![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Why not? Ep9206 18:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
"Hebrew grammar is mostly analytical, lacking inflectional mechanisms for dative constructs, and having no systematic ablative, accusative or dative constructs"
I place my comment here since the refered 'talk' pages talk little of linguistic aspects of the language.
The terms "Standard Hebrew" or "Israeli Standard Hebrew" are hardly ever used outside the pages of Wikipedia. Does it refer to the Hebrew spoken and written by educated Israelis? The "correct" Hebrew promoted by the Academy of the Hebrew Language? The pre-exilic Hebrew of the majority of the Bible, as standardized by scribes, massoretes, and medieval grammarians? It's not a well-defined specific term.
I've changed the sentence in the article, "Sefardi Hebrew is the basis of Standard Hebrew" because it's not meaningful to anyone who's unfamiliar with the Wikipedia-term "Standard Hebrew". I'm not disagreeing with the facts: Sefardi Hebrew pronunciation (not much else though) is indeed the basis of the most widespread, ethnically neutral variety of Israeli Hebrew pronunciation. It's just that the phrase "Standard Hebrew" (with capital s) as a technical term meaning "the most widespread, ethnically neutral variety of Israeli Hebrew" is not an established term, outside of Wikipedia. Maybe it's a good term and everyone should immediately start to use it, but it's not in keeping with Wikipedia's role to promote the use of a non-standard (!) terminology. Not to mention the fact that in many ways the most widespread, ethnically neutral variety of Israeli Hebrew is quite different from the norms promoted by the Academy of the Hebrew Language and the educational system in Israel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.184.101.96 ( talk • contribs) .
Does anyone know of a good online translator page that can render Hebrew websites in English? There are some good articles on our Hebrew counterpart which potentially contain a lot of useful information for the English language versions. Timrollpickering 14:06, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Line 2: "... the original Bible, the Torah ...". While I know that the Hebrew Bible is sometimes referred to as "Torah", this name is more typically used to mean Pentateuch, i.e. the five Mosaic books. A less confusing Hebrew name, in this particular sentence, would be Tanakh.
In any case, the phrase 'Hebrew Bible' is both inaccurate and misleading. 'Bible' is the Christian term for the 'two books' of the two Christian Testements. The Tanakh is many scriptures.
This page is 40 kb long! I see that the former articles for sections such as Hebrew grammar and Hebrew phonology were merged here. Is there some reason why this was done? It is kind of inconvenient for people with old browsers who can't upgrade. Wikiacc 01:35, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The second paragraph of I am that I am makes some assertions about the subtleties of interpreting אהיה אשר אהיה. I'm pretty sure it isn't accurate. Perhaps someone watching this page could give that text a quick fixup? Thanks, Dbenbenn 04:11, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
After twenty years of Biblical study on the subject, I would like to add that the phrase "I am that I am", as quoted from Exodus 3:14 is the Hebrew phrase " 'Ehyeh 'Asher 'Ehyeh' I will be what I will be {or become}. Furthermore, 'Ehyeh = I will be, spoken of Himself, He will be, spoken of by other people, He is, was, and will be hereafter. I Am That I Am, is also taken from the Hebrew Concordance #1961 Hayah, To Exist, or I Exist, which is the reference number for the Sacred name, and also #1933 Havah, which means to breath. Hence we have the Creator of all breathing things of flesh and of Spirit(Ruach)which also means to breath. It is most befitting for the Ever Existant One to say then "I Am", as a reference to His name. He is the Giver of life (breath)(existance), or the one who can take it away (non existance, extinction), hence, the dinosaur age for example. He is also the one who can change life toward any given direction. (He will be whatever He will be.) User:Pope/pope 11:00, Jan 2006
I know that at least one person, Arthur Koestler proposed romanising Hebrew. Although I think this was probably only ever a minority opinion, can it get some kind of mention? It is a curious footnote if nothing else.
[1] - (interesting presentation of the state of written hebrew) [2] - (iso standart) [3] - (a wiki discussing various sugguestions)
I think a new section needs to be adden containing some common Hebrew words and sayings similar to what has been done with Greek. What are your thoughts?
A fricative like the "ar" in "heart"? There's no fricative there. A better explanation is required. Chamaeleon 14:48, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"Generally speaking, the imperative of most verbs in Modern Hebrew is expressed by using the 2nd person future form."
example: b.d.k. 'infinitive' livdok (to check) imperatives in common use: (male) vdok! (rm 1st) tivdok! (2nd f.) bdok! (classic-hebrew form) (female) vdeki! (rm 1st) tivdeki! (2nd f.) bdeki! (classical male + i) bidki (classical). all forms are very common, the 'rm 1st' form is unique to modern hebrew, and is an example for a case in which modern hebrew does not obey 'bgd-kft'.
In Modern Hebrew, the use of the normal infinitive as a general imperative, no doubt under the influence of European languages (eg. German)recreates a major use of the infinitive absolute in Biblical Hebrew well described by Haiim Rabin (A Textbook of Israeli Hebrew p. 315)as "...used in commands that are addressed to nobody in particular, but are valid for everybody; its use is in such cases comparable to that of the imperative. significantly, an example will be found in the Decalogue."
"Hebrew is spoken primarily in Israel by its close to six million Jews as well as by the two million Arabs who live there. However, outside of Israel, Sephardic Jews, mainly in France (with over half a million Jews), and expatriate Israelis, mainly in the United States, (about half a million people), tend to use it as a home language. Usually, most Ashkenazi Jews not born in Israel, (about eight million people), find it difficult to learn and use Hebrew in colloquial speech."
There is an appparent contradiction in the last sentence. My guess is that it should read "do not use", but someone who knows more than I do should correct it.
Can someone expand on Aspect in Modern Hebrew compared to Biblical Hebrew, and the usual Semitic aspect system? The Semitic languages page could also use some explaination of the Semitic Aspect system.
"Recently many Israeli speakers have merged /ə/ into /e/, reducing the vowel phonemes to 5"? Only if by "recently" you mean several generations ago. It's a fiction that there is a /ə/ phoneme different from /e/. (In Israeli Hebrew, that is. In American Sephardic they are indeed different.) The truth is that there are some /e/'s that can be deleted and others that can't -- they sound the same. In terms of underlying (lexical or grammatical) representations, the instances of [e] that can be replaced by zero are best considered to be underlyingly nothing at all (or some other vowel), with a [e] inserted if necessary, or optionally. That is, [jixtevú] is underlyingly /jixtovu/ or maybe phonologically /jixtvu/, but not /jixtəvu/. The [e] in [jixtevú] sounds no different from other [e]'s.
"Ancient Hebrew did not have diphthongs. Although diphthongs do exist in modern spoken Hebrew, grammar rules discourage their use. Thus, the root Y-Kh-L, 2nd person singular, future should have been conjugated tuykhal, however the correct form is tukhal."
Someone put in that Judezmo is "wrongly called Ladino". This may be the opinion of a large number of Judezmo-speakers, but from a linguist's or historian's standpoint, there is certainly nothing whatsoever wrong with referring to it as such. Therefore, I have changed "wrongly" to "also", although this is, IMHO, slightly inaccurate, since it is far more often referred to as "Ladino" in English than as "Judezmo"...and this is the ENGLISH Wikipedia. Regardless, any personal rants about the "wrongness" of calling it Ladino should be substantiated and included on the Ladino page, and discussed on the talk page there, not on the Hebrew page. TShilo12 13:24, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Modern Hebrew has a rich jargon, which is a direct result of the flourishing youth culture. The two main features of this jargon are the Arabic borrowings (for example, "sababa", "excellent", or "kus-emmek", an expression of strong dissatisfaction which is extremely obscene both in Arabic and in Modern Hebrew), and the obfuscated idioms.
Oyd11 23:44, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The article's translitaration of hebrew includes 'h' for xet (hataf), 'x' for xet (nax), xazaq, 'y' inside SAMPA quotes where apparently 'j' is ment, 'c' for cadik: industrializacia, 'ts' for cadik shem etsem, mixed SAMPA, IPA, and apparently ad-hoc translitarations. Now, I'm just saying we should decide on a consistant standart, at least for the article. Was there such a discussion in the more general scope in WP? Oyd11 23:44, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-- Mo-Al 02:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The following is a quick (and, as far as the comments go, not entirely complete) translation of the transcription convention for Hebrew from the Nynorsk Wikipedia. It follows mainly the Qimḥian analysis of the Masoretic system. Could this be something to build on for the English Wikipedia too...? -- Olve 00:32, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hebrew | Transcr. | Hebrew | Transcr. | Comments |
---|---|---|---|---|
א | ’. - | When a א has no vowel sign (including ševá) under it, it is not transcribed. | ||
ב | ḇ | בּ | b, bb | |
ג | ğ | גּ | g, gg | |
ד | d | דּ | d, dd | |
ה | h, - | הּ | h | When this consonant is last in the word, it is only transcribed when it has a vowel sign or a mappíq (point, similar to dagéš). |
ו | v, u, ū, o, ō | וּ | vv | |
ו | z | זּ | zz | |
ח | ḥ | |||
ט | ṭ | טּ | ṭṭ | |
י | j, ī, i, ē, e | יּ | jj | We do not write īj, ēj, ej, but ī, ē, e. |
כ ך | kh | כּ ךּ | k, kk | |
ל | l | לּ | ll | |
מ ם | m | מּ | mm | |
נ ן | n | נּ | nn | |
ס | s | סּ | ss | |
ע | ‘ | |||
פ ף | f | פּ ףּ | p, pp | |
צ ץ | ṣ | צּ | ṣṣ | |
ק | q | קּ | ||
ר | r | |||
שׁ | š | שּׁ | šš | |
שׂ | s | שּׂ | ss | |
ת | t | תּ | t, tt |
Hebrew | Transcr. | Hebrew | Transcr. | Hebrew | Transcr. | Hebrew | Transcr. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
אִ אִי | ī | אִ אִי | i | ||||
אֵ אֵי | ē | אֶ אֶי | e | אֱ | ĕ | ||
אָ | ā | אַ | a | אֲ | ă | אְ | ə (audible) or non-transcribed (silent) |
אֹ, אוֹ | ō | אָ | o | אֳ | ŏ | ||
אוּ, אֻ | ū | אוּ, אֻ | u |
The article at one time stated "Hebrew has only a definite article, ha-..." which an anonymous user changed to "Hebrew has only one definite article, ha-..."
Both statements are accurate. The point that is being made in the article, however, is not that Hebrew has only one definite article, but that Hebrew has a definite article, ha-, but not an indefinite article.
I changed the word "one" to "the", so it now reads "Hebrew has only the definite article, ha-...", and would have clarified that there is no indefinite article, but perhaps that work is better left to a Hebrew grammarian, who could insert such a paragraph, or brief mention, directly preceding the apparently confusing mention of the definite article.
In the meantime, hopefully my alteration will prevent further "helpful" edits that end up changing the whole gyst of the text.
TShilo12 09:02, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"Mesopotamia" is wrong. Almost all historical linguists agree that Afro-Asiatic originated in Africa, and the one exception I know of thinks it came from Palestine. See Afro-Asiatic languages. - Mustafaa 03:55, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The vast majority of Israeli Arabs and even of Arabs living in "the territories", in addition to Arabic, also speak Hebrew. Of less concern to me than the inclusion of "as well as its Arab citizens" or whatever the article used to say, is the fact that there are probably 100,000 Russians, Jews or otherwise, who stubbornly (and quite obnoxiously) refuse to learn Hebrew. Also, the US census number is kind of a bizarre thing to include as a separate number...what should be differentiated is "first language" and "second/additional language" speakers. I would say, comfortably, that there are probably about 800,000 to as many as 1.5M Hebrew speakers in the US, whereas the US Census numbers reflect only those who speak Hebrew as their home language (i.e., "native speakers"). Tomer TALK 05:53, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
The number 195,375 in the U.S. was from my research (and somebody linked it). If you can find different (larger) numbers then by all means please post it there.
Falcoboy7 02:05, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
I took the Grammar section and sent it to Hebrew grammar, and the Sounds section and sent it to Hebrew phonology. Hope nobody minds too much... This article is getting big enough. (For justification, see relevant argument at Talk:Yiddish_language#Recommendation_to_split_article) Tomer TALK 07:34, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
I've noticed that the vowel diacritics don't seem to display as well in Firefox as in MSIE. Does anyone know of a fix for that? :) — Helpful Dave 12:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
שֵׁם
i've come across several vague references to "diaspora hebrew" (as opposed to israeli hebrew).
can anyone on here who is more familiar with hebrew than i am tell me whether or not there is such a thing?
Gringo300 00:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
so in other words, "diaspora hebrew" isn't a single monolithic dialect and/or language.
if i understand correctly, the term "diapora" has had different meanings at different times in history. particularly, different meanings before and after the founding of the nation of israel in 1948.
come to think of it, i've also seen the term "diaspora" used in entirely non-jewish contexts. Gringo300 06:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
From the article:
I don't understand why this makes the Hebrew language unique. Tempshill 21:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Like any article about a living language, this should focus more on the language spoken today. Right now the sections on sounds and grammar have been reduced to just minor paragraphs which is completely unsatisfactory. The modern phonology and grammar should be properly discussed here. Whisking it all off to subarticles won't do. The Sounds-section is missing a consonant table, a vowel chart, proper information on allophones, assimilations and phonotactis. The Grammar-section needs to be expanded to (preferably) include morphology, syntax and proper examples to illustrate it all (no endless lists, though). If anyone feels that the article is too long, then I suggest trimming the bloated history section instead of keeping everything else to a minimum. Keep in mind, though, it's not until the article grows past 50k that we can start talking about trimming material. Like with any living major language, this is a top-level article and should be allowed plenty of space to cover everything.
Peter Isotalo 23:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
This is perhaps a minor point, and as I'm still a newbie, I don't want to go around changing the many instances until I know I'm right in doing so ("be bold," I know... don't rush me ;) )
This article twice mentions that עברית is pronounced /iv'rit/, and I believe I've seen that in other Hebrew-related pages before. But seeing as ר is usually /ʁ/ in modern Hebrew, shouldn't the correct pronouncation for עברית be listed as /iv'ʁit/? Again, I know it's a minor issue, but I figured, why not bring it up? :-) - Eleusinian 04:27, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
When one uses two /´s instead of [ and ], that means one isn´t using real IPA, only a simplified form for a specific language. So it isn´t wrong. I also wonder about a thing: isn´t it an unrounded open back vowel in car, and an [a], i.e. an unrounded open front vowel, in hebrew? If I´m right that should be changed. 15/5 2006 - Laurelindë
I've previously heard that the US's founding fathers, when having to decide upon what language would be spoken in the new country being formed -- and considering that they were very anti-England and everything associated with it (apparently, including the English language) -- that Hebrew was a very real possibility. From what I've heard, it only lost by one voice.
No doubt, it would have been Biblical Hebrew, as Modern Hebrew didn't exist at the time.
One website that mentions this in passing is [4].
If anyone has more information about this, it would be very interesting to add to the article page. brozen 19:40, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Deleted -- it does not seem to make sense:
Benwing 02:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Hebrew (עברית [‘Ivrit]) | |
---|---|
Spoken in: | Israel |
Region: | Israel and other countries |
Total speakers: | ~6 million (including app. 500,000 non-Jewish speakers in Gaza/West Bank). 195,375 in the United States.1 1United States Census 2000 PHC-T-37. Ability to Speak English by Language Spoken at Home: 2000. Table 1a. |
Ranking: | not in top 100 |
Genetic classification: |
Afro-Asiatic |
Official status | |
Official language of: | Israel |
Regulated by: |
Academy of the Hebrew Language (האקדמיה ללשון העברית) |
Language codes | |
ISO 639-1 | he |
ISO 639-2 | heb |
SIL | HBR |
See also: Language – List of languages |
"... rather than as /r/, an apical trill, as in Spanish."
Wouldn't it be better to write " Alveolar trill" instead of "apical trill"?
njaard 16:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Urgent: see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) to add your opinions about this important matter. Thank you. IZAK 17:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd be VERY careful with this! Have you ever heard "Ishrael" for the country? S'pose not, but Israel DOES contain a shin! It depends on where the dot is (left or right branch of character), whether it's pronounced sh or s. -andy 80.129.90.253 15:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
What I was wondering is whether or not the Khazars were using Hebrew? Is there anything known about that? If so, that could be one of the intermediates between the demise of Hebrew in the Roman period, and its recent resurrection. JDH 13:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
What the crap is this? Hebrew language of jews (sic)? And to think a registered Wikipedia user made this change!
Take a break from serious topics! Could someone(s) check out the Kaki article and agree/disagree with
Strangely enough, I can find a reference to this word=meaning for Esperanto ! (Good grief, now everyone can say it ...) Thanks. Shenme 00:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
This article is copied from English Wikipedia! Is that allowed? [6]-- 84.228.160.209 23:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I see that under 'consonants', it says that hebrew has a VELAR fricative. I had always thought it was an (voicless) uvular fricative for chet and chaf... -- Mo-Al 14:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
No it is not a contradiction. We all agree that Hebrew has a voiceless uvular fricative, namely chaf. The only question is whether it has a velar fricative (hhet) as well. So there is nothing wrong with the "uvular fricative" article citing Hebrew as an example. Please remove the contradiction mark. -- Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 13:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I hesitate to land myself in it yet again, but I suggest the following. The table is intended to represent modern Israeli Hebrew, not all dialects. So in the main table, eliminate uvulars and pharyngeals altogether, and assume that hhet=chaf=velar fricative. Then have a footnote saying that in Mizrahi usage, and arguably in historic Hebrew, hhet is a pharyngeal like Arabic hha. Then eliminate the reference to Hebrew from the uvular fricative article, but insert a reference in the pharyngeal article (if there is one) saying that, in Arabic and MIZRAHI Hebrew, ayn/ayin and hha/hhet are examples. Is this acceptable to all parties?
I do not want to get into the argument about whether the differences are phonemic. There are certainly examples where a difference between hhet and chaf, or between tet and tav, alters the meaning of a word, but that does not affect the fact that some people pronounce them alike (leaving the meaning to be deduced from the context) and some people pronounce them differently.-- Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 14:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
This would work flawlessly for Transliterating Hebrew text into Latinized Hebrew text. ( use this alphabet reference) סרגון יוחנא
I suppose Qoph is pronounced /q/ and not /k/, isn't it? Ayadho
Maybe this talk page should be archived.-- Mo-Al 00:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The article mentions the tenth century BCE as an unqualifed date for the first appearance of Hebrew. Can this be substantiated linguistically?
Of course, all dates for the first appearance of a language are bound to be somewhat arbitrary. However, in this case, I suspect that the author may have been too influenced by political events. It seems likely that Hebrew was the native language in Canaan long before the start of the monarchy. Hebrew was the language of the Canaanite civilisation, which had already established city life perhaps as early as 10000 years ago (Jericho).
It is certainly mistaken to believe that Hebrew was introduced to Israel by the Jews. Presumably Jews spoke other languages prior to arriving in Israel; an early form of Coptic, perhaps, during the Egyptian captivity and Sumerian, (Akkadian?) in the case those who arrived with Abraham.
I write this seeking advice before altering the text. Please correct me if you have variant information.
-- Philopedia 21:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The article does quite a thorough job of discussing the development of various dialects of Hebrew. What is missing (and would really be valuable) would be some comparative material to demonstrate the content and substance of differences; for instance, examples showing how certain sounds changed, perhaps with indication of how the changes were brought about by contact with other language speakers; as well as major changes in the grammar.
This is just a wish entry. I'm afraid I lack expertise to contribute.
-- Philopedia 21:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
"Ashkenazic" Hebrew doesn't exist, unless a person is being really particular to meen Hebrew as spoken by German Jews. There are 5 or 6 dialects of Hebrew spoken by European communities, all equally valid, and the one spoke most before the war was Galitzianer. The difference? Eloikinee and Elokeynoo. Pretty substantial differences. Russian Hebrew had no Shin. Maybe the dialects section should be expanded to include all dialects, not just NCSY made up dialect vs. Ben Yehudah made up dialect. Not to mention the dozen or so different ways sefardim speak. 88.154.158.42 23:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this article should be merged into the main Hebrew article. The discussion there of Biblical Hebrew is already better than the discussion in this article. Indeed, I wonder if there is anything in this article worth retaining. -- Ssilvers 23:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations! I agree with the nominator that the article deserves GA status. On the improvement side, I would like to see more references, creation of new dialect pages or the removal of wikilinks for them and the note in the infobox be moved to the reference section. -- CTSWyneken (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The Song of Deborah and the Song of the Sea are generally agreed to be pre-monarchic. A better timeline would probably put 1200-850 as the "archaic" phase (represented by these old poems and the the bulk of Samuel) and 850-550 as the "biblical" phase, as the bulk of the Tanakh probably dates from this period.-- Rob117 22:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I would like to request that Haldrik stop changing transliterations of Hebrew letters, etc. to his own system. Most of these transliterations were based on discussions at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew), and reflected the consensus achieved there.
Haldrik, I know you would not like it if someone came along and replaced many transliterations with another system, say Ashkenazi Hebrew transliterations. Please refrain from making these type of changes until they have been discussed at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew). -- Eliyak T· C 20:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Could somebody please direct me to some help on how to type Hebrew in Microsoft Word, etc? I do not understand why, when or how the Word Processor decides to reorder the letter sequences left-to-right or right-to-left. It's a real pain to try to type something and then watch the Word Processor reverse all of the letter sequences. How do you ensure that the Word Processor lets you type and view everything right-to-left instead of left-to-right? Is there an online tutorial for this somewhere? Thank you. Ep9206 18:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
If you have a recent Windows it should handle right-to-left. You have to activate it tho. (You might need to have the Windows disk! So if your computer didnt come with one, you might not be able to do it.)
If there are any tech gurus who want to modify or expand the instructions above, please do so! -- Haldrik 22:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I was hoping that some people who frequent this page might actually speak Hebrew. Can anyone, perhaps, provide a transation or at least transliteration for the term גיס חמישי (I hope I copied that right) on Fifth column? -- Bucephalus 13:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
According to Niqud, kamatz katan is pronounced in Standard Hebrew as /o/ (i.e. same as kholam). This article does not make that distinction. Do native Israeli speakers of Hebrew indeed make that distinction? (My observation is that the word כל is pronounce "cull" not "coll" but I don't know if this distinction is made accross the board) -- Jms2000 17:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
What is "Standard Hebrew"? That's not a standard term anywhere outside of Wikipedia. Does it mean the Hebrew of the majority of the Bible, as standardized by scribes and massoretes? Does it mean the way most educated Israelis speak and write? Does it mean "correct" Hebrew as promoted by the Hebrew Language Academy and school textbooks? Wikipedia should not be introducing new terms.
as in "go"
Is that correct? Wouldn't Israelis pronounce it as in "hut"? -- Jms2000 17:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
A guideline on whether or not to italicize Hebrew (and all scripts other than Latin) is being debated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Italics in Cyrillic and Greek characters. - - Evv 16:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
אני מאוד שמח שיש אנשים בארצות הברית או הבריטניה שיודעים עברית
האם אתה גר בארצות הברית כי אני חי בישראל וזה מוזר לפגוש אנשיים יהודיים שגרים במדינה אחרת אנא סלח לי אם אני מטריד אותך
אנחנו בוויקיפדיה לא יכולים לפגוש אותך אם לא תשים את החתימה שלך בדף. אני אמריקאי. אני מתכנן לנסוע עוד פעם לישראל בפברואר. יש לי חברים בראשון לציון ובמזקרת בתיה. איפה אתה גר? אם אתה רוצה, יכול לענות על השאלות האלה ב דף שלי. - שלום וברכה, יונה מישאל
"מזקרת בתיה"? רק הראש הכחול שלי מפרש את שגיאת ההקלדה הזו באופן משעשע? (האיות הנכון: "מזכרת בתיה")
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%96%D7%9B%D7%A8%D7%AA_%D7%91%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%94
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Why not? Ep9206 18:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
"Hebrew grammar is mostly analytical, lacking inflectional mechanisms for dative constructs, and having no systematic ablative, accusative or dative constructs"
I place my comment here since the refered 'talk' pages talk little of linguistic aspects of the language.
