Can Modern Hebrew be considered an Indo-European language?

Question

According to this Wikipedia page

Zuckermann argues that Israeli Hebrew, which he calls "Israeli", is genetically both Indo-European (Germanic, Slavic and Romance) and Afro-Asiatic (Semitic). He suggests that Israeli Hebrew is the continuation not only of literary Hebrew but also of Yiddish, as well as Polish, Russian, German, English, Ladino, Arabic and other languages spoken by Hebrew revivalists.

How common is this opinion among scholars? What parts or aspects of the Modern Hebrew have significant Indo-European characteristics, and what part Semitic?

Answer 1

As a linguist whose native language is Hebrew, I am somewhat qualified to answer this question.

The fact that Modern Hebrew has heavy influences from both Semitic and European sources is pretty much universally accepted. That said, Zuckermann, who is a brilliant scholar otherwise, is also a known provocateur who tends to overstate his ideas when writing for a non-academic audience. Hence his constant nagging about changing the language's name and the talk about mixed language genetics. There are even more extreme opinions around, such that Modern Hebrew is a fully Slavic language with a relexified Semitic vocabulary, but they are not taken seriously by most.

Ignoring the extremist opinions, though - generally speaking, Modern Hebrew's is a complex beast with a syntax that is heavily Slavic/Germanic, but morphology that is distinctly Semitic. The standard phonology used by most speakers also has its roots in Germanic languages, but there are still groups of speakers (whose families are non-European immigrants) who retain other Hebrew phonology traditions. The vocabulary is mostly based on old Hebrew (though a lot of words were given new, modern meanings in a conscious effort), with the usual large set of loan words found in languages spoken by a population consisting of a lot of immigrants.

Answer 2

The take of an Israeli linguist:

There must be a consensus among scholars about one thing: Modern Israeli Hebrew emerged as a result of language revival, and as such its development from its so-called origins is different from the development of nearly all other living languages today (and all fully-fledged languages spoken by a monolingual community). At the absence of documented precedents of language revival, there can't be any research-based 'developmental model' relevant for Modern Hebrew, so any 'scholarly' opinion, even by the most learned and experienced historical linguists, would be of limited value. It is not proper to compare contact influences of Norman French on English or Slavonic on Romanian etc., because English/Romanian/etc. were living mother tongues at the time they were influenced, while Modern Israeli Hebrew, at its very beginning, was not.

I think most scholars think that Zuckermann claims the obvious: Hebrew was revived by speakers of other languages (mostly Indo-European), albeit with profound knowledge of Classical Hebrew (a semitic language) as a second language. It is thus inevitable that the revived language would bear grammar components of both Classical Hebrew and the revivers' native language(s). Very few linguists would be concerned with this question further, because linguists are language analysts - they analyze language components, which are uncountable and unweightable - one can't really say 'there are N,M,O Classical Hebrew components with the respective weights 1/2/3, P,Q Yiddish components with weights 1,2, X independently-innovated components with weight 1, therefore Modern Hebrew is Semitic/Indo-European/What-have-you'. Once we agree that Modern Hebrew emerged based on substantial contributions of two or more sources, it makes little scientific sense characterize the language 'as a whole'. Zuckermann's insistence on discussing the holistic nature of Modern Hebrew as 'mixed', and his dedication of time and effort to this discussion, is simply considered as non-scientific. This is further exacerbated by his insistence on the label, i.e. the use of 'Israeli' instead of 'Hebrew'. Thus, it is most likely that scholars would merely dismiss Zuckermann's strong claims about the nature and origin of Modern Hebrew, but at the same time agree with some/most of his specific claims about the origin of specific components of Modern Hebrew grammar.

The second part of the original question is particularly problematic: Is a grammatical component retained from Classical Hebrew essentially 'Semitic'? What if it had been borrowed into Classical Hebrew from Classical Egyptian or from Philistine? Is a component retained from Yiddish necessarily 'Indo-European'? What if it was a Yiddish innovation not shared with any Indo-European language? What if it was borrowed into Yiddish from Liturgical Hebrew, and it's retention in Modern Hebrew is faithful to its use in Yiddish, not in Liturgical Hebrew? What about Modern Hebrew grammatical innovations, which are plenty (e.g. the stress system)? Can they be assigned any genetic label other than 'Modern Hebrew'?

Answer 3

If Hebrew is really an Indo-European language due to contact with Indo-European then English is a Romance language due to Norman French and a ton of loans from Latin. What nonsense. Languages don't go about changing what family they descend from. English certainly is not a continuation of Norman French!

You can make a new language through creolization, is this Zuckermann claiming that Hebrew is a creole? Dixon's punctuated equilibrium model (see "The Rise and Fall of Languages") doesn't explain Hebrew either as it needs more time and several languages to work with.

Then there are some that consider Modern Hebrew to be a naturalized conlang (constructed language that has become a natural language through use). If that is the case it doesn't really descend from anything.

Answer 4

I don't think this is a common opinion. The fact that one language has been significantly influenced by other languages from other families does not change its origin. It may change some core aspects of the language, but it remains Semitic.

The same thing could apply to Gypsy language - it has many forms in different countries that are heavily influenced - both lexically and grammatically - by the "host" country languages, however the gypsy language remains of Indic origin.

Another interesting, related case is the Balkan language area. Romanian, for example, has taken a lot of features from Slavic languages, but it is still Romance language.

To conclude - In my opinion changes in the language should not be taken into account when genealogy is concerned.

Answer 5

Actually, Zuckermanns hybridisation hypothesis is not as extreme as the relexification approach suggested by Horvath & Wexler (1997: Relexification in Creole and Non-Creole Languages). Zuckermann rejects the notion of Modern Hebrew (or, as he likes to call it, 'Israeli') being a Slavic language with a Hebrew lexicon, but he also rejects the traditional revivalist approach, according to which Modern Hebrew is a genetic successor of Ancient Hebrew. This is, as mentioned in a post above, stating the obvious, and there is nothing disquieting about it. However, the notion of Modern Hebrew being a hybrid and not 'purely' Semitic can be viewed as a threat to the idea of a linguistic return to one's Semitic roots, hence the 'shock' Zuckermann's theories have caused.