"Revival of Hebrew: Grammatical Structure and Lexicon", in Geoffrey Khan et al. (eds.), Encyclopedia...

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF HEBREW LANGUAGE

AND LINGUISTICSVolume 3

P–Z

General Editor

Geoffrey Khan

Associate Editors

Shmuel BolokzySteven E. FassbergGary A. Rendsburg

Aaron D. RubinOra R. Schwarzwald

Tamar Zewi

LEIDEN • BOSTON2013

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3

Table of Contents

Volume One

Introduction ........................................................................................................................ viiList of Contributors ............................................................................................................ ixTranscription Tables ........................................................................................................... xiiiArticles A-F ......................................................................................................................... 1

Volume Two

Transcription Tables ........................................................................................................... viiArticles G-O ........................................................................................................................ 1

Volume Three

Transcription Tables ........................................................................................................... viiArticles P-Z ......................................................................................................................... 1

Volume Four

Transcription Tables ........................................................................................................... viiIndex ................................................................................................................................... 1


revival of hebrew: grammatical structure and lexicon 397


לסין (14) אפוא נסעתי סינית; ללמוד raßiti רציתי lilmod sinit; nasa≠ti ±efo le-sin ‘I wanted to learn Chinese, so I went to China’

im yeš lexa± אם יש לך זמן, מה אפוא הבעיה? (15)zman ma ±efo ha-be≠aya? ‘if you have time what, then, is the problem?’

הבעיה?* (16) לכן מה זמן, לך יש im yeš±* אם lexa zman, ma la-xen ha-be≠aya?

In sentences like 16 אפוא ±efo can replace a word such as אז ±az ‘then’, although in a differ-ent position, and it can be dropped:

im yeš le-xa± אם יש לך זמן, (אז) מה הבעיה? (17)zman, (±az) ma ha-be≠aya? ‘if you have time, (then) what is the problem?’.

But it cannot replace לכן la-xen.Occasionally a conjunction which denotes

purpose can also be used to express result (both kinds of words are directed towards the future)

למחייתך (18) לעבוד כדי מבוגר די ata de± אתה mevugar k-de la≠avod le-mi≤yatxa ‘you are old enough in order to work for a living’

is quite similar to the following sentence, in which the second clause is introduced by a standard result word אתה ולכן מבוגר די אתה למחייתך לעבוד ata de mevugar ve-la-xen± יכול ±ata yaxol la≠avod le-mi≤yatxa ‘you are old enough and so can work for a living’ (Glinert 1989:351).

R e f e r e n c e sAbadi, Adina. 1988. Discourse syntax of contempo-

rary Hebrew (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: Magnes.Azar, Moshe. 1977. Surface and depth in syntax (in

Hebrew). Haifa: University of Haifa.Bliboim, Rivka. 1995. Syntax+ (in Hebrew). Jerusa-

lem: Akademon.Glinert, Lewis. 1989. The grammar of Modern

Hebrew. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Ornan, Uzi. 1971. “Hebrew grammar”. Encyclopae-

dia Judaica, 8:78–175. Jerusalem: Keter.Peretz, Yitzhak. 1956. Ta≤bir ha-lašon ha-≠ivrit. Tel-

Aviv: Masada.Ring, Yitshak. 1981. Ta≤bir ha-lašon ha-≠ivrit. Tel-

Aviv: Open University.

Rivka Bliboim(The Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

Revival of Hebrew: Grammatical Structure and Lexicon

The transformation of Hebrew from a tra-ditional liturgical and literary language into a modern national language involved sweep-ing changes in its grammatical and lexical structure. Although members of the revival generation believed they were resurrecting the ancient language, renewing its development from the point at which it ceased to be spoken (Rabin 1985:274), it has long been agreed among scholars that the linguistic system that resulted from the process is fundamentally new (Kaddari 1980: יח–יט; Blau 1981:151; Kutscher 1982:196, 243–244). Modern Hebrew does not directly continue any previous linguistic state, but is based on a new combination of features, stemming partially from the historical layers of Hebrew, partially from other sources.

Despite the great interest of linguists in the emergence of this new system, many of the linguistic facts regarding its formation are still unknown. Early evidence of the spoken lan-guage is particularly scarce, as the first tran-scriptions of spoken Hebrew were published long after it first took root in the speech community (Blanc 1957; 1964). Its formative phases may therefore be reconstructed only partially, based on fragmentary information scattered throughout various written sources (Reshef, forthcoming [a], [c]). As for the writ-ten language, documentation of its evolution is not lacking, but most of it has yet to be subjected to linguistic analysis. Scholars have tended to focus on the literary language, which was written in an elevated style and bore almost no trace of the emerging standard regis-ter (Even-Zohar 1996). Few studies explore the linguistic reality reflected in non-literary texts from the revival period or trace the evolution of specific phenomena that distinguish Modern Hebrew from previous linguistic layers (e.g., Mishor 1994; Reshef 2002; 2004; Dubnov 2005; Gadish 2007; Zewi and Reshef 2009). Hence, attempts to define the essence of the linguistic processes undergone by Hebrew dur-ing the revival period stand on a meager factual foundation, and none of the theories suggested (e.g., Wexler 1990; Izre’el 2002; Zuckermann 2008 ) has gained scholarly consensus.

