Delodephius wrote:Can an artificial language be placed under a living language group? Like for example Esperanto being an artificial Indo-European language? First we would need to determine whether a language group means common origin or common features.
Delodephius wrote:Can an artificial language be placed under a living language group?
Like for example Esperanto being an artificial Indo-European language?
linguoboy wrote:Except that common features can--and are--frequently borrowed. That doesn't mean we shouldn't ever use them as criteria for groupings, but that it's probably misleading to apply the term "family" (which implies direct descent from a common ancestor) to such groupings.
pittmirg wrote:I'll add that the term "Sprachbund" is usually applied in case of such unrelated languages that have become somewhat similar to each other due to borrowing of vocabulary and grammar, i.e. convergention rather than common descent.
linguoboy wrote:Sprachbünde can include languages both with and without a common ancestor. The most famous of them all, the Balkan Sprachbund, only involves Indo-European languages. They are similar to each other due both to convergence and common descent.
formiko wrote:Hebrew is artificial, created almost 100% by Ben-Yehuda.
The main difference between Esperanto and Hebrew is Esperanto originated with one man, Hebrew was primarily a committee.
formiko wrote:Actually, I've asked people who speak Hebrew, and they can read the OT, but they would rather read it in Modern Hebrew.
Many of the grammatical tenses are simplified. I don't know all the details.
I also know that Jews spoke Hebrew only for religious services in the 1800s.
Hebrew was for religion, Yiddish was for every day talk.
Like you said, it was from parts lying around.
So was Esperanto for that matter. Esperanto is not an a priori language like Klingon. Hebrew was not spoken as a vernacular until Israel was created and they chose Ben Yehuda's retooling of Ancient Hebrew.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest