Subject: Which 2 languages surprised people by being mutually intelligible?

In this example by Alexey Tereshchenko, Ragusan sailors working for
the British were able to interpret the speech of captured Russian
sailors. Given the location of the former Ragusa, the Ragusan sailors
spoke a predecessor of Dubrovnik Croation. The Russian sailors
spoke Archangelsk Russian.
<https://www.quora.com/Which-2-languages-seem-like-they-would-be-mutually-unintelligible-but-actually-are-intelligible/answer/Alexey-Tereshchenko>

I once read an anecdote that a Lithuanian or Latvian (I forget which)
was found to be able to understand substantial portions of an
ancient Sanskrit text without having learned Sanskrit. I haven't saved
a reference but a Lithuanian Linas Vytautas Slotkus provides
examples:

Sanskrit:
Kas tvam asi? Asmi svapnas tava tamase nakte. Agniṃ dadau te śradi
tada viśpatir devas tvam asi.
Lithuanian:
Kas tu esi? Esmi sapnas tavo tamsioje naktyje. Ugnį daviau tau širdy,
tada viešpatis dievas tu esi.
English:
Who are you? A dream in your dark night. I gave you the fire in your heart,
so you are god our lord.
Sanskrit:
Kas tava sūnus?
Lithuanian:
Kas tavo sūnus?
English:
Who is your son?

He comments: It’s no wonder that many scholars who want to study
Sanskrit study Lithuanian first.
<https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-Sanskrit-is-related-to-Lithuanian-If-one-knows-Lithuanian-would-one-also-know-Sanskrit/answer/Linas-Vytautas-Slotkus>

On 21/04/2023 3:32 p.m., Dingbat wrote:
> Subject: Which 2 languages surprised people by being mutually intelligible?
>
> In this example by Alexey Tereshchenko, Ragusan sailors working for
> the British were able to interpret the speech of captured Russian
> sailors. Given the location of the former Ragusa, the Ragusan sailors
> spoke a predecessor of Dubrovnik Croation. The Russian sailors
> spoke Archangelsk Russian.
> <https://www.quora.com/Which-2-languages-seem-like-they-would-be-mutually-unintelligible-but-actually-are-intelligible/answer/Alexey-Tereshchenko>

What date is this supposed to be? With British, Russians and Ragusans
all together it sounds like the Napoleonic period.
And who was supposed to be surprised? I guess somebody who didn't know
about the Slavic language family.
Even today you should get some degree of understanding between Croatian
and Russian speakers in a situation like that.

> I once read an anecdote that a Lithuanian or Latvian (I forget which)
> was found to be able to understand substantial portions of an
> ancient Sanskrit text without having learned Sanskrit. I haven't saved
> a reference but a Lithuanian Linas Vytautas Slotkus provides
> examples:
>
> Sanskrit:
> Kas tvam asi? Asmi svapnas tava tamase nakte. Agniṃ dadau te śradi
> tada viśpatir devas tvam asi.
> Lithuanian:
> Kas tu esi? Esmi sapnas tavo tamsioje naktyje. Ugnį daviau tau širdy,
> tada viešpatis dievas tu esi.
> English:
> Who are you? A dream in your dark night. I gave you the fire in your heart,
> so you are god our lord.
> Sanskrit:
> Kas tava sūnus?
> Lithuanian:
> Kas tavo sūnus?
> English:
> Who is your son?
>
> He comments: It’s no wonder that many scholars who want to study
> Sanskrit study Lithuanian first.

I seriously doubt this.

It is true that 19th century Indo-European scholars were surprised at
the conservatism of Lithuanian -- a language with a very short written
history, and no great cultural or literary prestige.

But the above examples hardly amount to "substantial portions of an
ancient Sanskrit text". They are carefully constructed short sentences
built around undoubtedly cognate vocabulary items. A bit like the
proverb about "God gave teeth, God will give bread", cited here more
than once, which I assume is a Lithuanian original translated into
(pseudo?)Sanskrit, giving a similar effect.

And I wonder (though I have no means of checking) whether the result
might be a slightly pidginized version of one or both languages?

> <https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-Sanskrit-is-related-to-Lithuanian-If-one-knows-Lithuanian-would-one-also-know-Sanskrit/answer/Linas-Vytautas-Slotkus>
>

Op vrijdag 21 april 2023 om 07:55:12 UTC+2 schreef Ross Clark:
> On 21/04/2023 3:32 p.m., Dingbat wrote:

> > Subject: Which 2 languages surprised people by being mutually intelligible?
> > In this example by Alexey Tereshchenko, Ragusan sailors working for
> > the British were able to interpret the speech of captured Russian
> > sailors. Given the location of the former Ragusa, the Ragusan sailors
> > spoke a predecessor of Dubrovnik Croation. The Russian sailors
> > spoke Archangelsk Russian.
> > <https://www.quora.com/Which-2-languages-seem-like-they-would-be-mutually-unintelligible-but-actually-are-intelligible/answer/Alexey-Tereshchenko>
> What date is this supposed to be? With British, Russians and Ragusans
> all together it sounds like the Napoleonic period.
> And who was supposed to be surprised? I guess somebody who didn't know
> about the Slavic language family.
> Even today you should get some degree of understanding between Croatian
> and Russian speakers in a situation like that.
> > I once read an anecdote that a Lithuanian or Latvian (I forget which)
> > was found to be able to understand substantial portions of an
> > ancient Sanskrit text without having learned Sanskrit. I haven't saved
> > a reference but a Lithuanian Linas Vytautas Slotkus provides
> > examples:
> > Sanskrit:
> > Kas tvam asi? Asmi svapnas tava tamase nakte. Agniṃ dadau te śradi
> > tada viśpatir devas tvam asi.
> > Lithuanian:
> > Kas tu esi? Esmi sapnas tavo tamsioje naktyje. Ugnį daviau tau širdy,
> > tada viešpatis dievas tu esi.
> > English:
> > Who are you? A dream in your dark night. I gave you the fire in your heart,
> > so you are god our lord.
> > Sanskrit:
> > Kas tava sūnus?
> > Lithuanian:
> > Kas tavo sūnus?
> > English:
> > Who is your son?
> > He comments: It’s no wonder that many scholars who want to study
> > Sanskrit study Lithuanian first.

> I seriously doubt this.
> It is true that 19th century Indo-European scholars were surprised at
> the conservatism of Lithuanian -- a language with a very short written
> history, and no great cultural or literary prestige.
> But the above examples hardly amount to "substantial portions of an
> ancient Sanskrit text". They are carefully constructed short sentences
> built around undoubtedly cognate vocabulary items.

Yes, the short Dutch sentence "sta" = the Latin sentence "sta".

> A bit like the
> proverb about "God gave teeth, God will give bread", cited here more
> than once, which I assume is a Lithuanian original translated into
> (pseudo?)Sanskrit, giving a similar effect.
> And I wonder (though I have no means of checking) whether the result
> might be a slightly pidginized version of one or both languages?

> > <https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-Sanskrit-is-related-to-Lithuanian-If-one-knows-Lithuanian-would-one-also-know-Sanskrit/answer/Linas-Vytautas-Slotkus>

Mon, 5 Jun 2023 04:49:13 -0700 (PDT): "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> scribeva:
>Yes, the short Dutch sentence "sta" = the Latin sentence "sta".

Also Interlingua!

And Portuguese, está, pronounced shta.
--
Ruud Harmsen, https://rudhar.com

Op 5/06/2023 om 16:34 schreef Ruud Harmsen:
> Mon, 5 Jun 2023 04:49:13 -0700 (PDT): "littor...@gmail.com"
> <littoral.homo@gmail.com> scribeva:
>> Yes, the short Dutch sentence "sta" = the Latin sentence "sta".
>
> Also Interlingua!
>
> And Portuguese, está, pronounced shta.

In a previous life, the then vacation-in-Italy boyfriend of my sister
understood me correctly when I asked "is it my turn?" during a game.

I said "'s-t ã mè?" (is het aan mij?)
He understood "Sta a me?"

--
guido wugi

On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 11:25:12 AM UTC+5:30, Ross Clark wrote:
> On 21/04/2023 3:32 p.m., Dingbat wrote:
> > Subject: Which 2 languages surprised people by being mutually intelligible?
> >
> > In this example by Alexey Tereshchenko, Ragusan sailors working for
> > the British were able to interpret the speech of captured Russian
> > sailors. Given the location of the former Ragusa, the Ragusan sailors
> > spoke a predecessor of Dubrovnik Croation. The Russian sailors
> > spoke Archangelsk Russian.
> > <https://www.quora.com/Which-2-languages-seem-like-they-would-be-mutually-unintelligible-but-actually-are-intelligible/answer/Alexey-Tereshchenko>
> What date is this supposed to be?
>
Seems like during the Crimean war, in Florence Nightingale's lifetime. If there
are alternative possibilities, I don't know about them.
>
> With British, Russians and Ragusans
> all together it sounds like the Napoleonic period.
> And who was supposed to be surprised? I guess somebody who didn't know
> about the Slavic language family.
> Even today you should get some degree of understanding between Croatian
> and Russian speakers in a situation like that.
> > I once read an anecdote that a Lithuanian or Latvian (I forget which)
> > was found to be able to understand substantial portions of an
> > ancient Sanskrit text without having learned Sanskrit. I haven't saved
> > a reference but a Lithuanian Linas Vytautas Slotkus provides
> > examples:
> >
> > Sanskrit:
> > Kas tvam asi? Asmi svapnas tava tamase nakte. Agniṃ dadau te śradi
> > tada viśpatir devas tvam asi.
> > Lithuanian:
> > Kas tu esi? Esmi sapnas tavo tamsioje naktyje. Ugnį daviau tau širdy,
> > tada viešpatis dievas tu esi.
> > English:
> > Who are you? A dream in your dark night. I gave you the fire in your heart,
> > so you are god our lord.
> > Sanskrit:
> > Kas tava sūnus?
> > Lithuanian:
> > Kas tavo sūnus?
> > English:
> > Who is your son?
> >
> > He comments: It’s no wonder that many scholars who want to study
> > Sanskrit study Lithuanian first.
> I seriously doubt this.
>
> It is true that 19th century Indo-European scholars were surprised at
> the conservatism of Lithuanian -- a language with a very short written
> history, and no great cultural or literary prestige.
>
> But the above examples hardly amount to "substantial portions of an
> ancient Sanskrit text".
>
The claim was not about a contrived text but a long ancient Sanskrit text
which was not named. The one claimed to have understood passages
(several sentences at a stretch) in more than one portion of the text
natively spoke a Baltic language, Lithuanian if I remember correctly.
>
> They are carefully constructed short sentences
> built around undoubtedly cognate vocabulary items. A bit like the
> proverb about "God gave teeth, God will give bread", cited here more
> than once, which I assume is a Lithuanian original translated into
> (pseudo?)Sanskrit, giving a similar effect.
>
> And I wonder (though I have no means of checking) whether the result
> might be a slightly pidginized version of one or both languages?
>
> > <https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-Sanskrit-is-related-to-Lithuanian-If-one-knows-Lithuanian-would-one-also-know-Sanskrit/answer/Linas-Vytautas-Slotkus>
> >
> >
I just found this, also on Quora:

Which modern language is unchanged enough to be understood centuries
or millennia back? Not Greek or Hebrew even though they retain the names
of old languages. This anecdote claims that one who learned Latin could
understand Sardinian without learning it:
<https://www.quora.com/What-modern-language-is-so-unchanged-that-it-would-still-be-mostly-understood-if-a-person-went-back-500-years-1000-years-2000-years/answer/Susanna-Viljanen>

I comment:
There is a dialect of Greek named Katharevousa that scholars crafted. It
hybridized modern Greek and a classical Greek older than Biblical New
Testament Greek. Texts in it that don't use too many neologisms might be
understood by those who learned Greek classics. But the Greek government
was unsuccessful in getting people to accept it as the standard form of
Greek, so it is now used only for mottos, idioms and coining new Greek words.

In the case of Hebrew, modern Hebrew readers can understand ancient Hebrew
with some difficulty but those who know only ancient Hebrew would not
understand modern Hebrew. I don't know why; I haven't studied the matter.

On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 9:42:01 PM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:

> In the case of Hebrew, modern Hebrew readers can understand ancient Hebrew
> with some difficulty but those who know only ancient Hebrew would not
> understand modern Hebrew. I don't know why; I haven't studied the matter.

They think they can, but they can't, because when ben Yehuda and others
scoured the Bible for roots they could adapt to modern circumstances,
they discarded the ancient meanings (which pertained to a culture they
did not know, anyway).

Mon, 17 Jul 2023 06:26:40 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:

>On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 9:42:01?PM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:
>
>> In the case of Hebrew, modern Hebrew readers can understand ancient Hebrew
>> with some difficulty but those who know only ancient Hebrew would not
>> understand modern Hebrew. I don't know why; I haven't studied the matter.
>
>They think they can, but they can't, because when ben Yehuda and others
>scoured the Bible for roots they could adapt to modern circumstances,
>they discarded the ancient meanings

Some ancient meanings, I suppose, not all. And added some modern ones.
About how MSA relates to Qar'anic Arabic.

>(which pertained to a culture they did not know, anyway).

--
Ruud Harmsen, https://rudhar.com

On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 10:37:05 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Mon, 17 Jul 2023 06:26:40 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 9:42:01?PM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:

> >> In the case of Hebrew, modern Hebrew readers can understand ancient Hebrew
> >> with some difficulty but those who know only ancient Hebrew would not
> >> understand modern Hebrew. I don't know why; I haven't studied the matter.
> >They think they can, but they can't, because when ben Yehuda and others
> >scoured the Bible for roots they could adapt to modern circumstances,
> >they discarded the ancient meanings
>
> Some ancient meanings, I suppose, not all. And added some modern ones.
> About how MSA relates to Qar'anic Arabic.

There the syntax has developed quite differently.

Whereas IH syntax is essentially Yiddish syntax, because in the 1890s
no one had studied syntax in any serious way, so they just said Hebrew-ish
words (with some of the inflectional morphology) the way they talked
normally.

> >(which pertained to a culture they did not know, anyway).

Mon, 17 Jul 2023 09:54:02 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:

>On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 10:37:05?AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Mon, 17 Jul 2023 06:26:40 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>> >On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 9:42:01?PM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:
>
>> >> In the case of Hebrew, modern Hebrew readers can understand ancient Hebrew
>> >> with some difficulty but those who know only ancient Hebrew would not
>> >> understand modern Hebrew. I don't know why; I haven't studied the matter.
>> >They think they can, but they can't, because when ben Yehuda and others
>> >scoured the Bible for roots they could adapt to modern circumstances,
>> >they discarded the ancient meanings
>>
>> Some ancient meanings, I suppose, not all. And added some modern ones.
>> About how MSA relates to Qar'anic Arabic.
>
>There the syntax has developed quite differently.
>
>Whereas IH syntax is essentially Yiddish syntax, because in the 1890s
>no one had studied syntax in any serious way, so they just said Hebrew-ish
>words (with some of the inflectional morphology) the way they talked
>normally.