To date, the most useful accounts of the lin-guistic components and processes of the revival

398 revival of hebrew: grammatical structure and lexicon


stem from work done in the 1950s by Haiim Rosén and Haim Blanc. They define Modern Hebrew as a koiné, namely an amalgamation of elements from various linguistic varieties, which is not identical to any of the sources that contributed to its formation (Rosén 1956:134; Blanc 1968). The principle building blocks of this new linguistic system consist of three equally significant groups of elements: (1) ele-ments inherited from all previous layers of Hebrew; (2) foreign elements reflecting speak-ers’ substrate languages as well as their Euro-pean cultural orientation; (3) new elements unintentionally created by speakers through natural linguistic processes such as analogy, leveling, semantic and stylistic differentiation, back-formation, spelling pronunciation, etc. (Blanc 1954:385–386; Rosén 1956:74–82, 111–122). Features from all three categories operate simultaneously in all linguistic domains, marking Modern Hebrew as structurally differ-ent from any preceding linguistic stage.

Sections 1–6 below treat the formation pro-cesses of the modern linguistic system, while section 7 touches upon some of the peculiarities of language use during the revival period.

1. I n h e r i t e d , F o r e i g n , a n d N e w E l e m e n t s : S o m e G e n e r a l R e m a r k s

The external appearance of Modern Hebrew was largely shaped by the inherited Hebrew component. Down to our day, words, morpho-logical patterns, and syntactic constructions attested in earlier linguistic layers outnumber borrowed and new elements alike. Yet, the internal structure of the language was shaped to a great extent by foreign patterns (Blanc 1954:389; Rosén 1977:23–25; Blau 1981; Ben-Hayyim 1992:57–58; Harshav 1993:169–170). The relatively unchanged external appearance of the language generates a sense of continuity and masks the fundamental gap between contemporary usage and previous lin-guistic layers.

The seminal effect of foreign languages on Modern Hebrew was identified already in the revival generation (Lipschütz [1917/]1949:54–55). As foreign models could have been particularly influential in areas character-ized by low level of awareness on the part of speakers (Even-Zohar 1996), many seemingly

Hebrew forms acquired meanings and functions that differ considerably from those attested in previous linguistic layers. “No feature or ele-ment of Classical Hebrew surviving in Israeli Hebrew”, notes Rosén, “must on any account be deemed to function in Israeli Hebrew in the same way as in its classical predecessors” (Rosén 1977:45).

During the revival period, complex processes of selection and accommodation occurred within the inherited component. Whereas at the onset of the revival, language users were free to draw on the full inventory of former periods, gradually new distinctions emerged. Certain inherited usages were incorporated into the emerging standard, while others remained operative only in stylistically-elevated registers. A certain portion of the inherited material became obsolete, and ceased to be regularly used even in literary texts (Rosén 1956:91).

These selection processes played a crucial role in the emergence of modern usage. In order to create the clear and precise linguistic styles needed for modern expression in fields such as science, administration, journalism, etc., many ornate linguistic features identified with tra-ditional linguistic styles had to be discarded. The first signs of this process may be observed already during the period of the Haskala. As opposed to the biblical inclination of the peri-od’s literary language, in non-belletristic texts centered on topics not previously treated in Hebrew a new synthetic style started to emerge (Shahevitch 1967; Rabin 1985:283–284). In the 1880s, this synthetic style became the norm in literary Hebrew, forming the foundations for contemporary usage (Morag 1959:255; Rabin 1985:281; 1999:370–371). By the time Hebrew turned into the frame language of the Jewish society of Palestine after World War I (Har-shav 1993:146), the basic selection of standard forms had reached a certain measure of stabil-ity, separating the emerging standard register from more literary, formal, and ideologically-laden styles (Blanc 1954:389–390; Reshef 2009; Reshef and Helman, 2009). Despite the great variability which continued to characterize the speech community as a whole, relative unifor-mity started to emerge among native speakers and others who acquired a good command of Hebrew (Reshef forthcoming [b]). Differenti-ated registers emerged, enabling Hebrew to transform into an all-encompassing language,



used by a modern speech community for all its communicational needs (Rosén 1992:34).

Structural innovations likewise accompanied the emergence of Modern Hebrew from its inception, stemming partly from the impact of foreign models and partly from natural linguis-tic processes which occurred within Hebrew. Blanc (1954:386–387) notes the role of Hebrew orthography in determining the scope of these processes. In the absence of prior spoken usage, and as Hebrew script provides only limited information regarding the realization of the vowels and בכ"פ (b – v, k – x, p – f ), pronun-ciation naturally deviated from the classical norms. Expected linguistic processes such as analogy or semantic shifts further widened the deviation from classical models and generated structural change.

Conscious language planning, which aimed at hindering these trends, had only limited success (Morag 1959; Téné 1996). In fact, the extensive word-coining activity conducted by language planners may have unintentionally contributed to the introduction of structural innovations into the language, as it developed certain derivation mechanisms at the expense of others and affected their meanings (Rabin 1999:373). Such activity, for instance, seems to underlie the attribution of potential meaning to the קטיל qa†il adjectival pattern (e.g., שביר šavir ‘breakable or חדיר ≤adir ‘penetrable’), a meaning it did not possess in previous linguistic layers (Gadish 2007).