The terms "Standard Hebrew" or "Israeli Standard Hebrew" are hardly ever used outside the pages of Wikipedia. Does it refer to the Hebrew spoken and written by educated Israelis? The "correct" Hebrew promoted by the Academy of the Hebrew Language? The pre-exilic Hebrew of the majority of the Bible, as standardized by scribes, massoretes, and medieval grammarians? It's not a well-defined specific term.
I've changed the sentence in the article, "Sefardi Hebrew is the basis of Standard Hebrew" because it's not meaningful to anyone who's unfamiliar with the Wikipedia-term "Standard Hebrew". I'm not disagreeing with the facts: Sefardi Hebrew pronunciation (not much else though) is indeed the basis of the most widespread, ethnically neutral variety of Israeli Hebrew pronunciation. It's just that the phrase "Standard Hebrew" (with capital s) as a technical term meaning "the most widespread, ethnically neutral variety of Israeli Hebrew" is not an established term, outside of Wikipedia. Maybe it's a good term and everyone should immediately start to use it, but it's not in keeping with Wikipedia's role to promote the use of a non-standard (!) terminology. Not to mention the fact that in many ways the most widespread, ethnically neutral variety of Israeli Hebrew is quite different from the norms promoted by the Academy of the Hebrew Language and the educational system in Israel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.184.101.96 ( talk • contribs) .
Does anyone know of a good online translator page that can render Hebrew websites in English? There are some good articles on our Hebrew counterpart which potentially contain a lot of useful information for the English language versions. Timrollpickering 14:06, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Line 2: "... the original Bible, the Torah ...". While I know that the Hebrew Bible is sometimes referred to as "Torah", this name is more typically used to mean Pentateuch, i.e. the five Mosaic books. A less confusing Hebrew name, in this particular sentence, would be Tanakh.
In any case, the phrase 'Hebrew Bible' is both inaccurate and misleading. 'Bible' is the Christian term for the 'two books' of the two Christian Testements. The Tanakh is many scriptures.
This page is 40 kb long! I see that the former articles for sections such as Hebrew grammar and Hebrew phonology were merged here. Is there some reason why this was done? It is kind of inconvenient for people with old browsers who can't upgrade. Wikiacc 01:35, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The second paragraph of I am that I am makes some assertions about the subtleties of interpreting אהיה אשר אהיה. I'm pretty sure it isn't accurate. Perhaps someone watching this page could give that text a quick fixup? Thanks, Dbenbenn 04:11, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
After twenty years of Biblical study on the subject, I would like to add that the phrase "I am that I am", as quoted from Exodus 3:14 is the Hebrew phrase " 'Ehyeh 'Asher 'Ehyeh' I will be what I will be {or become}. Furthermore, 'Ehyeh = I will be, spoken of Himself, He will be, spoken of by other people, He is, was, and will be hereafter. I Am That I Am, is also taken from the Hebrew Concordance #1961 Hayah, To Exist, or I Exist, which is the reference number for the Sacred name, and also #1933 Havah, which means to breath. Hence we have the Creator of all breathing things of flesh and of Spirit(Ruach)which also means to breath. It is most befitting for the Ever Existant One to say then "I Am", as a reference to His name. He is the Giver of life (breath)(existance), or the one who can take it away (non existance, extinction), hence, the dinosaur age for example. He is also the one who can change life toward any given direction. (He will be whatever He will be.) User:Pope/pope 11:00, Jan 2006
I know that at least one person, Arthur Koestler proposed romanising Hebrew. Although I think this was probably only ever a minority opinion, can it get some kind of mention? It is a curious footnote if nothing else.
[1] - (interesting presentation of the state of written hebrew) [2] - (iso standart) [3] - (a wiki discussing various sugguestions)
I think a new section needs to be adden containing some common Hebrew words and sayings similar to what has been done with Greek. What are your thoughts?
A fricative like the "ar" in "heart"? There's no fricative there. A better explanation is required. Chamaeleon 14:48, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"Generally speaking, the imperative of most verbs in Modern Hebrew is expressed by using the 2nd person future form."
example: b.d.k. 'infinitive' livdok (to check) imperatives in common use: (male) vdok! (rm 1st) tivdok! (2nd f.) bdok! (classic-hebrew form) (female) vdeki! (rm 1st) tivdeki! (2nd f.) bdeki! (classical male + i) bidki (classical). all forms are very common, the 'rm 1st' form is unique to modern hebrew, and is an example for a case in which modern hebrew does not obey 'bgd-kft'.
In Modern Hebrew, the use of the normal infinitive as a general imperative, no doubt under the influence of European languages (eg. German)recreates a major use of the infinitive absolute in Biblical Hebrew well described by Haiim Rabin (A Textbook of Israeli Hebrew p. 315)as "...used in commands that are addressed to nobody in particular, but are valid for everybody; its use is in such cases comparable to that of the imperative. significantly, an example will be found in the Decalogue."
"Hebrew is spoken primarily in Israel by its close to six million Jews as well as by the two million Arabs who live there. However, outside of Israel, Sephardic Jews, mainly in France (with over half a million Jews), and expatriate Israelis, mainly in the United States, (about half a million people), tend to use it as a home language. Usually, most Ashkenazi Jews not born in Israel, (about eight million people), find it difficult to learn and use Hebrew in colloquial speech."
There is an appparent contradiction in the last sentence. My guess is that it should read "do not use", but someone who knows more than I do should correct it.
Can someone expand on Aspect in Modern Hebrew compared to Biblical Hebrew, and the usual Semitic aspect system? The Semitic languages page could also use some explaination of the Semitic Aspect system.