Yes, Modern Hebrew as relexified Yiddish. Could be true.

Yiddish syntax is more similar to English than to German/Dutch, by the
way, and I suspect that is older than any New York influence. Maybe
from Slavic languages. Or old and West-Germanic.

>> >(which pertained to a culture they did not know, anyway).

--
Ruud Harmsen, https://rudhar.com

Tue, 18 Jul 2023 09:03:58 +0200: Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com>
scribeva:

>Mon, 17 Jul 2023 09:54:02 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
><grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:
>
>>On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 10:37:05?AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>> Some ancient meanings, I suppose, not all. And added some modern ones.
>>> About how MSA relates to Qar'anic Arabic.
>>
>>There the syntax has developed quite differently.
>>
>>Whereas IH syntax is essentially Yiddish syntax, because in the 1890s
>>no one had studied syntax in any serious way, so they just said Hebrew-ish
>>words (with some of the inflectional morphology) the way they talked
>>normally.
>
>Yes, Modern Hebrew as relexified Yiddish. Could be true.

Interesting thought, because it may mean that with a Hebrew-Yiddish
dictionary, I thought be able to read Israeli Hebrew more easily than
having to rely on Google Translate.

>Yiddish syntax is more similar to English than to German/Dutch, by the
>way, and I suspect that is older than any New York influence. Maybe
>from Slavic languages. Or old and West-Germanic.
>
>>> >(which pertained to a culture they did not know, anyway).

--
Ruud Harmsen, https://rudhar.com

On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 3:04:01 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Mon, 17 Jul 2023 09:54:02 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 10:37:05?AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> Mon, 17 Jul 2023 06:26:40 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >> >On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 9:42:01?PM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:
> >
> >> >> In the case of Hebrew, modern Hebrew readers can understand ancient Hebrew
> >> >> with some difficulty but those who know only ancient Hebrew would not
> >> >> understand modern Hebrew. I don't know why; I haven't studied the matter.
> >> >They think they can, but they can't, because when ben Yehuda and others
> >> >scoured the Bible for roots they could adapt to modern circumstances,
> >> >they discarded the ancient meanings
> >>
> >> Some ancient meanings, I suppose, not all. And added some modern ones.
> >> About how MSA relates to Qar'anic Arabic.
> >
> >There the syntax has developed quite differently.
> >
> >Whereas IH syntax is essentially Yiddish syntax, because in the 1890s
> >no one had studied syntax in any serious way, so they just said Hebrew-ish
> >words (with some of the inflectional morphology) the way they talked
> >normally.
> Yes, Modern Hebrew as relexified Yiddish. Could be true.
>
> Yiddish syntax is more similar to English than to German/Dutch, by the
> way, and I suspect that is older than any New York influence. Maybe

Why "suspect"??

Written Yiddish exists from before Verrazzano discovered New York
Harbor, let alone before Henry Hudson discovered the Hudson River
or Peter Minuit thought he bought the Isle of Manhattan (smoke on
your pipe and put that in).

> from Slavic languages. Or old and West-Germanic.
> >> >(which pertained to a culture they did not know, anyway).

Tue, 18 Jul 2023 06:50:23 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:

>On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 3:04:01?AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Mon, 17 Jul 2023 09:54:02 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>> >On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 10:37:05?AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> >> Mon, 17 Jul 2023 06:26:40 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>> >> >On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 9:42:01?PM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> In the case of Hebrew, modern Hebrew readers can understand ancient Hebrew
>> >> >> with some difficulty but those who know only ancient Hebrew would not
>> >> >> understand modern Hebrew. I don't know why; I haven't studied the matter.
>> >> >They think they can, but they can't, because when ben Yehuda and others
>> >> >scoured the Bible for roots they could adapt to modern circumstances,
>> >> >they discarded the ancient meanings
>> >>
>> >> Some ancient meanings, I suppose, not all. And added some modern ones.
>> >> About how MSA relates to Qar'anic Arabic.
>> >
>> >There the syntax has developed quite differently.
>> >
>> >Whereas IH syntax is essentially Yiddish syntax, because in the 1890s
>> >no one had studied syntax in any serious way, so they just said Hebrew-ish
>> >words (with some of the inflectional morphology) the way they talked
>> >normally.
>> Yes, Modern Hebrew as relexified Yiddish. Could be true.
>>
>> Yiddish syntax is more similar to English than to German/Dutch, by the
>> way, and I suspect that is older than any New York influence. Maybe
>
>Why "suspect"??
>
>Written Yiddish exists from before Verrazzano discovered New York
>Harbor, let alone before Henry Hudson discovered the Hudson River
>or Peter Minuit thought he bought the Isle of Manhattan (smoke on
>your pipe and put that in).