All three groups of components—inherited, foreign, and new—operated simultaneously in the language from the onset of the revival, and their contribution to the formation of the new linguistic system may be observed in all linguis-tic domains.

2. P h o n o l o g y

Though Hebrew did not serve as a spoken language prior to its revival, its oral dimension was preserved by traditional Jewish communi-ties in the reading traditions of the sacred texts. Modern spoken usage relied on these tradi-tions, though it does not directly continue any of them. Rather, from the beginning the adop-tion of Hebrew as a spoken language was based on a combination of features from the two main groups of reading traditions known to the revivalists—the Ashkenazi tradition, used

by Jews of central and eastern Europe, and the Sephardi tradition, used by descendants of the Jewish communities of the Iberian Peninsula and by Jews of the Mediterranean area. Each of these traditions included various local varieties, reflecting inter alia the influence of a variety of contact languages.

The mixed nature of modern pronunciation derived from the preference of the revivalists, who were predominantly of Ashkenazi origin, to base Hebrew speech on the Sephardi tradi-tion (Harshav 1993:153). Yet, their transition to the Sephardi pronunciation was only partial, resulting in a pronunciation defined by one member of the revival generation as “Sephardi according to will, but Ashkenazi according to ability” (Goitein 1945:79). As only those fea-tures that did not contradict former phonetic habits were adopted, the resulting pronunciation was based on the lowest common denominator of the two reading traditions: no new conso-nants were adopted from the richer inventory of guttural consonants in the Sephardi sound system, the Ashkenazi alternation between /t/ and /s/ in the pronunciation of the letter ת was discarded, and the richer vowel system of the Ashkenazi pronunciation was reduced to match the 5-vowel system of the Sephardi tradition (Morag 1959:248–252; Kutscher 1982:226–228; Harshav 1993:164–166).

In the new pronunciation system, the Sep-hardi legacy is strongly felt in the realization of the vowels and the location of stress, which, in principle at least, adheres to the rules of gram-matical stress rather than to the Ashkenazi tendency to penultimate stress. In most other features, though, Ashkenazi phonetic habits prevailed: the realization of the consonants, the distribution of consonant clusters, the loss of pronunciation of historical gemination and vocal shewa, and intonation patterns, just to name a few. The Ashkenazi legacy is also felt in the diffusion of penultimate stress in cer-tain lexical categories which do not belong to the inventory of penultimate categories of traditional Hebrew grammar, such as proper names, toponyms, and some marginal lexical categories (Schwarzwald 1990).

In the initial phases of the revival, the choice between the Ashkenazi and the Sephardi traditions was debated extensively (Bar-Asher 1990:130–138; Harshav 1993:153–164). In 1903, teachers in the Hebrew schools in



Palestine still pondered over the topic. Yet, only a decade later, the main features of the new pro-nunciation system were already evident to all (Zixronot [1913/]1929:47–68). Great variabil-ity continued to reign in the speech community for several decades, as the majority of speakers—who were not native speakers of Hebrew—preserved traces of their former phonetic hab-its. Yet, among native speakers uniformity emerged as the result of a natural process, distinguishing native pronunciation from all of its non-native antecedents (Blanc 1964; Reshef forthcoming [a]). Two varieties developed within native pronunciation, ‘general’ and ‘ori-ental’, the latter peculiar to those native speak-ers of oriental origin who retained up to three consonants from the Sephardi stock: the gut-turals ח ™ and ע ≠ and the alveolar ר r (Morag 1959:251–253; Blanc 1964). Attempts to base normative pronunciation on the oriental variety of Hebrew failed, as speakers granted prestige to non-oriental pronunciation due to socio-linguistic factors (Bar-Asher 1990:140–142; Téné 1996:222–229).

During the revival period, efforts were made by certain teachers to form a separate pro-nunciation system in the Galilee. The dialect, known primarily for the uniform realization of as /b/, seemed to have taken root at the onset בof the 20th century, but disappeared after World War I (Bar-Adon 1975).

3. M o r p h o l o g y

Morphology was predominantly based on the inventory of previous linguistic layers. Nev-ertheless, the combination of features created during the revival—first in writing, and later in speech as well—does not directly continue any specific historical stage (Morag 1959:255). Generally speaking, biblical morphology was preferred to rabbinic morphology, due to nor-mative considerations and to the only partial familiarity with post-biblical morphology at the time of the revival (Rabin 1985:277; Gold-enberg 1996:161–162). Yet, the rabbinic inven-tory also operated in the formation of modern morphology, and its legacy may be observed in various domains.

One course of influence of rabbinic mor-phology regarded the selection of forms. Most morphological categories absent from post-biblical Hebrew were rejected by modern usage.