"Recently many Israeli speakers have merged /ə/ into /e/, reducing the vowel phonemes to 5"? Only if by "recently" you mean several generations ago. It's a fiction that there is a /ə/ phoneme different from /e/. (In Israeli Hebrew, that is. In American Sephardic they are indeed different.) The truth is that there are some /e/'s that can be deleted and others that can't -- they sound the same. In terms of underlying (lexical or grammatical) representations, the instances of [e] that can be replaced by zero are best considered to be underlyingly nothing at all (or some other vowel), with a [e] inserted if necessary, or optionally. That is, [jixtevú] is underlyingly /jixtovu/ or maybe phonologically /jixtvu/, but not /jixtəvu/. The [e] in [jixtevú] sounds no different from other [e]'s.
"Ancient Hebrew did not have diphthongs. Although diphthongs do exist in modern spoken Hebrew, grammar rules discourage their use. Thus, the root Y-Kh-L, 2nd person singular, future should have been conjugated tuykhal, however the correct form is tukhal."
Someone put in that Judezmo is "wrongly called Ladino". This may be the opinion of a large number of Judezmo-speakers, but from a linguist's or historian's standpoint, there is certainly nothing whatsoever wrong with referring to it as such. Therefore, I have changed "wrongly" to "also", although this is, IMHO, slightly inaccurate, since it is far more often referred to as "Ladino" in English than as "Judezmo"...and this is the ENGLISH Wikipedia. Regardless, any personal rants about the "wrongness" of calling it Ladino should be substantiated and included on the Ladino page, and discussed on the talk page there, not on the Hebrew page. TShilo12 13:24, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Modern Hebrew has a rich jargon, which is a direct result of the flourishing youth culture. The two main features of this jargon are the Arabic borrowings (for example, "sababa", "excellent", or "kus-emmek", an expression of strong dissatisfaction which is extremely obscene both in Arabic and in Modern Hebrew), and the obfuscated idioms.
Oyd11 23:44, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The article's translitaration of hebrew includes 'h' for xet (hataf), 'x' for xet (nax), xazaq, 'y' inside SAMPA quotes where apparently 'j' is ment, 'c' for cadik: industrializacia, 'ts' for cadik shem etsem, mixed SAMPA, IPA, and apparently ad-hoc translitarations. Now, I'm just saying we should decide on a consistant standart, at least for the article. Was there such a discussion in the more general scope in WP? Oyd11 23:44, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-- Mo-Al 02:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The following is a quick (and, as far as the comments go, not entirely complete) translation of the transcription convention for Hebrew from the Nynorsk Wikipedia. It follows mainly the Qimḥian analysis of the Masoretic system. Could this be something to build on for the English Wikipedia too...? -- Olve 00:32, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hebrew | Transcr. | Hebrew | Transcr. | Comments |
---|---|---|---|---|
א | ’. - | When a א has no vowel sign (including ševá) under it, it is not transcribed. | ||
ב | ḇ | בּ | b, bb | |
ג | ğ | גּ | g, gg | |
ד | d | דּ | d, dd | |
ה | h, - | הּ | h | When this consonant is last in the word, it is only transcribed when it has a vowel sign or a mappíq (point, similar to dagéš). |
ו | v, u, ū, o, ō | וּ | vv | |
ו | z | זּ | zz | |
ח | ḥ | |||
ט | ṭ | טּ | ṭṭ | |
י | j, ī, i, ē, e | יּ | jj | We do not write īj, ēj, ej, but ī, ē, e. |
כ ך | kh | כּ ךּ | k, kk | |
ל | l | לּ | ll | |
מ ם | m | מּ | mm | |
נ ן | n | נּ | nn | |
ס | s | סּ | ss | |
ע | ‘ | |||
פ ף | f | פּ ףּ | p, pp | |
צ ץ | ṣ | צּ | ṣṣ | |
ק | q | קּ | ||
ר | r | |||
שׁ | š | שּׁ | šš | |
שׂ | s | שּׂ | ss | |
ת | t | תּ | t, tt |
Hebrew | Transcr. | Hebrew | Transcr. | Hebrew | Transcr. | Hebrew | Transcr. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
אִ אִי | ī | אִ אִי | i | ||||
אֵ אֵי | ē | אֶ אֶי | e | אֱ | ĕ | ||
אָ | ā | אַ | a | אֲ | ă | אְ | ə (audible) or non-transcribed (silent) |
אֹ, אוֹ | ō | אָ | o | אֳ | ŏ | ||
אוּ, אֻ | ū | אוּ, אֻ | u |
The article at one time stated "Hebrew has only a definite article, ha-..." which an anonymous user changed to "Hebrew has only one definite article, ha-..."
Both statements are accurate. The point that is being made in the article, however, is not that Hebrew has only one definite article, but that Hebrew has a definite article, ha-, but not an indefinite article.
I changed the word "one" to "the", so it now reads "Hebrew has only the definite article, ha-...", and would have clarified that there is no indefinite article, but perhaps that work is better left to a Hebrew grammarian, who could insert such a paragraph, or brief mention, directly preceding the apparently confusing mention of the definite article.
In the meantime, hopefully my alteration will prevent further "helpful" edits that end up changing the whole gyst of the text.
TShilo12 09:02, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"Mesopotamia" is wrong. Almost all historical linguists agree that Afro-Asiatic originated in Africa, and the one exception I know of thinks it came from Palestine. See Afro-Asiatic languages. - Mustafaa 03:55, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The vast majority of Israeli Arabs and even of Arabs living in "the territories", in addition to Arabic, also speak Hebrew. Of less concern to me than the inclusion of "as well as its Arab citizens" or whatever the article used to say, is the fact that there are probably 100,000 Russians, Jews or otherwise, who stubbornly (and quite obnoxiously) refuse to learn Hebrew. Also, the US census number is kind of a bizarre thing to include as a separate number...what should be differentiated is "first language" and "second/additional language" speakers. I would say, comfortably, that there are probably about 800,000 to as many as 1.5M Hebrew speakers in the US, whereas the US Census numbers reflect only those who speak Hebrew as their home language (i.e., "native speakers"). Tomer TALK 05:53, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
The number 195,375 in the U.S. was from my research (and somebody linked it). If you can find different (larger) numbers then by all means please post it there.