That's why I dared suspect it, why I ventured into suspecting it. You
can't too careful with such things.

Also, I know that Yiddish is old and early attested, but was the
syntax then already as un-Hochdeutsch-ish as it is now?

>> from Slavic languages. Or old and West-Germanic.
>> >> >(which pertained to a culture they did not know, anyway).

On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 2:02:33 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Tue, 18 Jul 2023 06:50:23 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 3:04:01?AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> Mon, 17 Jul 2023 09:54:02 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >> >On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 10:37:05?AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> >> Mon, 17 Jul 2023 06:26:40 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >> >> >On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 9:42:01?PM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >> In the case of Hebrew, modern Hebrew readers can understand ancient Hebrew
> >> >> >> with some difficulty but those who know only ancient Hebrew would not
> >> >> >> understand modern Hebrew. I don't know why; I haven't studied the matter.
> >> >> >They think they can, but they can't, because when ben Yehuda and others
> >> >> >scoured the Bible for roots they could adapt to modern circumstances,
> >> >> >they discarded the ancient meanings
> >> >>
> >> >> Some ancient meanings, I suppose, not all. And added some modern ones.
> >> >> About how MSA relates to Qar'anic Arabic.
> >> >
> >> >There the syntax has developed quite differently.
> >> >
> >> >Whereas IH syntax is essentially Yiddish syntax, because in the 1890s
> >> >no one had studied syntax in any serious way, so they just said Hebrew-ish
> >> >words (with some of the inflectional morphology) the way they talked
> >> >normally.
> >> Yes, Modern Hebrew as relexified Yiddish. Could be true.
> >>
> >> Yiddish syntax is more similar to English than to German/Dutch, by the
> >> way, and I suspect that is older than any New York influence. Maybe
> >
> >Why "suspect"??
> >
> >Written Yiddish exists from before Verrazzano discovered New York
> >Harbor, let alone before Henry Hudson discovered the Hudson River
> >or Peter Minuit thought he bought the Isle of Manhattan (smoke on
> >your pipe and put that in).
>
> That's why I dared suspect it, why I ventured into suspecting it. You
> can't too careful with such things.
>
> Also, I know that Yiddish is old and early attested, but was the
> syntax then already as un-Hochdeutsch-ish as it is now?

I don't know how un-German it is.

> >> from Slavic languages. Or old and West-Germanic.
> >> >> >(which pertained to a culture they did not know, anyway).

On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 12:34:01 PM UTC+5:30, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Mon, 17 Jul 2023 09:54:02 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 10:37:05?AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> Mon, 17 Jul 2023 06:26:40 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >> >On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 9:42:01?PM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:
> >
> >> >> In the case of Hebrew, modern Hebrew readers can understand ancient Hebrew
> >> >> with some difficulty but those who know only ancient Hebrew would not
> >> >> understand modern Hebrew. I don't know why; I haven't studied the matter.
> >> >They think they can, but they can't, because when ben Yehuda and others
> >> >scoured the Bible for roots they could adapt to modern circumstances,
> >> >they discarded the ancient meanings
> >>
> >> Some ancient meanings, I suppose, not all. And added some modern ones.
> >> About how MSA relates to Qar'anic Arabic.
> >
> >There the syntax has developed quite differently.
> >
> >Whereas IH syntax is essentially Yiddish syntax, because in the 1890s
> >no one had studied syntax in any serious way, so they just said Hebrew-ish
> >words (with some of the inflectional morphology) the way they talked
> >normally.
> Yes, Modern Hebrew as relexified Yiddish. Could be true.
>
There are two terms Relex and Relexify.

A Relex Language
<<Relex is a term of criticism saying that someone has naïvely or unreflectively
imitated their native language too closely in creating a conlang.>>
<https://conlang.fandom.com/wiki/Relex>
But Israeli Hebrew (aka Modern Hebrew) is not intended as a conlang
and any imitation of Yiddish syntax is deliberate, not naïve. It would
be useful to use Relex as a descriptive term in the context of a language
not intended as a conlang even if it is a term of criticism when applied
to a conlang.

A Relexified Language
Relexification is a mechanism of language change by changing much or
all of a language's lexicon.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relexification>

In 1999, Israeli linguist Ghil'ad Zuckermann proposed that the modern
language be named "Israeli", by virtue of having multiple origins and not
being directly descended from historic Hebrew.[16]: 325 [13]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Hebrew>
This wiki has a fair amount of information about the origins of the
Israeli language.
>
> Yiddish syntax is more similar to English than to German/Dutch, by the
> way, and I suspect that is older than any New York influence. Maybe
> from Slavic languages. Or old and West-Germanic.
> >> >(which pertained to a culture they did not know, anyway).
> --
> Ruud Harmsen, https://rudhar.com

On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 9:08:26 PM UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 2:02:33 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Also, I know that Yiddish is old and early attested, but was the
>> syntax then already as un-Hochdeutsch-ish as it is now?

> I don't know how un-German it is.

