Современный Израиль

Часть 1 Языки, социальные практики, межкультурные взаимодействия

The Stammbaum Model vs our Congruence

PrincipleApproach

The Stammbaum (family tree) model insists that every language has only one parent. The reality of linguistic genesis, however, is far morecomplex.Itmightwellbethecasethat‘eachlanguagehasasingleparent’‘inthenormalcourseoflinguisticevolution’(Dixon1997, 11–13) but not in the case of a new hybrid language resulting from ‘semi-engineering’. Thus, the comparative historical methodology, which we often rely on cannot explain the intricate genesis of Israeli. However, an important principle which casts light on the complex genesisofIsraeliistheCongruencePrinciple(cf.Zuckermann,2003, 2009, 2020):

The more contributing languages a features exists in, the more likely it is to persist in the emerging tongue

(inadvertently, regardless of whether or not the revivalists want that).

The formation of Israeli was not the result of language contact between Hebrew and a prestigious, powerful superstratum such as English. Rather, Israeli had two primary contributors: Yiddish and Hebrew. Had the revivalists of Israeli been Arabic-speaking Jews (e.g. from Morocco), Israeli would have been a totally different language – both genetically and typologically, it would have been much more Semitic. The impact of the founder population on Israeli is incomparable with that of later immigrants.

Harrison et al. discuss the ‘Founder Effect’ in biology and human evolution, and Mufwene applies it to linguistics. We propose the following Founder Principle in the context of Israeli:

30

Chapter 1

Language, Religion and Nationhood in 20th-Century Israel

Yiddish is a primary contributor to Israeli because it was the mother tongue of the vast majority of revivalists and first pioneers in Eretz Yisrael(‘LandofIsrael’,Palestine)atthecriticalperiodofthebeginning of Israeli.

TheFounderPrincipleworksbecausebythetimelaterimmigrants came to Israel, Israeli had already consolidated the fundamental parts of its grammar. Thus, Moroccan Jews arriving in Israel in the 1950s had to learn a fully-fledged language. Initially, they developed their own variety of Israeli but ultimately the influence of their mother tongue was relatively negligible.

Anew approach to the genesis of Israeli

The ultimate question is whether or not it is possible to bring an unspoken language back to life – without the occurrence of crossfertilization with the revivalists’ mother tongue (s). The advantage of our balanced, multiple causation approach is that it recognizes within Israeli the continuity not only of liturgical Hebrew, but also of the mother tongue (s) of the founder generation (mostly Yiddish). Such shift in perspective facilitates a new era in Israeli linguistics. As a result, existing publications will have to be re-examined and revisedastheyhaveassumedthatIsraeliisthesameasHebrew.Israeli shouldbelinguisticallycategorizedalongwithotherrevivallanguages ratherthanasamemberoftheSemiticlanguagefamily.Thesyncretic nature of Israeli has important theoretical implications for historical linguistics, sociolinguistics, language contact, language planning and engineering, revival / survival, linguistic genetics and typology, creolistics, and mixed languages. We argue that genetic affiliation – at least in the case of semi-engineered (‘semi-’ because the impact

31

Часть 1 Языки, социальные практики, межкультурные взаимодействия

of the revivalists’ mother tongues was often subconscious), ‘nongenetic’languages (cf.Thomason and Kaufman, Language contact) – is not discrete but, rather, a continuous line. Thus, for example, a language can be 40 % Hebrew, 40 % Yiddish, 10 % Polish, 10 % Russian, 10 % English, 7 %Arabic, 5 % German, 5 % Judaeo-Spanish, and so forth.At this point, the Congruence Principle comes in useful. By acknowledging the possibility of overlapping, multiple contributors,itweakenstheFamilyTreemodelinhistoricallinguistics,which might imply that every language has only one parent. The Congruence Principle casts light on the complex genesis of Israeli, and explains why the sum of the figures above can – and usually does – amount to more than 100 %. One of the practical implications of this paper is that universities, as well as primary and secondary schools, should employ a clear-cut distinction between Israeli and Hebrew. Studying Yiddishshouldbeanavailableoption,ifnotarequirement,forstudents of Israeli linguistics. As it stands, languages such as Aramaic and Akkadian are obligatory, whereas Yiddish, whose impact on Israeli was far more significant, is overlooked. Indeed, when one revives a language, one should expect to end up with a hybrid.

