This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of standardized, informative and easy-to-use resources about languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Small minority does not override scholarship per wikipedia rules
The vast majority of scholars support the obvious conclusion that Hebrew is a Semetic language. The standard policy of wikipedia is only to report disputes between large ammounts of scholars. 220.127.116.11 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
i think it's should be mentioned that most of the mizrahi people in israel from the third gereration have changed their accent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs)
Shlomo Izre'el focuses on the "emergency" of "Spoken Israeli Hebrew" in terms of a "creation of a new language" Shouldn't that be "emergence"? --22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Tagged this wording in the lead as dubious , but didn't want to just delete it . The remarkable thing about Ivrit is that , apart perhaps from Sanskrit , it is AFAIK the only successful language-revival project in history . If it's not exactly a constructed language , it's not a direct continuation either , as the chain of transmission as a native language was broken . Cultural , maybe , but not linguistic in any direct sense . Thus Shlomo Izre'el's comment quoted above . Certainly something so remarkable should be displayed prominently in the lead . Instead we say that Modern Hebrew was "developed" in the late 19th century , wording that could be used for any standardized language . We also attribute it to one man , which is practically impossible : Hebrew didn't become a living language again until it acquired a community of native speakers , who took it in their own direction . — kwami (talk) 07:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
The section implies that many, if not all linguists who argue against the continuity between Ancient and Modern Hebrew are anti-semites.
Much of the section discusses the political implications of the language's classification instead of the language's actual, current grammar.
Any suggestions, besides just scrapping the section altogether?
Hi, first of all, make sure you sign at the end of your comment next time. Secondly, I just read through the article, removed information that has been unsourced for years, and put that "forward" article in the proper place. If there's anything else you think we should improve in the article, please be specific and give examples. Thanks, Yambaram (talk) 11:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)