For example, https://forward.com/yiddish/553169/tidbits-huge-jewish-center-opens-in-germany-fire-damages-former-synagogue-in-romania/, I quote the first sentence:
"דער גרעסטער ייִדישער צענטער אין דײַטשלאַנד זינט דער צווייטער וועלט־מלחמה האָט זיך געעפֿנט זונטיק אין בערלין."
I can read and understand all the words except the Hebrew or Aramaic word מלחמה, which from context must mean war. (It does, you can hover or click each word to see more!)

[...] center [...] hot zikh geefnt zuntik in berlin
In German it would be:
[...] Zentrum [...] wurde Sontag geöffnet in Berlin
or more literally, but also with a different word orde:
hat sich Sontag in Berlin geöffnet
hat sich Sontag geöffnet in Berlin.
(perhaps sontag as an adverb is written with lowercase?)

Compare English:
has opened Sunday in Berlin.

In English and Yiddish, the auxiliary and the participle stay
together, in German and Dutch they are split, and a lot of
other words can come in between.

Tue, 18 Jul 2023 13:06:18 -0700 (PDT): Dingbat
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> scribeva:

>There are two terms Relex and Relexify.
>
>A Relex Language
> <<Relex is a term of criticism saying that someone has naïvely or unreflectively
> imitated their native language too closely in creating a conlang.>>
> <https://conlang.fandom.com/wiki/Relex>
>
>But Israeli Hebrew (aka Modern Hebrew) is not intended as a conlang
> and any imitation of Yiddish syntax is deliberate, not naïve.

Really? Why?

It seems more likely they learnt more Hebrew words than they already
knew, including some with more modern meanings, and then tried to use
them in complete sentences, whereas in their native Yiddish (or
Ladino) such words occur only as isolated loan words.

Then is the natural tendency around the word order of your own
language to maintain. (As I am now doing with Dutch: the previous is
Dutch with all the words replaced with English equivalents. Around =
om, used here incorrectly.)
Then the natural tendency is to maintain the word order of your own
language.

>It would
> be useful to use Relex as a descriptive term in the context of a language
> not intended as a conlang even if it is a term of criticism when applied
> to a conlang.
>
>A Relexified Language
> Relexification is a mechanism of language change by changing much or
> all of a language's lexicon.
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relexification>
>
>In 1999, Israeli linguist Ghil'ad Zuckermann proposed that the modern
> language be named "Israeli", by virtue of having multiple origins and not
> being directly descended from historic Hebrew.[16]:?325?[13]
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Hebrew>
> This wiki has a fair amount of information about the origins of the
> Israeli language.

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 12:59:04 PM UTC+5:30, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Tue, 18 Jul 2023 13:06:18 -0700 (PDT): Dingbat
> <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> scribeva:
> >There are two terms Relex and Relexify.
> >
> >A Relex Language
> > <<Relex is a term of criticism saying that someone has naïvely or unreflectively
> > imitated their native language too closely in creating a conlang.>>
> > <https://conlang.fandom.com/wiki/Relex>
> >
> >But Israeli Hebrew (aka Modern Hebrew) is not intended as a conlang
> > and any imitation of Yiddish syntax is deliberate, not naïve.
> Really? Why?
>
For them to be imitating their native Yiddish, they'd have to be
native Yiddish speakers. As I understand it, the form of Modern
Hebrew was dictated by a committee who didn't all have the
same native language. Features were taken from Yiddish,
Biblical Hebrew, Sephardic Hebrew, Arabic and a number of
state languages of European states.
>
> It seems more likely they learnt more Hebrew words than they already
> knew, including some with more modern meanings, and then tried to use
> them in complete sentences, whereas in their native Yiddish (or
> Ladino) such words occur only as isolated loan words.
>
> Then is the natural tendency around the word order of your own
> language to maintain. (As I am now doing with Dutch: the previous is
> Dutch with all the words replaced with English equivalents. Around =
> om, used here incorrectly.)
> Then the natural tendency is to maintain the word order of your own
> language.
> >It would
> > be useful to use Relex as a descriptive term in the context of a language
> > not intended as a conlang even if it is a term of criticism when applied
> > to a conlang.
> >
> >A Relexified Language
> > Relexification is a mechanism of language change by changing much or
> > all of a language's lexicon.
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relexification>
> >
> >In 1999, Israeli linguist Ghil'ad Zuckermann proposed that the modern
> > language be named "Israeli", by virtue of having multiple origins and not
> > being directly descended from historic Hebrew.[16]:?325?[13]
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Hebrew>
> > This wiki has a fair amount of information about the origins of the
> > Israeli language.

