with a completely different language.
Also this is an example of a language that has been radically altered from its natural state in the nineteenth century due to extreme reactionary and nationalistic politics. A hundred years ago, Icelandic was much further removed from its routes with many loan words and changes and alterations, but it has been ossified.
The language spoken by the Hawaiians before Europeans showed up might have been PURE. They probably didn’t have a word for airplane though. Computer, rocket, hoola-hoop.
There’s no such thing as a “pure” or “debased” language. I already made that point rather glibly, but let me assure you that nobody remotely qualified to speak on matters pertaining to linguistic speaks in terms of purity and pollution in regards to language. So any moe references to “pure” languages just advertise the ignorance of the poster. If you want to say that this language has changed less than this other language over the past 1000 years, fine, but please refrain from using value-laden language like “purity.” Languages are not virgins and sluts. They are simply languages.
My point was that the OT was “sealed” (fixed) circa the first centruy AD. And Hebrew was “reborn” circa the beginning of the 20[sup]th[/sup]. And it was dead in the interim - conservatively - 1800 years. The development of Hebrew in the last 100 years has not (yet) rendered the biblical language incomprehansible. What I tried to establish was a lower bound on the length of time in which the language had not changed - not an upper bound.
In other words - you’re right, but that wasn’t my point.
