3 ms·

English and Hebrew are equally old. Just like humans and chimps are. There are species with less "evolution" than others.

triceratops 3y ago
> English and Hebrew are equally old. If you had a time machine could you bring me an English speaker from the year 1 CE?
- earthboundkid 3y ago
  In 1CE, people in Palestine mostly spoke Aramaic, and Hebrew was a religious language rapidly declining in vernacular use. :-)
  - triceratops 3y ago
    If I offered 100 pieces of gold I bet I could find at least one Hebrew speaker in Judaea in the year 1. Would I find an English speaker if I then popped over to Britannia and offered gold? Or would they say "What the fuck is English?"
    - tyg13 3y ago
      Hebrew as it's spoken today in Israel, or ancient Hebrew? There's a lot of intelligibility between the two, but it's mostly in the written form. In ancient Judea you'd be more likely to find a speaker of dialect that'd entirely dead today. As far as English goes, obviously you wouldn't find any English speakers in ancient Britain, but you could find Saxons that spoke a language that English is descended from. There won't be much intelligibility, if any at all, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was equally unintelligible as ancient spoken Hebrew.
      - NikkiA 3y ago
        > but you could find Saxons that spoke a language that English is descended from. Not in britain you wouldn't, the saxons colonised britain in the 700-800AD range. Britons speaking Brythonic is what you'd find, probably not common Brythonic though, too early for that.
        tyg13 3y ago
        Yes, you are correct the Saxons would be in ancient Saxony, not Britain.
  - edgyquant 3y ago
    So you concede that Hebrew existed. Well English didn’t and that’s the point.
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
You are making a semantic argument that virtually no linguists accept. We get your point, we just don't think it makes sense for how we define languages.
- tyg13 3y ago
  I'm no linguist, but I do study it as a hobby. As far as I'm aware, linguists are not generally in the business of making ridiculous claims like "this language is older than another." The concept of "age" for a language for something as fluid as language is fundamentally flawed.

triceratops 3y ago

> English and Hebrew are equally old. If you had a time machine could you bring me an English speaker from the year 1 CE?

earthboundkid 3y ago
In 1CE, people in Palestine mostly spoke Aramaic, and Hebrew was a religious language rapidly declining in vernacular use. :-)
- triceratops 3y ago
  If I offered 100 pieces of gold I bet I could find at least one Hebrew speaker in Judaea in the year 1. Would I find an English speaker if I then popped over to Britannia and offered gold? Or would they say "What the fuck is English?"
  - tyg13 3y ago
    Hebrew as it's spoken today in Israel, or ancient Hebrew? There's a lot of intelligibility between the two, but it's mostly in the written form. In ancient Judea you'd be more likely to find a speaker of dialect that'd entirely dead today. As far as English goes, obviously you wouldn't find any English speakers in ancient Britain, but you could find Saxons that spoke a language that English is descended from. There won't be much intelligibility, if any at all, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was equally unintelligible as ancient spoken Hebrew.
    - NikkiA 3y ago
      > but you could find Saxons that spoke a language that English is descended from. Not in britain you wouldn't, the saxons colonised britain in the 700-800AD range. Britons speaking Brythonic is what you'd find, probably not common Brythonic though, too early for that.
      - tyg13 3y ago
        Yes, you are correct the Saxons would be in ancient Saxony, not Britain.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  So you concede that Hebrew existed. Well English didn’t and that’s the point.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

You are making a semantic argument that virtually no linguists accept. We get your point, we just don't think it makes sense for how we define languages.

tyg13 3y ago
I'm no linguist, but I do study it as a hobby. As far as I'm aware, linguists are not generally in the business of making ridiculous claims like "this language is older than another." The concept of "age" for a language for something as fluid as language is fundamentally flawed.