Thus, for instance, patently biblical categories, such as the jussive and the cohortative, waw consecutive forms, and the infinitive absolute were not incorporated into the modern verbal system (Kutscher 1982:197). Whereas the pres-ence of such forms in texts from the revival period greatly exceeds contemporary norms, they no longer formed an integral part of the period’s verbal system, but fulfill a mere stylis-tic function (Reshef 2000–2001). Due to these selection processes, the Modern Hebrew tense system is much more similar in its overall orga-nization to the Mishnaic than to the biblical verbal system. Yet, the exact functions of each verbal category are not necessarily identical in Mishnaic and Modern Hebrew, but reflect a new alignment created during the emergence processes of the modern linguistic system (see for instance the analysis of the changing roles of the active participle form provided by Zewi and Reshef 2009). Categories extant in both biblical and rabbinic Hebrew were normally incorporated into the modern system in their biblical forms. Thus, in the second person masculine, the biblical ֵּביְתָך betxa rather than the rabbinic ֵּביָתְך betax ‘your house’ is used. Likewise, the biblical forms of weak verbs (e.g., מצאנו maßanu ‘we found’ and לתת latet ‘to give’) are usually preferred over their rab-binic counterparts (i.e., מצינו maßinu and ליתן liten, respectively). Rabbinic morphology could prevail only if it was markedly simpler than its biblical equivalent, as in the case of the regular conjugation of certain weak verbs (e.g., לקיים leqayem or לחגוג la≤gog), which was preferred over the special forms used in Biblical Hebrew (i.e., לקומם leqomem and לחוג la≤og, respec-tively) (Blau 1981:156).

A further role of rabbinic morphology was to supplement the biblical inventory. Morpho-logical categories that were lacking or rare in Biblical Hebrew were taken over from Rab-binic Hebrew, such as verbal nouns (i.e., the use of פעולה šemot pe≠ula in place of שמות the biblical infinitive construct), the composite tense haya+participle (e.g., היה הולך haya holex ‘used to go’), which, though already found in Biblical Hebrew, especially in past contexts, is much more prevalent in all tenses in Rabbinic Hebrew, the verbal pattern שפעל šif≠el (which, in Modern Hebrew, is often used to denote nuances marked by the prefix ‘re-’ in English) or the nominal pattern קטלן qa†lan (which serves



as a nomen agentis, i.e., to denote a member of a specific profession or a person especially characterized by a certain trait). The decision to rely on rabbinic material to supplement the bib-lical inventory, as well as that to reject rabbinic forms that contradict biblical grammar, were made explicitly by the Language Committee in 1913 as the basis for language planning policy (Zixronot [1913]/1929:37).

The basic selection processes in the realm of morphology occurred in the early phases of the revival. Its roots may be found in the synthetic style introduced in the 1880s into literary writ-ing (Kutscher 1982:190; Glinert 1988), and it soon expanded into general use (Rabin 1985:282–284). By the early 1920s, the basic selec-tion of forms known from contemporary usage was already fully operative in non-literary texts. As opposed to the great morphological vari-ability which continued to mark the period’s literary production, non-literary texts written by speakers with good command of Hebrew featured relatively stable usage, with very few fluctuations (Reshef 2009). As a consequence, elements which became obsolete or were identi-fied with specific linguistic strata could be used by writers to achieve specific stylistic or literary goals (Harshav 1993:169; Dalmazky-Fischler 2001; Reshef 2000–2001; Reshef and Helman, 2009).

By contrast, most structural innovations seem to have developed only at a later stage, after the consolidation of the basic selection of forms from the inherited stock. Thus, for instance, new quadrilateral roots are found only sporadi-cally in texts from the 1920s, whereas there is a strong tendency in contemporary Hebrew to create such roots (Reshef 2009:161). Also sig-nificant is the fact that structural innovations are restricted as a rule to the field of derivation, while in the field of inflection, the classical paradigms were almost totally preserved. Devi-ations in speakers’ performance mainly reflect morphophonemic rather than morphological factors. However, further diachronic studies are needed in order to shed light on the formation processes of the modern morphological system throughout the revival period.

4. S y n t a x

Syntax is the least researched area. It is evi-dent that European models played a crucial

role in shaping it, particularly its macrostruc-tures (complex sentences, paragraphs, overall discourse organization) (Rosén 1956:128–133; Harshav 1993:169). Yet, inherited models had a seminal impact as well. Phrase structure draws mainly on biblical models, while sentence struc-ture relies heavily on the inventory of Rabbinic Hebrew (Schwarzwald 2001:47). The paratac-tic syntax peculiar to Biblical Hebrew (i.e., the preference for clauses joined by coordinat-ing rather than subordinating conjunctions) was almost entirely rejected by modern usage (Kutscher 1982:197). Rabbinic syntax, on the other hand, better corresponds to European modes of expression, and could support the needs of modern expression without blatantly deviating from the inherited inventory. Conse-quently, many features of modern syntax cor-respond simultaneously both to inherited and foreign models (Blau 1981:156–157).

Diachronic studies have pointed out several trends in the syntactic processes undergone by Hebrew during the revival period. Certain devel-opments started to occur already in the writings of the Haskala and the revival generation (see, e.g., Dubnov 2004; Reshef 2004), while others followed speech revival and occurred within the emergent speech community in Palestine (see, e.g., Mishor 1994; Reshef 2004). In most cases, the emergence of new usages in the realm of syntax may be attributed to a combination of factors, and while foreign influence often triggered the mechanisms of change, the out-come of these processes occasionally resulted in usages peculiar to Hebrew. For instance, a certain class of modern parenthetical adver-bial clauses developed to include an obligatory bound pronoun (e.g., לצערי le-ßa≠ari ‘unfor-tunately’, literally ‘to my sorrow’), whereas the parallel constructions in Russian, German, and Yiddish feature an impersonal option as well (Dubnov 2004:68–70, 75–76). Likewise, Modern Hebrew asyndetic relative clauses (→ Relative Clauses: Modern Hebrew) differ structurally in certain details from both the Yid-dish and the English constructions which may have been involved in their emergence (Reshef 2004). Often, syntactic changes did not involve the introduction of new forms into the language, but resulted from the acquisition of new func-tions on the part of biblical and postbiblical ele-ments. As changes in elements’ distribution or functions seem to have outnumbered the scope



of genuine structural innovations (Goldenberg 1996:165–167), a relatively large measure of external affinity with the inherited syntax was retained.