Falcoboy7 02:05, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
I took the Grammar section and sent it to Hebrew grammar, and the Sounds section and sent it to Hebrew phonology. Hope nobody minds too much... This article is getting big enough. (For justification, see relevant argument at Talk:Yiddish_language#Recommendation_to_split_article) Tomer TALK 07:34, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
I've noticed that the vowel diacritics don't seem to display as well in Firefox as in MSIE. Does anyone know of a fix for that? :) — Helpful Dave 12:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
שֵׁם
i've come across several vague references to "diaspora hebrew" (as opposed to israeli hebrew).
can anyone on here who is more familiar with hebrew than i am tell me whether or not there is such a thing?
Gringo300 00:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
so in other words, "diaspora hebrew" isn't a single monolithic dialect and/or language.
if i understand correctly, the term "diapora" has had different meanings at different times in history. particularly, different meanings before and after the founding of the nation of israel in 1948.
come to think of it, i've also seen the term "diaspora" used in entirely non-jewish contexts. Gringo300 06:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
From the article:
I don't understand why this makes the Hebrew language unique. Tempshill 21:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Like any article about a living language, this should focus more on the language spoken today. Right now the sections on sounds and grammar have been reduced to just minor paragraphs which is completely unsatisfactory. The modern phonology and grammar should be properly discussed here. Whisking it all off to subarticles won't do. The Sounds-section is missing a consonant table, a vowel chart, proper information on allophones, assimilations and phonotactis. The Grammar-section needs to be expanded to (preferably) include morphology, syntax and proper examples to illustrate it all (no endless lists, though). If anyone feels that the article is too long, then I suggest trimming the bloated history section instead of keeping everything else to a minimum. Keep in mind, though, it's not until the article grows past 50k that we can start talking about trimming material. Like with any living major language, this is a top-level article and should be allowed plenty of space to cover everything.
Peter Isotalo 23:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
This is perhaps a minor point, and as I'm still a newbie, I don't want to go around changing the many instances until I know I'm right in doing so ("be bold," I know... don't rush me ;) )
This article twice mentions that עברית is pronounced /iv'rit/, and I believe I've seen that in other Hebrew-related pages before. But seeing as ר is usually /ʁ/ in modern Hebrew, shouldn't the correct pronouncation for עברית be listed as /iv'ʁit/? Again, I know it's a minor issue, but I figured, why not bring it up? :-) - Eleusinian 04:27, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
When one uses two /´s instead of [ and ], that means one isn´t using real IPA, only a simplified form for a specific language. So it isn´t wrong. I also wonder about a thing: isn´t it an unrounded open back vowel in car, and an [a], i.e. an unrounded open front vowel, in hebrew? If I´m right that should be changed. 15/5 2006 - Laurelindë
I've previously heard that the US's founding fathers, when having to decide upon what language would be spoken in the new country being formed -- and considering that they were very anti-England and everything associated with it (apparently, including the English language) -- that Hebrew was a very real possibility. From what I've heard, it only lost by one voice.
No doubt, it would have been Biblical Hebrew, as Modern Hebrew didn't exist at the time.
One website that mentions this in passing is [4].
If anyone has more information about this, it would be very interesting to add to the article page. brozen 19:40, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Deleted -- it does not seem to make sense:
Benwing 02:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Hebrew (עברית [‘Ivrit]) | |
---|---|
Spoken in: | Israel |
Region: | Israel and other countries |
Total speakers: | ~6 million (including app. 500,000 non-Jewish speakers in Gaza/West Bank). 195,375 in the United States.1 1United States Census 2000 PHC-T-37. Ability to Speak English by Language Spoken at Home: 2000. Table 1a. |
Ranking: | not in top 100 |
Genetic classification: |
Afro-Asiatic |
Official status | |
Official language of: | Israel |
Regulated by: |
Academy of the Hebrew Language (האקדמיה ללשון העברית) |
Language codes | |
ISO 639-1 | he |
ISO 639-2 | heb |
SIL | HBR |
See also: Language – List of languages |
"... rather than as /r/, an apical trill, as in Spanish."
Wouldn't it be better to write " Alveolar trill" instead of "apical trill"?
njaard 16:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Urgent: see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) to add your opinions about this important matter. Thank you. IZAK 17:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd be VERY careful with this! Have you ever heard "Ishrael" for the country? S'pose not, but Israel DOES contain a shin! It depends on where the dot is (left or right branch of character), whether it's pronounced sh or s. -andy 80.129.90.253 15:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
What I was wondering is whether or not the Khazars were using Hebrew? Is there anything known about that? If so, that could be one of the intermediates between the demise of Hebrew in the Roman period, and its recent resurrection. JDH 13:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
What the crap is this? Hebrew language of jews (sic)? And to think a registered Wikipedia user made this change!
Take a break from serious topics! Could someone(s) check out the Kaki article and agree/disagree with
Strangely enough, I can find a reference to this word=meaning for Esperanto ! (Good grief, now everyone can say it ...) Thanks. Shenme 00:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
This article is copied from English Wikipedia! Is that allowed? [6]-- 84.228.160.209 23:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I see that under 'consonants', it says that hebrew has a VELAR fricative. I had always thought it was an (voicless) uvular fricative for chet and chaf... -- Mo-Al 14:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
No it is not a contradiction. We all agree that Hebrew has a voiceless uvular fricative, namely chaf. The only question is whether it has a velar fricative (hhet) as well. So there is nothing wrong with the "uvular fricative" article citing Hebrew as an example. Please remove the contradiction mark. -- Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 13:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I hesitate to land myself in it yet again, but I suggest the following. The table is intended to represent modern Israeli Hebrew, not all dialects. So in the main table, eliminate uvulars and pharyngeals altogether, and assume that hhet=chaf=velar fricative. Then have a footnote saying that in Mizrahi usage, and arguably in historic Hebrew, hhet is a pharyngeal like Arabic hha. Then eliminate the reference to Hebrew from the uvular fricative article, but insert a reference in the pharyngeal article (if there is one) saying that, in Arabic and MIZRAHI Hebrew, ayn/ayin and hha/hhet are examples. Is this acceptable to all parties?
