Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2015 December 16

= December 16 =

Constancy of Hebrew ?
I just saw a documentary on PBS, where they said "It's amazing that this 2000+ year old scroll, in Hebrew, can still be read by any Jewish student with a 6th grade education". That made me wonder, is that true, and, if so, why has Hebrew changed so little in such a long time period ? By comparison, English from just a few centuries back is hard to understand. StuRat (talk) 07:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, for most of these 2000 years, Hebrew wasn't being passed down as a living language at all, and thus it arguably wasn't subject to normal mechanisms of language change. It was merely being cultivated as a written, classical and liturgical language; then it was artificially revived. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Modern Hebrew is significantly different from Biblical Hebrew. Jewish children who study Hebrew for religious reasons are taught how to read the Torah. They are reading ancient literary Hebrew from a specific point in time. They are reading five specific texts that are studied and debated and read aloud in the synagogue in a yearly cycle, over and over again. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The difference between - Modern Hebrew - and Biblical Hebrew, is rather similar to the difference between - Modern English translations of the Bible - and King James Bible. 87.68.33.109 (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Fut Perf, what do you mean by "artificially" revived? --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  08:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Redundant superfluity. Contact Basemetal   here  09:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * My guess is that modern Hebrew is Biblical Hebrew, with new words for things like television and the internet which they didn't have then.  It's on a par with Latin.   When the last Pope chose to announce his retirement in Latin an Italian journalist present at the audience had no difficulty in understanding and making a quick phone call to her paper to pass on the news. 89.240.30.128 (talk) 09:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. Hebrew, that had been used as a language of literature for more than 2000 years, had several stages, e.g. Ancient Hebrew (overlapping Biblical Hebrew), Medieval Hebrew, and Modern Hebrew. So, Medieval Hebrew is Biblical Hebrew, with new words for things like windmill paper soap push-button mirror glasses clock compass magnet chimney chess and likewise, which they didn't have in the Biblical era; Whereas Modern Hebrew is Medieval Hebrew, with new words for things like television and the internet which they didn't have in the Middle Ages.
 * The same is true for Chinese, Persian, Greek and likewise. Almost. The only difference between Hebrew and them is that they - have been spoken for thousands of years - continuously, while Medieval Hebrew was only used as a language of literature - until it was revived - about a century age. HOOTmag (talk) 10:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The quote says "read by" not "understood by". Both modern and Biblical Hebrew follow the same reading system, which is simple and consistent, even if modern Hebrew's grammar and vocabulary differ from the ancient system. Biblical Hebrew has been a live language of study for Orthodox Jews (and others), from a young age, in every single generation since it stopped being a live language of everyday life. I don't know what scroll it was and I don't know what "6th grade" means, but I'd expect a well educated 13 year old Orthodox Jewish kid to be able to comprehend much of an unseen text in Biblical Hebrew, and if it's from the actual Bible, even more so, and if they are reasonably fluent in Ivrit, with the vocab advantages that brings, I'd expect them to comprehend the vast majority of any unseen text. --Dweller (talk) 11:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In the normal course of USAn schooling, a child is in sixth grade at age ~11. —Tamfang (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * If anyone is interested in reference to our relevant articles, see Hebrew grammar and compare it to modern Hebrew grammar, see Revival of the Hebrew language for that history. Hebrew language has lots of subsections and relevant links to different types of Hebrew. Finally, here's a decent-looking comparison of ancient and modern Hebrew, though I cannot assess its accuracy . SemanticMantis (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

'Typical or 'atypical': Does either of them mean 'difficult'?
Atypical, so far as I know, means unusual, irregular or not typical/normal. Here in India, people generally use 'typical' to mean difficult or hard. (I'm obviously not talking about excellent English speakers, but they can be called better English speakers anyway.) I understand now that using typical in that sense is not actually correct. But on that note, can 'atypical' be used to mean difficult or hard? (I believe 'atypical' is a far less common word.) For example,

The teacher dictated the whole passage orally, but wrote some atypical words on blackboard. Her new song is quite atypical. (in the sense of being difficult to sing) Jazzy Prinker (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * No, "atypical" doesn't mean "difficult". But sometimes things are difficult in part because they are uncommon or rare. So a typical math problem in calculus may well be considered easier than an atypical problem. And uncommon words are often harder to spell or pronounce than common words. It's not that "atypical" means "difficult", it's that ease and difficulty are often related to previous experience and commonness. Likewise "huge" doesn't mean "slow", but often huge things are slow. So I can write "The ocean liner is so huge that it takes two hours to turn around", but that doesn't then entail that one meaning of "huge" is slow. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Could typical be an Indian mispronunciation of difficult? —Tamfang (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In my experience, in the United States, the word "atypical" is occasionally used with respect to people as a euphemism to mean developmentally disabled. (Neuroatypical, by contrast, is roughly synonymous with autism-spectrum, because neurotypical refers to people who are not on the autism spectrum.)  This says nothing about Indian use.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The OP is pointing a regression that happens inexorably in any language when it is not taken care of day after day. A word starts meaning both its sense and its opposite. Leading to constantly swim in a sea of interpretations, euphemisms and perpetual (wanted or unwanted) misunderstandings whether a word has to be taken straight or in its second degree or in its ironic sense or in its new opposite meaning. And when it's many words, scattered all the time in everything that's said and in everything that happens, it starts to shape the thinking itself, the way people think. Akseli9 (talk) 05:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * If it's understood to mean "difficult" buy a community of speakers, then it means "difficult" in the variety of English they speak - but not necessarily in any other variety of English. By comparison, in standard English, "ignorant" means lacking knowledge. But in Northern Ireland, it means rude or obnoxious. If you use it in that sense in Northern Ireland, people will understand you, but perhaps not elsewhere. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It is possible that 'typical' is a mispronunciation of 'difficult'. An answer to an old Stack Exchange question also suggested that people might be just wrongly pronouncing the word 'difficult' to make it sound like'typical'. But in my opinion, the use of 'typical' as 'difficult' might have become common in our dialect due to some mis-hearing on the account of apparently similar pronunciation; it may be a deformed version of 'difficult'. Anyway, now I know that any of 'typical' or 'atypical' does not really mean 'difficult'. Jazzy Prinker (talk) 10:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Northern Ireland is no different to anywhere else.  If you describe someone as "ignorant" that will, unless there is a context to the contrary, be interpreted as "boorish". 81.151.101.74 (talk) 13:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not in my (UK) social circles, in which it would by default mean "lacking knowledge." That is not to say that everyone is not familiar with the "boorish" meaning that is the default in some particular local and societal cultures. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Canada reporting in: I had no idea it meant boorish. I've only known the "lacking knowledge" version. Mingmingla (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * In some parts of the United States and some ethnic groups, "ignorant" may mean "boorish", "crude", or "prejudiced", depending on the context. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It's used that way in Canada as well, much to my chagrin. Getting back to typical... I wonder if the use described by the OP comes from the (fairly common, I think) formulation where "Typical!" is used to express exasperated disappointment (but not surprise) at someone or something's (mis)behavior. "She was a typical blonde." "The printer is done again. Typical." etc. In fact, taken in isolation, as in a one word sentence, I would assume the speaker was referring to something difficult or problematic. 64.235.97.146 (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)