5. V o c a b u l a r y a n d S e m a n t i c S t r u c t u r e

In the field of vocabulary the entire inventory of the traditional Hebrew sources was treated as a synchronic repository, and elements from all linguistic layers were fused together quite randomly into a new lexical structure. To be sure, in certain cases basic lexical items inher-ited from Biblical Hebrew function in contem-porary language as everyday words, while their postbiblical counterparts belong to a higher reg-ister (e.g., biblical עץ ≠eß ‘tree’ versus mishnaic ilan). Yet, the impact of such diachronic± אילןconsiderations on the shaping processes of the modern lexicon was by no means comprehen-sive. Early lexical items could be preferred over their later equivalents or vice versa (e.g., the biblical ארוחה ±aru≤a ‘meal’ is used rather than the rabbinic סעודה se≠uda, whereas rabbinic la≤zor ‘to return’ is used rather than its לחזורbiblical counterpart לשוב lašuv), and no sys-tematic selection patterns between historical synonyms have been unveiled. Local explana-tions may be provided in certain cases for the acceptance or rejection of specific inherited lexical items, e.g., the tendency to avoid hom-onyms (as in the case of עין ≠ayin ‘eye’ versus ‘spring, water source; Modern Hebrew prefers ,ma≠ayan for the later meaning). Yet מעייןsuch explanations do not form into clear or systematic selection patterns within the entire inherited lexicon (Rosén 1956:98–99; Bendavid 1967:3–6; Kutscher 1982:198).

The great familiarity with biblical vocabulary enabled the absolute majority of the biblical inventory to be utilized (Kutscher 1982:196). Conversely, the contribution of later linguistic layers could not be nearly as comprehensive due to the only partial familiarity with their lexicon. Many postbiblical words penetrated Modern Hebrew through the mediation of secondary sources, such as the prayer book or popu-lar biblical commentaries (Kutscher 1982:191, 203–204); Unfamiliar postbiblical words, con-versely, were mainly reintroduced into use through the deliberate efforts of grammarians and writers in an effort to enrich the active

vocabulary of Hebrew. The Hebrew compo-nent in Jewish languages may have operated in two opposing directions: while it facilitated the penetration of familiar words into the standard vocabulary of Modern Hebrew, those words which acquired pejorative connotations in Diaspora life or were patently identified with Yiddish were often rejected (e.g., פרנס parnas ‘head of community’ or מלמד melamed ‘instructor’) (Kutscher 1982:226; Harshav 1993:167–168).

The vast secularization processes which accompanied the revival are reflected in the loss of many words’ former associations with sacred issues (e.g., מוסף musaf ‘additional prayer’ > ‘newspaper supplement’) (Kutscher 1982:225).

The inherited material was conspicuous in determining words forms, whereas meanings and semantic scope were often intrinsically new, reflecting the seminal impact of European semantic structures (Rosén 1977:86, 87, 89). Thus, “a classically attested word can be—due to its novel content—just as new as an unat-tested one”, such as חשמל ≤ašmal ‘electric-ity’ (against the biblical meaning ‘electrum’ or ‘amber’), מכונה mexona ‘machine’ (in Bibli-cal Hebrew ‘base’), and many more (Rosén 1977:82; and see the many examples provided by Blau 1981:chapter 4). Phraseology likewise is based to a great extent on loan translations (Blau 1981: chapter 4; Harshav 1993:169). Consequently, the semantic structure of the contemporary lexicon should not necessarily be analyzed as the outcome of semantic shifts based on a word’s meaning in previous linguis-tic layers, but mirrors to a great extent Euro-pean semantic structure (Harshav 1993:170; Rosén 1997:86, 87, 89).

The possible contribution of two Semitic languages, Arabic and Aramaic, was widely debated on during the early phases of the revival (Zixronot 1914:3–66; Bar-Asher 1990 7–8), but subsequent cultural and social processes severed speakers’ ties with both languages, limiting their impact on the modern lexicon (Bar-Asher 1995:11–12; Bar-Asher 1996).

Lexical expansion through intensive word-coining activity has accompanied the emer-gence processes of Modern Hebrew from its inception. Alongside the deliberate activity of writers and language planners, many unsuper-vised neologisms have been created by mem-bers of the general public, such as journalists



or administrators (Morag 1959:258–259; Kutscher 1982:267). As already noted, in addi-tion to its impact on the modernization of the lexicon itself, this activity has also affected grammatical structure by determining the rela-tive share of productive derivation mechanisms in the contemporary linguistic system.