There are people who believe that language consists only of ‘nouns and sounds’ (see Wertheim, Ideologies, for an account of suchperceptionsintheTatarlanguage).Form–ratherthanpattern–is morevisibleandthusmoreaccessibletotheunsophisticatedlanguage analyst. Zuckermann (2009, 2020) shows that the (often invisible) productivity, semantics, and mindset of the allegedly ‘completely Hebrew’ verb-template system of Israeli actually reflects European languages.

But our work is not restricted to typology; it also aims to comprehensively rewrite the history of the genesis of Israel’s main

32

Chapter 1

Language, Religion and Nationhood in 20th-Century Israel

language. There has never been any serious research analysing unedited diaries, personal letters, and session protocols of first kibbutzim and moshavim (different types of Jewish Israeli communities). Such research could give us a crucial, albeit indirect (recordings would have been much better) testimony about the revivalists’ language, the input on which the first native Israeli speakers based their new language. Or (2016) is a good start though.

The multifaceted function of the

Hebrew vocabulary within Israeli

The basic vocabulary of Israeli is indeed mainly Semitic. However, whilst contemporary Israeli draws heavily on ancient Hebrew, it most commonly imposes modern meaning over Biblical words. One of the problems facing those attempting to reclaim Hebrew as the national language of the envisioned State of Israel was that of Hebrew lexical voids. The revivalists attempted to use mainly internal sources of lexical enrichment were faced with a paucity of roots. They changed the meanings of obsolete Hebrew terms to fit the modern world. This infusion often entailed the secularization of religious terms. This linguistic phenomenon reflects continuous tension between religious tradition and secular culture in modern Israel.

Yadin and Zuckermann (2010) demonstrate the success of Zionism in deifying the Israeli State by shrewdly employing divine Hebrew terms and turning them into signifiers for nationalist referents. For example, Biblical Hebrew mishkån meant both ‘dwelling-place’ and ‘Tabernacle of the Congregation’ (where Moses kept the Ark in the wilderness) and ‘inner sanctum’ (known as ’ohel mo‘ed). Israeli

33

Часть 1 Языки, социальные практики, межкультурные взаимодействия

mishkánhaknéset,however,refersto‘theKnesset(IsraeliParliament) building.’ Translating mishkán haknéset as ‘The Knesset Building’ (as on the official Knesset website) is lacking. The word mishkán is loadedwithholinessandevokessanctity(cf.sanctuary),asifMembers of Knesset (cf. MPs) were, at the very least, angels or seraphim. Another example, not mentioned by Yadin and Zuckermann (2010), is mékhes: Whereas in the Hebrew Bible mékhes was a tribute toGod(e.g.Numbers31:37),inIsraeliitis‘customs’paidtotheState. BiblicalHebrewmillu’imrefersto‘thedaysfollowingthededication oftheTabernaclebutpriortothepriests’inauguration’–seeLeviticus 8:33: «You shall not go outside the entrance of the Tent of Meeting for seven days, until the day that your period of ordination millu’im is completed». The term also appears as modifying the sacrifices offered as part of the inauguration ritual: «the ram of ordination millu’im» (Leviticus 8:22) and «the bread that is in the basket of ordination» (Leviticus 8:31). The precise meaning of millu’im in this context is a matter of controversy among Bible scholars, but the root m.l.’ means ‘fill’ and it is this meaning that generates theIsraeliappropriationofthewordtoreferto‘supplemental / reserve military service’. Thus, one’s days of miluím are no longer served at the Tabernacle but in reserve duty.

