![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Elsejournal, a couple days ago, someone wrote a post which quoted Bishop John Shelby Spong: "The verb 'to be' is the key verb in every human language. We use it to describe that which is of our very essence."
The post was, and is, a lovely meditation on the nature of coming out, and the reactions to National Coming Out Day, but I objected to that quote, saying that plenty of languages lack a verb "to be".
So it started me wondering: do languages with an explicit verb "to be" fall into any specific clusters? Do some language families have them, and others lack them, or is it more scattershot?
The post was, and is, a lovely meditation on the nature of coming out, and the reactions to National Coming Out Day, but I objected to that quote, saying that plenty of languages lack a verb "to be".
So it started me wondering: do languages with an explicit verb "to be" fall into any specific clusters? Do some language families have them, and others lack them, or is it more scattershot?
(no subject)
Date: 2012-10-15 10:13 pm (UTC)I see where you're coming from, with that, but I think it's actually even more interesting than that. Prior to Hebrew being spoken as a native language again, you had different groups of Jews in Palestine, coming from different linguistic backgrounds (the main divisions, obviously, being Yiddish-speaking Ashkenazim, Judeo-Spanish-speaking Sephardim, and Judeo-Arabic-speaking Mizrahim, though there were plenty of other folks, including Ashkenazim who spoke German rather than Yiddish, Persian-speaking Jews, etc) who needed a language to use in common, and Hebrew, a sort of pidginised, lingua franca form of Hebrew, was that. And everyone brought to the table what they had gotten from their particular native languages. So when people started raising their kids speaking Hebrew, they already sort of had a community of adult speakers to influence them. The difference was, relative to other situations like this (out of which creole languages are formed), there was a good deal more literacy, and more awareness of the history of Hebrew, and what 'good' (literary, Bibical) Hebrew looks like. So you started out with a sort of a pidgin situation, followed by the insertion of native speakers, raised by non-native speakers of a variety of Hebrew that wasn't really pidginised at all. Initially, I'm sure utterances were somewhere in between the two, a kind of creole, but the situation was such that it was bound to be mostly decreolised. So really... it's probably most like Afrikaans.
It does sometimes remind me of Esperanto, though. I'd be curious to see what would happen if a small state were formed, with Esperanto as an official language. You'd get a similar mix of levels, and people bringing different things to the table, linguistically speaking, along with a very vague consensus on what the language should and shouldn't look/sound like.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-10-15 11:27 pm (UTC)But I don't think Modern Hebrew ever went through a creole phase, which is why I consider it a conlang. It was created, then taught academically, and only then, after an actual "Official Correct Hebrew" already existed, was it let loose into the world in order to run and skip and play freely the way languages actually do.
Modern Hebrew is the only language I know of which has an actual Academy that has existed as long as the language itself has existed. Of course, those few modern Israelis who are aware that the Academy exists completely ignore it.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-10-16 03:02 pm (UTC)I wouldn't go so far as to say Modern Hebrew went through a creole phase, just that it was influenced by the 'business Hebrew' being spoken when its first native speakers were growing up. I'm happy to agree to disagree, though, if our perspectives cannot be reconciled.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-10-21 01:48 pm (UTC)Idolizing Ben-Yehuda is largely due to the "revisionist" history of the secular Zionist movement, who wanted to create the impression of a clear-cut Something New [Tm] from the older Jewish tradition. It could rightfully be argued that to these secular largely assimilated Jews, Hebrew WAS something new. But that was hardly the whole picture.
Are you really certain Biblical Hebrew doesn't have ANY copula usage. I'd be surprised if none of the formulations of the root Hayah (Heh, yud, Heh) or the related Hoveh (Heh, vav, Heh), qualified.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-10-15 11:29 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-10-16 03:03 pm (UTC)