I do not want to get into the argument about whether the differences are phonemic. There are certainly examples where a difference between hhet and chaf, or between tet and tav, alters the meaning of a word, but that does not affect the fact that some people pronounce them alike (leaving the meaning to be deduced from the context) and some people pronounce them differently.-- Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 14:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
This would work flawlessly for Transliterating Hebrew text into Latinized Hebrew text. ( use this alphabet reference) סרגון יוחנא
I suppose Qoph is pronounced /q/ and not /k/, isn't it? Ayadho
Maybe this talk page should be archived.-- Mo-Al 00:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The article mentions the tenth century BCE as an unqualifed date for the first appearance of Hebrew. Can this be substantiated linguistically?
Of course, all dates for the first appearance of a language are bound to be somewhat arbitrary. However, in this case, I suspect that the author may have been too influenced by political events. It seems likely that Hebrew was the native language in Canaan long before the start of the monarchy. Hebrew was the language of the Canaanite civilisation, which had already established city life perhaps as early as 10000 years ago (Jericho).
It is certainly mistaken to believe that Hebrew was introduced to Israel by the Jews. Presumably Jews spoke other languages prior to arriving in Israel; an early form of Coptic, perhaps, during the Egyptian captivity and Sumerian, (Akkadian?) in the case those who arrived with Abraham.
I write this seeking advice before altering the text. Please correct me if you have variant information.
-- Philopedia 21:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The article does quite a thorough job of discussing the development of various dialects of Hebrew. What is missing (and would really be valuable) would be some comparative material to demonstrate the content and substance of differences; for instance, examples showing how certain sounds changed, perhaps with indication of how the changes were brought about by contact with other language speakers; as well as major changes in the grammar.
This is just a wish entry. I'm afraid I lack expertise to contribute.
-- Philopedia 21:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
"Ashkenazic" Hebrew doesn't exist, unless a person is being really particular to meen Hebrew as spoken by German Jews. There are 5 or 6 dialects of Hebrew spoken by European communities, all equally valid, and the one spoke most before the war was Galitzianer. The difference? Eloikinee and Elokeynoo. Pretty substantial differences. Russian Hebrew had no Shin. Maybe the dialects section should be expanded to include all dialects, not just NCSY made up dialect vs. Ben Yehudah made up dialect. Not to mention the dozen or so different ways sefardim speak. 88.154.158.42 23:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this article should be merged into the main Hebrew article. The discussion there of Biblical Hebrew is already better than the discussion in this article. Indeed, I wonder if there is anything in this article worth retaining. -- Ssilvers 23:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations! I agree with the nominator that the article deserves GA status. On the improvement side, I would like to see more references, creation of new dialect pages or the removal of wikilinks for them and the note in the infobox be moved to the reference section. -- CTSWyneken (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The Song of Deborah and the Song of the Sea are generally agreed to be pre-monarchic. A better timeline would probably put 1200-850 as the "archaic" phase (represented by these old poems and the the bulk of Samuel) and 850-550 as the "biblical" phase, as the bulk of the Tanakh probably dates from this period.-- Rob117 22:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I would like to request that Haldrik stop changing transliterations of Hebrew letters, etc. to his own system. Most of these transliterations were based on discussions at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew), and reflected the consensus achieved there.
Haldrik, I know you would not like it if someone came along and replaced many transliterations with another system, say Ashkenazi Hebrew transliterations. Please refrain from making these type of changes until they have been discussed at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew). -- Eliyak T· C 20:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Could somebody please direct me to some help on how to type Hebrew in Microsoft Word, etc? I do not understand why, when or how the Word Processor decides to reorder the letter sequences left-to-right or right-to-left. It's a real pain to try to type something and then watch the Word Processor reverse all of the letter sequences. How do you ensure that the Word Processor lets you type and view everything right-to-left instead of left-to-right? Is there an online tutorial for this somewhere? Thank you. Ep9206 18:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
If you have a recent Windows it should handle right-to-left. You have to activate it tho. (You might need to have the Windows disk! So if your computer didnt come with one, you might not be able to do it.)
If there are any tech gurus who want to modify or expand the instructions above, please do so! -- Haldrik 22:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I was hoping that some people who frequent this page might actually speak Hebrew. Can anyone, perhaps, provide a transation or at least transliteration for the term גיס חמישי (I hope I copied that right) on Fifth column? -- Bucephalus 13:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
According to Niqud, kamatz katan is pronounced in Standard Hebrew as /o/ (i.e. same as kholam). This article does not make that distinction. Do native Israeli speakers of Hebrew indeed make that distinction? (My observation is that the word כל is pronounce "cull" not "coll" but I don't know if this distinction is made accross the board) -- Jms2000 17:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
What is "Standard Hebrew"? That's not a standard term anywhere outside of Wikipedia. Does it mean the Hebrew of the majority of the Bible, as standardized by scribes and massoretes? Does it mean the way most educated Israelis speak and write? Does it mean "correct" Hebrew as promoted by the Hebrew Language Academy and school textbooks? Wikipedia should not be introducing new terms.
as in "go"
Is that correct? Wouldn't Israelis pronounce it as in "hut"? -- Jms2000 17:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
A guideline on whether or not to italicize Hebrew (and all scripts other than Latin) is being debated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Italics in Cyrillic and Greek characters. - - Evv 16:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
אני מאוד שמח שיש אנשים בארצות הברית או הבריטניה שיודעים עברית
האם אתה גר בארצות הברית כי אני חי בישראל וזה מוזר לפגוש אנשיים יהודיים שגרים במדינה אחרת אנא סלח לי אם אני מטריד אותך
אנחנו בוויקיפדיה לא יכולים לפגוש אותך אם לא תשים את החתימה שלך בדף. אני אמריקאי. אני מתכנן לנסוע עוד פעם לישראל בפברואר. יש לי חברים בראשון לציון ובמזקרת בתיה. איפה אתה גר? אם אתה רוצה, יכול לענות על השאלות האלה ב דף שלי. - שלום וברכה, יונה מישאל
"מזקרת בתיה"? רק הראש הכחול שלי מפרש את שגיאת ההקלדה הזו באופן משעשע? (האיות הנכון: "מזכרת בתיה")
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%96%D7%9B%D7%A8%D7%AA_%D7%91%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%94