NOTES ET MÉLANGES

Moshe FLORENTIN Tel-Aviv University and the Academy of the

THE REGULATION OF AND THE PROBLEM OF UNIFICATION

1. Prolog: the “invisible hand” and regulation

I was deeply occupied with my thoughts and ideas related to this paper at the end of 2007 when I found myself shocked by the sudden outburst of the global financial and economic crisis at that time. Without trying to find farfetched analogies between economics and linguistics, I kept returning to the thought of what one may call “language capitalism” and several kinds of mechanism of regulation in civilized democratic societies. Can the “invisible hand”1 really always lead the compound markets to their optimal condition? I do not intend to share with the reader my poor economic knowledge, yet I found it rather interesting to consider the fraught question of language regu- lation in light of that yet-continuing world crisis. Certainly, vigorous acts of increased supervision of banks in the USA are a reality which should cause second thoughts, at any rate among those who are traditionally and consistently against any kind of regulation. There are parallels with language.

2. Is there any need for an academy of language? Can it be effective?

Let me then raise the first question of my paper, which unfortunately seems to be characterized by an embarrassing lack of answers: “Do we need any kind of language regulation?” In other words: “Is there any need for an academy of language?”

1. As it is well known, the expression was first coined by the eighteenth century economist Adam Smith in his The Theory of Moral Sentiments, London, 1759, Part IV, chapter 1.

Revue des études juives, 171 (3-4), juillet-décembre 2012, pp. 381-401. doi: 10.2143/REJ.171.3.2184710

995711_REJ_2012/3-4_05_Florentin.indd5711_REJ_2012/3-4_05_Florentin.indd 381381 55/12/12/12/12 13:5213:52 382 THE REGULATION OF MODERN HEBREW

The special case of Hebrew

The question of language regulation is compound, as is the variety of language itself. And though any spoken living language has its varieties one should bear in mind the special case of Hebrew: a written language that came back almost overnight to be spoken by thousands, indeed millions of non-native speakers immigrating to and by their descendants born in that country during the last one hundred years2.

Informal variety of language — the confusion of numerals in Hebrew

It seems that no serious person would admit any kind of official inter- ference in one of the many spoken, informal varieties of language. Thus, the Academy of the Hebrew Language, for instance, does not make any effort to repair colloquial phenomena such as the chaos in the domain of numerals in modern vernacular Hebrew. Indeed, quite commonly-made mistakes such שנים sne sqalim and שני שקלים ste seqel, “two shekels”, instead of שתי שקל snem ‘asar, “twelve שנים עשר snem ‘esre, “twelve”, instead of עשרה stem ‘esre, “twelve (fem.)”, drive to despair many שתים עשרה masc.)” or) who consider themselves well educated. This “barbaric” confusion of gen- der — accompanied by “savage” innovations of new forms3 — in the whole system of cardinal numbers is due to their anomaly in Hebrew and the other : the whole system is twofold, each number being charac- terized by two forms, masculine and feminine, while the masculine bears ַי ְל ָדּה slosa, “three”, (masc.) versus ְשׁ ָלוֹשׁה .of the feminine, e.g -ה the suffix yalda, “girl” (fem.).4 This anomaly has caused the same confusion in other spoken Semitic languages, each usually preferring to use only the short form, i.e. the feminine one.5 that this “ugly” phenomenon assailed the purity of Hebrew from the very beginning of its revival. In 1930, Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the right-wing revisionist Zionist leader, wrote in his booklet entitled The Hebrew Pronunciation referring to what called “the trouble of the numerals”: “one can hardly find a person who strictly differs between

2. See J. BLAU, The Renaissance of Modern Hebrew and Modern Standard , Berkeley, 1981. smona ‘esre, “eighteen”, a mix of the masculine numeral smona שמונה עשרה Such as .3 . ְש ֶמוֹנה ֶע ְשֵרה and the feminine smone ‘esre ְש ָמוֹנה ָע ָשר asar‘ 4. See e.g., P. JOÜON, T. MURAOKA, A of , Roma, 1996, §100 d (henceforth, JOÜON-MURAOKA). 5. Thus, in the Arabic dialect of Jerusalem only the short form of the cardinal numerals 3-10 is used, e.g. talat iwlad, “three boys”, instead of talate. See A. LEVIN, A Grammar of the Arabic Dialect of Jerusalem (Hebrew), Jerusalem, 1994, p. 62.

995711_REJ_2012/3-4_05_Florentin.indd5711_REJ_2012/3-4_05_Florentin.indd 382382 55/12/12/12/12 13:5213:52 THE REGULATION OF MODERN HEBREW 383

masculine and feminine numbers in his fluent speaking”.6 It was probably his desperation which led him to suggest the substitution of all the numerals by letters so that, instead of the endless confusion described above, he pro- denoting 12, bypassing the whole problem of ,י״ב posed for example just distinction between masculine and feminine. Moreover, this confusion can be found in more than a few Rabbinic Hebrew (and Samaritan) texts com- posed during the medieval ages.7 Indeed most of these texts hardly deserve the title “canonic”, yet the phenomenon is not alien to pre-Modern Hebrew. Even the Biblical scribes occasionally faltered — though very rarely — and and the three wives of his“ , ְוּש ֶֹלשת ְנ ֵשי ָב ָניו one can find written about Noah 8. ְוּשֹלש ְנ ֵשי ָב ָניו sons” (Gen. 7:13), instead of

Regulating the formal variety of language

By adducing these historical facts I am not trying to legitimize this phe- nomenon. My aim is to emphasize the point that the Academy of the Hebrew Language does not strive to shape the character of all the varieties of Modern Hebrew. Its only task, in this respect, is to establish and fix the cultural, official, formal aspect of our language. I personally am not of the opinion that one should, or can, regulate the vernacular Hebrew (or spoken forms of any other language). In other words, this linguistic education is the task, perhaps one of the most important tasks, of schools rather than of academies of language. Assuming that the Academy, or any other regulator, should leave aside all varieties of spoken language and concentrate on the “language of culture”, we then have to ask ourselves whether one should establish an official institute the purpose of which is to do this. After all, many civilized countries have no such academy for regulating their national languages.

6. See . JABOTINSKY, Ha-miv†a ha-‘ivri [The Hebrew Pronunciation], Tel Aviv, 1930, p. 37. 7. For the whole phenomenon, see e.g. Z. BETZER, “Ha-lashon ha-rabbanit shel yemei ha-benayim” [Rabbinic Language in the Middle Ages], in Peraqim be-toldot ha-lashon ha- ‘ivrit: ha-Ìativah ha-benayimit [History of the Hebrew Language: The Medieval Division], Tel-Aviv, 2001, p. 87. The Latin phrase Bis dat, qui cito dat was translated by the Jewish אם תרצה להיטיב מתנתך תן מהרה כי :(Italian scholar and poet Leon of Modena (1571-1648 If you want to improve your gift, give it promptly, since twice“ ,שני (!) פעמים יתן הנותן מהרה with the feminine שני gives he who gives promptly”. He used the masculine form .שתי instead of פעמים 8. For more exceptions, see JOÜON-MURAOKA, §100 d, n. 1. Note that the anomaly is even in ת four”, shows as a rule the feminine“ ,ארבע more complex since feminine forms such as (.and the four (animals, fem“ , ְוּפ ֵני ֶנ ֶשר ְל ַאְר ַבּ ְע ָתּן .e.g ,ארבען rather than ארבעתן :their had the face of an eagle” (Ezek. 1:10).