Mishkån, mékhes and millu’im are but three examples of secularization manifested as superseding / supersession. For example, priestly service gives way to reserve duty (miluím). Though the modern concepts replace the ancient, they do so as heirs that are still somehow anchored in the Old Testament, or at least as ‘natural’or‘organic’outgrowthsofearlierJewishstrata.Thissense ofanatural–almostinevitable–developmentisitselfanexpression of the ideological hegemony of Zionism. But for Israeli speakers

34

Chapter 1

Language, Religion and Nationhood in 20th-Century Israel

the radical nature of the semantic change is no longer visible. Thenewmeaningsdonotrepresentanantagonisticorrevolutionary break with their ancient predecessors. The potentially problematic returntothereligiousstrataofHebrewisovercomebyassimilating the pre-modern meanings into Israeli, subsuming the earlier under the later. The State is the new God!

In line with the prediction made by the Kabbalah-scholar Gershom Scholem in a letter to Franz Rosenzweig (cf. 1990), some ultra-orthodox Jews have tried to launch a ‘lexical vendetta’: using secularized Biblical – as well as Mishnaic and Kabbalistic – terms like ‘dormant agents’, as a shortcut to religious concepts, thus trying to convince secular Jews to go back to their religious roots (Zuckermann, 2020).

The religious stance of Hebrew in

Jewish and Israeli culture

Hebrew has been traditionally perceived as a sacred tongue, being the language of the Torah, of the prophets, and indeed of God himself, serving as his means of creating the universe and communicating with his creatures. The seemingly secular Israeli culturehasallegedlydetacheditselffromthisconcept,usingHebrew lexis in mundane context. However, it seems that the religious genes stillfunctionwithinthisculture,preventingscholarsandlaymenalike to acknowledge the Semito-European hybrid character of Israeli.

The Zionist movement was supposedly a secular, anti-religious movement. Nevertheless, looking at the unique position of Hebrew language within Zionism, it seems it has actually shifted from worship of one God to worshiping the concept of one language.

35

Часть 1 Языки, социальные практики, межкультурные взаимодействия

Holzman(2016)explainedthatthereareseveralreligiouselements in the way Israeli scholars and laymen alike consider Hebrew:

(1)Hebrew and Israeli are considered to be one and the same. Scholars persistently ignore fundamental differences between Hebrew and Israeli even when their own studies reflect the major gap between these languages, asserting they must be considered as one language (cf. Ben-Hayyim 1992, Rabin 1999) This is equivalent to the monotheistic belief in one single Deity.

(2)Israelisaretaughtbytheeducationsystemaswellasbyofficial mediathattheybetteradheretoHebrewgrammaticalrules.Irrational, ideological enforcement of Hebrew grammar on Israeli language is equivalent to ideological enforcement of religious commandments (mitzvoth) on Jewish people by religious leadership;

(3)Academics and political figures have established theAcademy of the Hebrew Language, an authoritative institution aims at setting bindings rules for the oral and written Hebrew language. This is equivalent to the concept that Jews are supposed to be controlled by authoritative religious administration;

(4)TherevivalofHebrewisoftendepictedasamiraclebyscholars, linguists and even by the Academy of the Hebrew Language (cf. Karmi, One Language, 268–277).This is equivalent to Biblical belief in divine miracles. The fact of the matter is that all those depicting Hebrew revival as a miracle are driven to do so as they refrain of acknowledging reality, namely it is not Hebrew that was revived and is in daily use, but rather the beautiful hybrid, Israeli.

36

Chapter 1

Language, Religion and Nationhood in 20th-Century Israel

The Mutual IntelligibilityAssumption vs our ‘Translate the Bible to Israeli’Approach

These semi-conscious religious assumptions results in a harmful myth, namely The Mutual Intelligibility Assumption. The Mutual Intelligibility Myth posits that Israeli is Hebrew because an Israeli speaker can understand Biblical Hebrew. The reason Israelis can be expected to understand the Book of Isaiah – albeit with difficulties – is because they study the Hebrew Bible at school for eleven years, ratherthanbecauseitisfamiliartothemfromtheirdailyconversation. ButthetruthisthatIsraelisreadtheHebrewBibleasifitwereIsraeli, and thus often misunderstand it. There are hundreds of examples of Hebrew-Israeli faux amis (false friends), Hebrew words that are frequently misunderstood by Israeli speakers, and we must keep in mind that the Bible contains only 8000 different words (Cohen, 2008).