6. O r t h o g r a p h y a n d T r a n s l i t e r a t i o n

Standardization of spelling occurred in two phases. In 1904, the teacher’s association adopted David Yellin’s proposals for the sys-tematization of the inconsistent inventory of the Masoretic text. Yellin’s rules were since generally applied to vocalized texts, and led to uniformity in spelling in this domain. Unvo-calized texts, which constitute the majority of the written material produced and consumed, posed a much graver problem, as the sparse use of matres lectionis in Yellin’s system proved to be impractical. After decades of debate (includ-ing proposals for comprehensive reforms in Hebrew orthography and for the Romanization of Hebrew script), a set of rules was first pub-lished in 1948, ratified in 1968, and has since been amended several times (Weinberg 1972; Ben-Hayyim 1992:177–227). Despite efforts for standardization, however, uniformity of spelling has not been achieved in unvocalized texts down to our day. Yet, the early phases in the consolidation of modern usage are charac-terized by much greater fluctuation and by the spare use of matres lectionis as compared to contemporary practice.

Rules for the incorporation of foreign words into Hebrew were first proposed towards the end of the 19th century (Klaus-ner [1896/]1949:60–68). The former reliance on the rules of Yiddish script was replaced with practices that better conform to classical Hebrew models, and suggestions were made for the partial adaptation of borrowed words to Hebrew morphology. Thus, the use of Hebrew suffixes such as ון- -on (e.g., היסטוריון his†oryón ‘historian’) or ה- -a (e.g., אוניברסיטה univérsi†a ‘university’) lessen the deviation of borrowed words from Hebrew morphological patterns. Transcription rules were also dealt with by the Language Committee in order to minimize fluctuation of usage (Ben-Hayyim 1992:228–245).

7. D i s t i n c t i v e F e a t u r e s o f t h e R e v i v a l P e r i o d

Language use throughout the revival period was extremely varied. Speakers’ backgrounds dif-fered considerably not only in terms of mother tongues and command of the modern usage of Hebrew, but also in their familiarity with tra-ditional linguistic styles and in their willingness to imitate them. Stylistic norms encouraged the use of elevated language in written texts and in formal circumstances, and prevented the emerging standard from penetrating many text types (Even-Zohar 1996; Reshef forthcoming [b]). Yet, the continuity between contemporary usage and the language of the revival period is evident, and the foundations laid during that phase clearly form the basis for contemporary practices (Reshef 2009).

Nonetheless, not all features that were com-mon to the early texts were successfully inte-grated into the emerging standard, and many usages that seemed established in the language during the revival period eventually disappeared at a later stage. Despite the absence of system-atic descriptions, certain such examples may be provided. These include, inter alia, the employ-ment of the feminine suffix ה- -a alongside ת- -et/-at (e.g., נמרצה nimraßa ‘vigorous’ alongside ’mußla≤a ‘successful מוצלחה ,nimreßet נמרצתalongside מוצלחת mußla≤at, מיועדה meyu≠ada ‘designated’ alongside מיועדת meyu±edet) (Reshef 2009:155–157), the preservation of the definite article -ה ha- after the prepositions be-ha-bayit ‘in the בהבית ,.le- (e.g ל- be- and ב-house’, להאדון le-ha-±adon ‘to the gentleman), the use of איזו ±ezo as an undeclined indefinite pronoun (e.g., ספרים ezo sfarim ‘some± איזו books’), the expression of the superlative by the definite article+yoter+adjective (e.g., היותר גדול ha-yoter gadol ‘the biggest’), various idiosyn-cratic particles (e.g., עם be-qešer ≠im ‘in בקשר connection with’, על דבר ≠al dvar ‘about’, בעד be≠ad ‘for’, לרגלי le-ragle ‘on occasion of’ rather than לרגל le-regel), or the use of honorifics in certain text types (Reshef 2002).

The period’s lexical peculiarities were gath-ered in Ornan’s (1996) comprehensive dic-tionary, which includes rare usages alongside common, repeatedly recurring usages.

The period’s lexicon is marked by depen-dency on foreign vocabulary, which manifests in the diffusion of both foreign words and



neologisms intended to replace them (Maman 1997:151–152). Also significant are the changes which have occurred since the revival period in words meanings (e.g., ציור ßiyur ‘description’, which was eventually replaced by תיאור te±ur) as well as in words usage (e.g., לחפוץ la≤poß ‘to want’, which has since acquired a literary connotation, or שירות šerut ‘service’, which was perceived in the revival period as feminine, see Avinery 1964:589–590). Standardization in the realm of collocations resulted in the rejection of many combinations that are extant in texts from the revival period (e.g., סידר sider ‘arrange, take care of’, which was freely used with a great variety of nouns, e.g., סידר סידר ,’sider yešiva ‘summoned a meeting ישיבההחשבון ,’sider ±et ha-≤ešbon ‘set the bill את מנורות ,’sider menorot ‘installed lamps סידר דו"ח (.sider dua≤ ‘wrote a report’, etc סידר (Rosén 1992; Reshef 2009:169, n. 54).

Initially, words’ semantic boundaries were not clearly delineated, and lexical items derived from the same root were often used inter-changeably. Over time differentiation processes occurred, rendering certain usages outdated. Thus, for instance, מחזה ma≤aze today refers to ‘a theatrical play’, whereas חיזיון ≤izayon may no longer be used in this sense; similarly, ייעוד te≠uda ‘destiny’ was replaced by תעודהyi≠ud, העתקה ha≠ataqa ‘copy’ by העתק he≠eteq, etc. Such processes were particularly common in the field of verbal nouns, as in the case of ,hitnahagut התנהגות < ’hanhaga ‘conduct הנהגה ,ma±amaß מאמץ < ’hit±amßut ‘effort התאמצות ,bniya בנייה < ’binyan ‘construction בניין šimuš and שימוש < ’hištamšut ‘use השתמשותmany more (Reshef 2009:167). The fluctuation between verbal patterns was also standardized, as in the case of הספיק hispiq ‘supply’ versus contemporary סיפק sipeq (Maman 1997:155; Reshef 2009:164–166).