995711_REJ_2012/3-4_05_Florentin.indd5711_REJ_2012/3-4_05_Florentin.indd 383383 55/12/12/12/12 13:5213:52 384 THE REGULATION OF MODERN HEBREW

The effectiveness of the Regulator

The first point which must be discussed is the effectiveness of the regu- lator and its actual ability to force its regulations. After all, there is an essential difference between the regulations of a language academy and the regulations of, say, the inspector of the banks or the stock exchange. Indeed, the decisions of the Academy of the Hebrew Language are beneficiaries of the prestige of an official law, approved by the Israeli Parliament in 1953.9 Yet, the Academy is in no way a “language police” and no one can or desires to enforce its decisions legally.10 Writers, journalists, poets and still more than these, the “ordinary person in the street” are those who shape the cha- racter of a language by using it naturally. They are, if I may again use the economic term, “the invisible hand” which directs the forces of the market.

The effectiveness of powerful elites

Is it really so simple? Let us have a glance at the history of Hebrew and extract therefrom some relevant cases which show how arbitrary and artifi- cial choices made by powerful elites can significantly affect a whole struc- ture of a given language.

The case of the Sephardic pronunciation and Va‘ad ha-lashon

The pronunciation of Modern Hebrew consists of five vowels: i, e, a, o, u. As known, the signs qameÒ and pataÌ are both pronounced a and the two punctuation signs Òere and are both pronounced e: -sefer, “book”. This is one of the most pro ֵס ֶפר ;”savar, “broke ָש ַבר .e.g minent characteristics of what we generally call “the Sephardic pronuncia- tion”, which was used in reading the Bible by Jews in medieval Spain, and whose provenance is traced to ancient times in Palestine. It is reflected also in a specific punctuation system called “the Palestinian punctuation” (ha- ha-ereÒ yisre’eli). This pronunciation is not — and never was — the only pronunciation of Hebrew. The only system

9. The legal status of the decisions is formulated in paragraph 10 of the law of the Acad- emy of the Hebrew Language. See Z. BEN-ÎAYYIM, Be-milÌamtah shel lashon [The Struggle for a Language], Jerusalem, 1992, p. 119 (henceforth, The Struggle for a Language). One may find general information in the official website of the Academy of the Hebrew Language: http://hebrew-academy.huji.ac.il/welcome1.html. 10. Yet, the academy makes every possible effort to enforce formal Hebrew in the national official broadcasting of radio and television. This is done by “language advisers” employed in these organizations.

995711_REJ_2012/3-4_05_Florentin.indd5711_REJ_2012/3-4_05_Florentin.indd 384384 55/12/12/12/12 13:5213:52 THE REGULATION OF MODERN HEBREW 385

used up to the present, the Tiberian which was formed by the Masoretes, reflects an ancient vowel system which differentiated — in quality, not in quantity — between qameÒ and pataÌ and between Òere and segol11, consisting altogether of seven vowels.12 The Ashkenazi tradition of Hebrew consisted of seven vowels as well.13 It was Va‘ad ha-lashon, “The Language Committee”, the predecessor institution of the Academy of the Hebrew Language, led at the beginning of the twentieth century by David Yellin, a prominent linguist and scholar and the first president of the Teachers Association, who decided to adopt the five-vowels system.14 Indeed, this Sephardic pronunciation was already quite widespread in Palestine at that time as a result of the Sephardic majority among the Jews living in the country. Yet it was mainly ideological motives which drove the teachers in the schools to fight for the Sephardic pro- nunciation, and to reject any attempt to adopt the Ashkenazi one. One of the teachers in the village of Rehovot said in 1897: If we have founded a modern school, we should adopt the Sephardic pronuncia- tion, first of all because it is the correct pronunciation, and secondly because it is this pronunciation which is in use in our country.15