Let us look at some examples:

• (pronounced in Israeli as khasár lev) (a few references in the book of Proverbs) is ‘stupid’, not ‘cruel’ – since in Hebrewtheheartiswherethoughtsareplaced,notfeelings.‘Cruel’ is how Israeli speakers would understand it.

•ּ (pronounced in Israeli as deá) (e.g. Isaiah 11:9) is objective,notsubjectiveknowledge,thelattersensebeinghowIsraeli

speakers would understand it.

• ּ (pronounced in Israeli as botním) (Genesis 43:11) is a type of fruit, but certainly not the Israeli ‘peanuts’.

• (pronounced in Israeli as tslil) (Judges 7:13) is ‘bread’ rather than ‘sound’, the latter sense being how Israeli speakers would understand it.

37

Часть 1 Языки, социальные практики, межкультурные взаимодействия

• (pronounced in Israeli as pésakh) (e.g. Exodus 12:11) is ‘ [divine] protection’ rather than ‘pass over’ (see Passover), as misunderstood by Rashi.

The available examples of misunderstanding the Hebrew Bible by Israelis are not only lexical: Generally speaking, Israelis are usually incapable of recognizing moods and aspects of Biblical Hebrew. The Hebrew Bible should be – and has been – translated into Israeli – see Tanakh Ram (Ahuvia, Tanakh Ram). Israeli children are told that the Old Testament was written in their mother tongue. In other words, in Israeli primary schools, Hebrew and the mother tongue are, axiomatically, the very same. Thus, one cannot expect Israelis to easily accept the idea that the two languages might be genetically different. In English terms, it is as if someone were trying to tell a native English-speaker that their mother tongue is not the same as Shakespeare’s. Between Shakespeare and the current native speaker of English there has been a continuous chain of native speakers. Between the biblical Isaiah and contemporary Israelis there has been no such chain: Jews have had many mother tongues other than Hebrew.

Itappears as though EliezerBen-Yehuda wouldhave likedto have cancelled the heritage of the Diaspora and would have been most content had Israelis spoken Biblical Hebrew. Had Hebrew revival could have actually taken place, it speakers would have spoken ancient Hebrew, thus bypassing more than 2000 years of natural development.

38

Chapter 1

Language, Religion and Nationhood in 20th-Century Israel

Crucial Importance of Observing the Gap between Hebrew and Israeli

In the public debate in Israel on the status of the territories capturedbytheIsraelDefenceForcesin1967,itisfrequentlyclaimed that the state’s claim to them is based on the biblical description of the connection of the Jews to these lands. Examination of what the Bible says regarding that famous divine promise leads to surprising conclusions as to what degree, if any, the text can establish a connection between the political entity called «the people of Israel» and the geographic region known as «the Land of Israel.»

The issue of the borders of the Promised Land and the essence of the divine promise is examined in depth by Nili Wazana in her 2008 book All the Boundaries of the Land. Her research shows that in the Bible there are various descriptions of these borders, which are unclear and sometimes contradictory. Wazana states that efforts to delineate the actual borders of the land run into unsolvable problems, and any attempt to draw a detailed map based on them reveals that they are not real border descriptions at all. Wazana calls our attention to the various descriptions of the Promised Land that mention monumental geographical elements – seas, mountains, large rivers and deserts. These sites were not selected due to their specific locationsliketheborderwithEgypt,LebanonorMesopotamia.Onthe contrary, they are mentioned because in the ancient world these were perceived as «representing the cosmos and defining its boundaries,» beyond which lie untamed areas that are mysterious, chaotic and dangerous. In other words, unlike Star Trek’s Captain Kirk, who sails among the stars and strives «to boldly go where no man has gone before,» the essence of the divine promise is to give certainty

39