Analyses of some of the period’s pecu-liarities have indicated that—contrary to the accepted assumption that contempo-rary Hebrew gradually drifts away from its Semitic roots—grammar and lexicon during the revival period do not necessarily better correspond to the classical models than do contemporary usages. In many cases, early forms which reflected foreign influence or insufficient mastery of Hebrew were substi-tuted in subsequent years with forms that bet-ter conformed to the classical models (Rosén

1977:31; 1992; Maman 1997:157). This unexpected conclusion highlights the indis-pensable need for detailed descriptions of the textual inventory of the revival period as a prerequisite for a better understanding of the emergence processes of Modern Hebrew.

R e f e r e n c e sAvinery, Isaac. 1964. Yad hallaschon. Tel-Aviv:

Izreel.Bar-Adon, Aaron. 1975. The rise and decline of a

dialect: A study in the revival of modern Hebrew. The Hague: Mouton.

Bar-Asher, Moshe. 1990. “≠al ha-≠ekronot bi-kevi≠at ha-norma be-dikduk be-va≠ad ha-lašon u-va-±akademya la-lašon”. Lłšonénu 44:127–150.

——. 1995. “Fabrication of words in the Hebrew Language Committee and in the Academy of the Hebrew Language” (in Hebrew). Lłšonénu La≠am 47:3–18.

——. 1996. “Meqoma šel ha-±aramit ba-≠ivrit ha-≤adaša”. Evolution and revival: Trends in the development of the Hebrew language, 14–76. Jeru-salem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.

Bendavid, Abba. 1967. Biblical Hebrew and Mish-naic Hebrew (in Hebrew). Vol. 1. Tel-Aviv: Dvir.

Ben-Hayyim, Ze±ev. 1992. The struggle for a lan-guage (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language.

Blanc, Haim. 1954. “The growth of Israeli Hebrew”. Middle Eastern Affairs 5:385–392.

——. 1957. “Qeta≠ šel dibur ≠ivri yisre±eli”. Lłšonénu 21:34–39.

——. 1964. “Israeli Hebrew texts”. Studies in Egyp-tology and linguistics in honour of H. J. Polotsky, ed. by H. B. Rosén, 132–152. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

——. 1968. “The Israeli koine as an emergent national standard”. Language problems of devel-oping nations, ed. by Joshua A Fishman et al., 237–251. New York: Wiley.

Blau, Joshua. 1981. The renaissance of Modern Hebrew and Modern Standard Arabic. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Dalmazky-Fischler, Brakha. 2001. “Archaism in the language of Hazaz and Agnon” (in Hebrew). Jeru-salem Studies in Hebrew Literature 18:187–204.

Dubnov, Qeren. 2004. “The development of paren-thesis with emotional meaning in Modern Hebrew” (in Hebrew). Lłšonénu 67:65–77.

Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1996. “The emergence of a native Hebrew culture in Palestine, 1882–1948”. Essential papers on Zionism, ed. by Jehuda Rein-harz and Anita Shapira, 727–744. New York: New York University Press.

Gadish, Ronit. 2007. “Adjectives expressing possibil-ity: An analysis of the Hebrew Language Acad-emy terms database and of Hebrew lexicons” (in Hebrew). Sha≠arei lashon, ed. by Aharon Maman et al., vol. 3, 55–70. Jerusalem: Bialik.

Glinert, Lewis. 1988. “Did pre-revival Hebrew lit-erature have its own ‘langue’? Quotation and improvization in Mendele Mokher Sefarim”. Bul-letin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 51:413–427.

revival of hebrew: hebrew component of jewish languages 405


Goitein, Shelomo Dov. 1945. On the teaching of Hebrew in Palestinian schools (in Hebrew). Tel-Aviv: Yavne.

Goldenberg, Gideon. 1996. “Ha-≠ivrit ke-lašon šemit ≤aya”. Evolution and revival: Trends in the devel-opment of the Hebrew language, 148–168. Jerusa-lem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.

Harshav, Benjamin. 1993. Language in time of revo-lution. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Izre’el, Shlomo. 2002. “The emergence of spoken Israeli Hebrew” (in Hebrew). Te’uda 18, ed. by Shlomo Izre’el, 217–238. Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv Uni-versity.

——. Forthcoming. Mexonat ha-dibur be-tor more safot: Po medabrim ≠ivrit, ed. by Shlomo Izre’el. Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University Press.

Kaddari, Menahem Zevi. 1980. “Mavo le-te±ur maßav ha-me≤qar ba-≠ivrit ha-yisre±elit (1974)” (in Hebrew). Rabbi Joseph H. Lookstein memorial volume, ed. by Leo Landman, יז–כג. New York: Ktav.

Klausner, Joseph. [1896/]1949. Ha-lašon ha-≠ivrit—lašon ≤aya. 2nd revised edition. Jerusalem: Va≠ad ha-Lašon.