I will not deal here with the whole spectrum of considerations which led Yellin and his colleagues to prefer and adopt the Sephardic pronunciation.16

mentioned above were pronounced by the Masoretes såvar and ֵס ֶפר and ָש ַבר Thus .11 sefer respectively. 12. On the Tiberian vowel signs marking qualities only, see J. BLAU, “Do Tiberian Vowel Signs Indicate Quantity?” (Hebrew), in M. A. FRIEDMAN and M. GIL (eds), Te¨uda 4, Studies in Judaica, Tel-Aviv, 1986, p. 137-141; re-published in J. BLAU, Studies in Hebrew Linguis- tics, Jerusalem, 1996, p. 3-7. Another Hebrew tradition of pronunciation consisting of six vowels and reflected in the Babylonian punctuation system was preserved by the Yemenite Jews. For detailed description, see Sh. MORAG, The Hebrew Language Tradition of the Yemenite Jews (Hebrew), Jerusalem, 1963. 13. Though it is accepted that this pronunciation is not a genuine descendant of the seven- vowel, old Tiberian tradition. 14. A highly important source for understanding the whole background of the activity of this personality is his seven-volume Kitvei David Yellin [The Writings of David Yellin], Jerusalem, 1972. See also Z. BEN-ÎAYYIM, The Struggle for a Language, p. 246-254. 15. See E. Z. LEWIN-EPSTEIN, Zikhronotay [My Memories], Tel-Aviv, 1932. 16. See The Struggle for a Language, p. 246-254. Another factor which caused the Sephardic pronunciation to prevail was proposed by Y. OFER, “The Beginning of Israeli Pronunciation” (Hebrew), in A. MAMAN, S. E. FASSBERG and Y. BREUER (eds), Sha‘arei Lashon, Studies in Hebrew, , and Presented to Moshe Bar-Asher, Vol. III, Jerusalem, 2007, p. 166-172. Ofer proposed that, being simple, the Sephardic pronunciation was relatively easily accepted by non-Sephardic Hebrew speakers. The adap- tation of the Ashkenazi pronunciation — with its penultimate stress, the pronunciation of the fricative as sin and the difference between qameÒ and pataÌ — could have been much more difficult, if not altogether impossible, for the non- speakers.

995711_REJ_2012/3-4_05_Florentin.indd5711_REJ_2012/3-4_05_Florentin.indd 385385 55/12/12/12/12 13:5213:52 386 THE REGULATION OF MODERN HEBREW

I wish to mention that in their interpretation it resembled — in a way — the Arabic vowel system, and for this reason seemed more authentic and hence preferable. In any case, one should doubt whether without their preference and the consistent struggle for it, the Sephardic pronunciation would finally have prevailed. The fact that the precise intention of Yellin was not even- tually realized exactly as he wished cannot change the fact that the choice of the Sephardic pronunciation was not just the result of simple demographic conditions.

The adaptation of the Tiberian punctuation system It was again Va‘ad ha-lashon which then decided to adopt the Tiberian punctuation system and to establish on its foundations the whole structure of the grammar of the new-old language. And what about the common Tibe- rian system of punctuation itself? Even though it was originally formed as a compound mechanism whose purpose was the preservation of the Maso- retic text, its influence on Hebrew and specifically on Hebrew grammar was, and still is, of great scope. What was this system if not an artificial invention of a prestigious elite? By adducing these examples,17 I am not trying to suggest that “external” interference is recommended, although I believe that it is. What I want to show is that such “artificial” decisions can shape the structure of a given language, alongside the powerful natural forces of the “invisible hand” which leads language evolution without any external regulation or the gui- dance of any organized scholarly elites.

The necessity of the Regulator The more problematic and interesting issue is whether this kind of interfe- rence is necessary at all. Before starting, however, I would like to re-emphasize that in any case we are dealing only with regulation of the cultural and formal register, and by no means with the establishment of any sort of

17. One can adduce many more examples of external decisions which shaped the form and type of languages. For additional cases, see my , “Normative Decisions that Mold Languages: The Samaritans’ and the Jews’ Cases” (Hebrew), in M. BAR-ASHER and M. FLORENTIN (eds), Samaritan, Hebrew and Aramaic Studies Presented to Professor Abraham Tal, Jerusalem, 2005, p. 59-71. On language planning in the twentieth century see I. ELDAR, “The Revival of Spoken Hebrew” (Hebrew), M. BAR-ASHER and C. E. COHEN (eds), Mas’at Aharon — Linguistic studies Presented to Aron Dotan, Jerusalem, 2009, p. 525-544, especially the bibliography mentioned in notes 1-8; ID., “The Revival of Hebrew Speech in Eretz-Israel” (Hebrew), in A. MAMAN, S. E. FASSBERG and Y. BREUER (eds), Studies Presented to Moshe Bar-Asher, Vol. III, p. 14-35.