Wed, 19 Jul 2023 00:15:08 -0700 (PDT): "Ruud Harmsen via Google Groups
<google@rudhar.com>" <google@rudhar.com> scribeva:

>On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 9:08:26?PM UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 2:02:33?PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>> Also, I know that Yiddish is old and early attested, but was the
>>> syntax then already as un-Hochdeutsch-ish as it is now?
>
>> I don't know how un-German it is.
>
>For example, https://forward.com/yiddish/553169/tidbits-huge-jewish-center-opens-in-germany-fire-damages-former-synagogue-in-romania/, I quote the first sentence:
>"??? ??????? ???????? ?????? ??? ?????????? ???? ??? ???????? ??????????? ???? ??? ??????? ?????? ??? ??????."
>I can read and understand all the words except the Hebrew or Aramaic word ?????, which from context must mean war. (It does, you can hover or click each word to see more!)
>
>[...] center [...] hot zikh geefnt zuntik in berlin
>In German it would be:
>[...] Zentrum [...] wurde Sontag geöffnet in Berlin
>or more literally, but also with a different word orde:
>hat sich Sontag in Berlin geöffnet
>hat sich Sontag geöffnet in Berlin.
>(perhaps sontag as an adverb is written with lowercase?)
>
>Compare English:
>has opened Sunday in Berlin.

was/has opened in Berlin on Sunday.

>In English and Yiddish, the auxiliary and the participle stay
>together, in German and Dutch they are split, and a lot of
>other words can come in between.

Wed, 19 Jul 2023 00:39:47 -0700 (PDT): Dingbat
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> scribeva:

>On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 12:59:04?PM UTC+5:30, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Tue, 18 Jul 2023 13:06:18 -0700 (PDT): Dingbat
>> <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> scribeva:
>> >There are two terms Relex and Relexify.
>> >
>> >A Relex Language
>> > <<Relex is a term of criticism saying that someone has naïvely or unreflectively
>> > imitated their native language too closely in creating a conlang.>>
>> > <https://conlang.fandom.com/wiki/Relex>
>> >
>> >But Israeli Hebrew (aka Modern Hebrew) is not intended as a conlang
>> > and any imitation of Yiddish syntax is deliberate, not naïve.
>> Really? Why?
>>
>For them to be imitating their native Yiddish, they'd have to be
> native Yiddish speakers.

Many were. Not all, I suppose.

>As I understand it, the form of Modern
> Hebrew was dictated by a committee who didn't all have the
> same native language. Features were taken from Yiddish,
> Biblical Hebrew, Sephardic Hebrew, Arabic and a number of
> state languages of European states.

On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 4:06:21 PM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 12:34:01 PM UTC+5:30, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > Mon, 17 Jul 2023 09:54:02 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> > <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> > >On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 10:37:05?AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > >> Mon, 17 Jul 2023 06:26:40 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> > >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> > >> >On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 9:42:01?PM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:

> > >> >> In the case of Hebrew, modern Hebrew readers can understand ancient Hebrew
> > >> >> with some difficulty but those who know only ancient Hebrew would not
> > >> >> understand modern Hebrew. I don't know why; I haven't studied the matter.
> > >> >They think they can, but they can't, because when ben Yehuda and others
> > >> >scoured the Bible for roots they could adapt to modern circumstances,
> > >> >they discarded the ancient meanings
> > >> Some ancient meanings, I suppose, not all. And added some modern ones.
> > >> About how MSA relates to Qar'anic Arabic.
> > >There the syntax has developed quite differently.
> > >Whereas IH syntax is essentially Yiddish syntax, because in the 1890s
> > >no one had studied syntax in any serious way, so they just said Hebrew-ish
> > >words (with some of the inflectional morphology) the way they talked
> > >normally.
> > Yes, Modern Hebrew as relexified Yiddish. Could be true.
>
> There are two terms Relex and Relexify.
>
> A Relex Language
> <<Relex is a term of criticism saying that someone has naïvely or unreflectively
> imitated their native language too closely in creating a conlang.>>
> <https://conlang.fandom.com/wiki/Relex>

I haven't encountered that in reading about conlangs. It's thoroughly
irrelevant here.

> But Israeli Hebrew (aka Modern Hebrew) is not intended as a conlang
> and any imitation of Yiddish syntax is deliberate, not naïve. It would

Absolutely not!!!!!!

As I said, in the 1890s no one had any notion of "syntactic patterns,"
and the first scientific study of BH (tense-)aspect was not published
until 1892 (in English), and ben Yehuda et al. wouldn't have had any idea
what to do with it if they'd known about it. It would never have occurred
to them that anyone's language could differ so greatly from their native
tongue, even though they had been studying the biblical and rabbinic texts
their whole lives.

> be useful to use Relex as a descriptive term in the context of a language
> not intended as a conlang even if it is a term of criticism when applied
> to a conlang.
>
> A Relexified Language
> Relexification is a mechanism of language change by changing much or
> all of a language's lexicon.
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relexification>
>
> In 1999, Israeli linguist Ghil'ad Zuckermann proposed that the modern
> language be named "Israeli", by virtue of having multiple origins and not
> being directly descended from historic Hebrew.[16]: 325 [13]

That was hardly the first time someone used that name.

> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Hebrew>
> This wiki has a fair amount of information about the origins of the
> Israeli language.

It seems to fail to mention that a lot of ben Yehuda's 8000 + 20,000
coinages have been replaced by borrowings from English and French.