Kutscher, Edward Yechezkel. 1982. A history of the Hebrew language. Jerusalem: Magnes.

Lipschütz, Eliezer Meir. [1917/]1949. Ketavim, vol. 2. Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook.

Maman, Aharon. 1997. “Uzzi Ornan’s Dictionary of Forgotten Words” (in Hebrew). Lłšonénu La≠am 48:147–157.

Mishor, Mordechay. 1994. “The order of the pro-nouns אותו-לו” (in Hebrew). Lłšonénu La≠am 45:147–156.

Morag, Shelomo. 1959. “Planned and unplanned development in Modern Hebrew”. Lingua 8:247–263.

Ornan, Uzzi. 1996. The words not taken: A diction-ary of forgotten words (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: Magnes.

Rabin, Chaim. 1985. “Biblical and mishnaic ele-ments in contemporary Hebrew” (in Hebrew). Language Studies 1:273–285.

——. 1999. “Me hayta t≤iyat ha-lašon ha-≠ivrit”. Linguistic studies, ed. by Moshe Bar-Asher and Barak Dan, 359–376. Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language.

Reshef, Yael. 2000–2001. “Biblical verbal forms in Hebrew folksong” (in Hebrew). Lłšonénu 63:107–129.

——. 2002. “The sociolinguistic phenomenon of V-form in Hebrew in the British Mandate period”. (in Hebrew). Te’uda 18, ed. by Shlomo Izre’el, 299–327. Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University.

——. 2004. “The Modern Hebrew asyndetic relative clause: The rise of a new syntactic mechanism”. Folia Linguistica Historica 25:115–134.

——. 2009. “Continuity versus change in the emer-gence of standard Modern Hebrew: The verbal system in the early Mandate period” (in Hebrew). Modern Hebrew: Two hundred and fifty years, ed. by Chaim E. Cohen, 143–176. Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language.

——. Forthcoming [a]. “Ha-≠ivrit ha-meduberet bi-tqufat hithavutah: Sugyat meqorot ha-meda≠ ”. In Izre’el, forthcoming.

——. Forthcoming [b]. “Hitbasesut ha-dibur ha-≠ivri bi-tqufat ha-manda†”. In Izre’el, forthcoming.

——. Forthcoming [c]. “ ‘The language that follows speech will not be the same as the one that pre-ceded it’: Spoken Hebrew in the pre-state period”. Journal of Jewish Studies.

Reshef, Yael and Anat Helman. 2009. “Instructing or recruiting? Language and style in 1920s and 1930s Tel Aviv municipal posters”. Jewish Studies Quarterly 16:306–332.

Rosén, Haiim. 1956. Ha-≠ivrit šelanu. Tel-Aviv: Am Oved.

——. 1977. Contemporary Hebrew. The Hague: Mouton.

——. 1992. “Zutot me-hitgabšutah šel ha-≠ivrit ha-yisre±elit”. Ha-≤ug ha-yisre±eli šel ≤avrei ha-≤evra ha-±eropit le-valšanut, divrei ha-mifgaš ha-šmini, 33–39.

Schwarzwald (Rodrigue), Ora. 1990. “Stress shifts in Modern Hebrew” (in Hebrew). Šay le-Chaim Rabin, ed. Moshe Goshen-Gottstein et al., 393–414. Jerusalem: Akademon.

Shahevitch, Boaz. 1967. “±arba≠ lešonot: ≠iyunim šel sifrut bi-lšon ha-maskilim ≠al pi ‘ha-me±asef’”. Molad 1:236–242.

Téné, David. 1996. “Šaloš he≠arot ≠al haxvanat ha-lašon ha-≠ivrit”. Evolution and revival: Trends in the development of the Hebrew language, 212–241. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.

Weinberg, Werner. 1972. The orthographic reform of Hebrew (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: Magnes.

Wexler, Paul. 1990. The schizoid nature of Modern Hebrew: A Slavic language in search of a Semitic past. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

Zewi, Tamar and Yael Reshef. 2009. “The active participle and temporal expression in Hebrew” (in Hebrew). Lłšonénu 71:315–344.

Zixronot va≠ad ha-lašon. 1914. Booklet 4. Jerusalem: Va≠ad ha-Lašon.

——. [1913/]1929. Booklets 1–3, 2nd edition. Jeru-salem: Va≠ad ha-Lašon.

Zuckermann, Ghil’ad. 2008. Israeli, a beautiful lan-guage (in Hebrew). Tel-Aviv: Am Oved.

Yael Reshef (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

Revival of Hebrew: Hebrew Component of Jewish Languages

Over the centuries Jewish languages have absorbed numerous Hebrew words and expres-sions. When Hebrew began to be revived as a spoken language the Hebrew component in various Jewish languages also contributed its share. Since Modern Hebrew speech required the use of a Hebrew lexicon, the Jewish lan-guages were mined for their numerous Hebrew words and phrases, which were easily inte-grated into the renewed Hebrew speech.

"Revival of Hebrew: Grammatical Structure and Lexicon", in Geoffrey Khan et al. (eds.), Encyclopedia...

Documents

Transcript of "Revival of Hebrew: Grammatical Structure and Lexicon", in Geoffrey Khan et al. (eds.), Encyclopedia...