How does modern Hebrew sound to non-Hebrew speakers?
"The only correct way of speaking Hebrew is the Yemenite way. They have retained all the original gutturals Biblical Hebrew had. They're true Semites in the linguistic sense."
I have read that even though it's about half Sephardic and half Ashkenazi speakers in Israel, Ashkenazi is predominant.
Do many people speak in the Yemenite way?
>> s. I suppose that for me, trying to understand Arabic, is not much different from an english native speaker who tries to understand German or Dutch <<
Wouldn't it be more like an English speaker who tries to understand Portuguese, rather than German or Dutch, because German and Dutch are slightly intelligible with English due to a common ancestor language, whereas Portuguese's similarities with English are because English borrowed a lot of Norman-French words. It sounds like Hebrew is paritially intelligible with Arabic due more to recent borrowings, rather than the the fact that they are related languages.
<<It sounds like Hebrew is paritially intelligible with Arabic due more to recent borrowings, rather than the the fact that they are related languages>>
Well, I'm not sure about that. Both Hebrew and Arabic are considered semitic languges, though they belong to different branches within this classification. The "problem" with modern Hebrew is that it's kind of a planned language. Since it hadn't been spoken for about 1900 years, it didn't develop as most languages did. Actually it was resuscitated in the late 19th century. At that time, Hebrew vocabulary was significantly limited, and that required creating a new language based on biblical and rabbinical roots. However, modern Hebrew has maintained a clear semitic morphology. It's syntax, however, resembles much more the Hindo-European's.
So, it seems quite tricky to determine whether Hebrew and Arabic are really related languges, or just share common words that make them partially intelligible.
<<The only correct way of speaking Hebrew is the Yemenite way. They have retained all the original gutturals Biblical Hebrew had. They're true Semites in the linguistic sense>>
This has never been proven. Most linguists agree that the Israelites used an accent different from those familiar today. They also agree that a modern Hebrew speaker couldn't have understood them had they talked to him.
As to the common accent used today in Israel, it's definitely a mix of Ashkenazi ans Sepharadi accents. The debate over the "true accent" seems futile, since once Hebrew was revived and evolved to be a lively languge, it's natural that the accent used by its natives, or at least the big majority amongst them, is the correct one. It may sound harsh, germanized, or less melodious than Arabic or Sepharadic Hebrew, but nonetheless this is the way israelis speak their mother tongue.
Is it true that it is unintelligible with Biblical Hebrew? I doubt that.
"it's natural that the accent used by its natives, or at least the big majority amongst them, is the correct one."
From where I come there is a saying.. would be something like 'A thousand errors don't make it right'.
It doesn't matter how many israelis say Het and khaf the same way. It's still wrong.
The question here is “how does modern Hebrew sound to non-Hebrew speakers” and not “Is it right or wrong”.
To answer the question: It sounds awful. But that’s just my opinion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3U7Mil_-PQ
Listen to the rabbi and the muslim speaking Hebrew in this video. Much better than the Israeli accent. I even think it sounds better than Arabic (when spoken).
___
Off topic
The woman from the Israeli TV news is not helping too. She sounds like a man. What a terrible voice! I've seen fireman and butchers with more feminine voices than hers. James Earl Jones sounds like a little girl compared to her.
<<From where I come there is a saying.. would be something like 'A thousand errors don't make it right'>>
I think that it's not true to apply such a saying to languages. Naturally, languages evolve over time, they change all the time and that indicates their liveliness.
If you take English, for instance, this is not a phonetic language at all. However, it's clear that hundreds years ago many English words were expressed in a different way than the one common today. Take the word <<high>>, do you really imagine that the "gh" were never expressed by English natives over the years? didn't they ever have a more distinct pronunciation? The "gh" is a remnant of another pronunciation, that once was considered "correct". English abounds with such examples. The "ed" suffix may be anothe one, as in the Shakespearian period the correct way to pronounce the word "believed" for example was actually the way it is written and not like we say today: believ'd. Linguists tries to fight this phenomenon were futile, as the current and "correct" pronunciation shows.
The same happens in Modern Hebrew. Distinctions between Khaf and Heit or Aleph and Ayin are disappearing. Hebrew is no longer phonetic as it used to be in the Biblical era, but that's the way a languge develop.
"It's syntax, however, resembles much more the Hindo-European's."
"Most linguists agree that the Israelites used an accent different from those familiar today. They also agree that a modern Hebrew speaker couldn't have understood them had they talked to him."
"Distinctions between Khaf and Heit or Aleph and Ayin are disappearing. Hebrew is no longer phonetic as it used to be in the Biblical era"
To make it short: It is not Hebrew. In fact, if what people are saying here is correct, you can say that two different languages such as Portuguese and Spanish have more in common than modern and biblical Hebrew.
You mean it is not *Biblical* Hebrew, which nobody actually speaks today.
Portuguese and Spanish are two different languages and they are closer to each other than Hebrew and it's modern version.
How come?
<<To make it short: It is not Hebrew. In fact, if what people are saying here is correct, you can say that two different languages such as Portuguese and Spanish have more in common than modern and biblical Hebrew>>
<<Portuguese and Spanish are two different languages and they are closer to each other than Hebrew and it's modern version.
How come?>>
Well, at the same time you can say that (Modern) French and Italian/Spanish/Catalan are much closer or that French is more intelligible with these different languges than French with Ancient French. Nonetheless, French is "the modern version" of Ancient French. The same can be contended as to English and Ancient English. In this respect, one thing is for sure, Modern hebrew is intelligible with Biblical Hebrew much more than (Modern) English with Ancient English.
However, people here ignore another phase in the Hebrew evolution, and this is the Mishnaic Hebrew used by the Jews in Palestine in the 1st-3rd centuries approximately. Mishnaic Hebrew, the language of the Mishnah (the Talmud is mainly written in Aramic), is the successor of the Biblical Hebrew. In that period many words were added and new conjugations, tenses and syntax were assimilated unto Hebrew. Therefore, Modern Hebrew is more intelligible with Mishnaic Hebrew than with Biblical Hebrew.
Since my knowledge of ancient French is non-existent I will leave it like that. But maybe your comparison should be between these languages/latin and biblical/modern Hebrew, and not with their ancient versions. I mean, modern and ancient Portuguese are still much closer than Portuguese and Spanish today.
Well, this is not the subject here. Answering the question…. Seems to me like a mix of a German and a French trying to speak Arabic. Not my cup of tea.
I heard Eyal Golan and Lior Frahi (or something like that) on youtube. Sounds nice like that.