> > Yiddish syntax is more similar to English than to German/Dutch, by the
> > way, and I suspect that is older than any New York influence. Maybe
> > from Slavic languages. Or old and West-Germanic.
> > >> >(which pertained to a culture they did not know, anyway).

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 3:39:50 AM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 12:59:04 PM UTC+5:30, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > Tue, 18 Jul 2023 13:06:18 -0700 (PDT): Dingbat
> > <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> scribeva:
> > >There are two terms Relex and Relexify.

> > >A Relex Language
> > > <<Relex is a term of criticism saying that someone has naïvely or unreflectively
> > > imitated their native language too closely in creating a conlang.>>
> > > <https://conlang.fandom.com/wiki/Relex>
> > >But Israeli Hebrew (aka Modern Hebrew) is not intended as a conlang
> > > and any imitation of Yiddish syntax is deliberate, not naïve.
> > Really? Why?
> >
> For them to be imitating their native Yiddish, they'd have to be
> native Yiddish speakers. As I understand it, the form of Modern
> Hebrew was dictated by a committee who didn't all have the
> same native language. Features were taken from Yiddish,
> Biblical Hebrew, Sephardic Hebrew, Arabic and a number of
> state languages of European states.

Never mind "features were taken from." Where did you get this
"committee" of non-Yiddish settlers in Palestine?

Wed, 19 Jul 2023 06:45:16 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:

>On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 3:39:50?AM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:
>> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 12:59:04?PM UTC+5:30, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> > Tue, 18 Jul 2023 13:06:18 -0700 (PDT): Dingbat
>> > <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> scribeva:
>> > >There are two terms Relex and Relexify.
>
>> > >A Relex Language
>> > > <<Relex is a term of criticism saying that someone has naïvely or unreflectively
>> > > imitated their native language too closely in creating a conlang.>>
>> > > <https://conlang.fandom.com/wiki/Relex>
>> > >But Israeli Hebrew (aka Modern Hebrew) is not intended as a conlang
>> > > and any imitation of Yiddish syntax is deliberate, not naïve.
>> > Really? Why?
>> >
>> For them to be imitating their native Yiddish, they'd have to be
>> native Yiddish speakers. As I understand it, the form of Modern
>> Hebrew was dictated by a committee who didn't all have the
>> same native language. Features were taken from Yiddish,
>> Biblical Hebrew, Sephardic Hebrew, Arabic and a number of
>> state languages of European states.
>
>Never mind "features were taken from." Where did you get this
>"committee" of non-Yiddish settlers in Palestine?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliezer_Ben-Yehuda
«To accomplish the task, Ben-Yehuda insisted with the Committee of the
Hebrew Language that, to quote the Committee records, "In order to
supplement the deficiencies of the Hebrew language, the Committee
coins words according to the rules of grammar and linguistic analogy
from Semitic roots: Aramaic and especially from Arabic roots" (Joshua
Blau, page 33).»

--
Ruud Harmsen, https://rudhar.com

Wed, 19 Jul 2023 16:03:56 +0200: Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliezer_Ben-Yehuda
>«To accomplish the task, Ben-Yehuda insisted with the Committee of the
>Hebrew Language that, to quote the Committee records, "In order to
>supplement the deficiencies of the Hebrew language, the Committee
>coins words according to the rules of grammar and linguistic analogy
>from Semitic roots: Aramaic and especially from Arabic roots" (Joshua
>Blau, page 33).»

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliezer_Ben-Yehuda
"Ben-Yehuda was a major figure in the establishment of the Committee
of the Hebrew Language (Va'ad HaLashon), later the Academy of the
Hebrew Language, an organization that still exists today."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_of_the_Hebrew_Language

--
Ruud Harmsen, https://rudhar.com

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 3:15:10 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen via Google Groups <google@rudhar.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 9:08:26 PM UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 2:02:33 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> Also, I know that Yiddish is old and early attested, but was the
> >> syntax then already as un-Hochdeutsch-ish as it is now?
>
> > I don't know how un-German it is.
> For example, https://forward.com/yiddish/553169/tidbits-huge-jewish-center-opens-in-germany-fire-damages-former-synagogue-in-romania/, I quote the first sentence:
> "דער גרעסטער ייִדישער צענטער אין דײַטשלאַנד זינט דער צווייטער וועלט־מלחמה האָט זיך געעפֿנט זונטיק אין בערלין."
> I can read and understand all the words except the Hebrew or Aramaic word מלחמה, which from context must mean war. (It does, you can hover or click each word to see more!)
>
> [...] center [...] hot zikh geefnt zuntik in berlin
> In German it would be:
> [...] Zentrum [...] wurde Sontag geöffnet in Berlin
> or more literally, but also with a different word orde:
> hat sich Sontag in Berlin geöffnet
> hat sich Sontag geöffnet in Berlin.
> (perhaps sontag as an adverb is written with lowercase?)
>
> Compare English:
> has opened Sunday in Berlin.

Has opened itself Sunday in Berlin [Hat sich Sontag geöffnet in Berlin].
Has opened Sunday in Berlin. [Hat Sontag geöffnet in Berlin].