995711_REJ_2012/3-4_05_Florentin.indd5711_REJ_2012/3-4_05_Florentin.indd 386386 55/12/12/12/12 13:5213:52 THE REGULATION OF MODERN HEBREW 387

“language police” whose purpose is to introduce order and to impose any external rules on the vernacular language. Is regulation of the cultural language necessary? The answer depends of course on the linguistic, political and cultural circumstances in a given society.

The foundation of the Academy of the Hebrew Language Let us then try to examine the background upon which the Academy of the Hebrew Language was founded.18 One possible way to gain some idea of this background is to examine the aims of this organization as formulated both in the official legislation called “the law for the supreme institute for the Hebrew language — 1953” and the statute of the Academy of the Hebrew Language itself, which was written when it was founded. Albeit slight, the difference between the two phrasings is quite striking and significant. Below, then, is the quotation of the first paragraphs of the law, accompa- nied by my translation:19 1. מוקם בזה מוסד עליון למדע הלשון העברית; המוסד הוא אקדמיה ללשון, ושמו ייקבע על ידיו. A supreme institute for the science of the Hebrew language is established by this declaration. The institute is an academy of language, and its name will be given by the institute itself.

2. תפקיד המוסד הוא לכוון את התפתחות הלשון העברית על יסוד חקר הלשון לתקופותיה ולענפיה. The task of the institute is to direct the development of the Hebrew language on the foundations of the study of the language, its layers and varieties.

By contrast, the formulation of the statute is as follows: 1. ״המוסד העליון ללשון העברית״ נקרא האקדמיה ללשון העברית. “The supreme institute for the Hebrew language” will be called The Academy of the Hebrew Language.

2. מטרותיה של האקדמיה אלו הן: a .2. לעשות לכינוסו ולחקירתו של אוצר הלשון העברית לכל תקופותיה ושכ־ בותיה;

18. Very important and interesting points of evidence are adduced in The Struggle for a Language, especially in chapter 2: “Between Va‘ad ha-lashon and the Academy of the Hebrew Language”, p. 109-173. 19. The phrasing of the law is partly quoted in The Struggle for a Language, p. 111.

995711_REJ_2012/3-4_05_Florentin.indd5711_REJ_2012/3-4_05_Florentin.indd 387387 55/12/12/12/12 13:5213:52 388 THE REGULATION OF MODERN HEBREW b .2. לעשות לחקירת מבנה הלשון העברית; תולדותיו וגלגוליו; c .2. לכוון את דרכי התפתחותה של הלשון העברית לפי טבעה, לפי צרכיה ואפשרויותיה בכל תחומי העיון והמעשה באוצר המילים, בדקדוק, בכתב, בכתיב ובתעתיק. The aims of the Academy are as follows: a. To collect and investigate the whole treasury of the Hebrew language throughout all its periods and layers; b. To investigate the structure of the Hebrew language, its history and deve- lopment; c. To direct the ways of development of the Hebrew language, according to its nature, its needs and possibilities in all the domains of study and real life, regarding vocabulary, grammar, script, spelling and transcription.

Before analyzing these noteworthy expressions of aims, one would do well to examine the aim of Va‘ad ha-lashon, the predecessor institution of the Academy:

תפקידו של ועד הלשון הוא להכשיר את הלשון העברית לשימוש בתור לשון מדוברת בכל ענייני החיים, בבית, בבית הספר, בחיים הציבוריים, במסחר ובקניין, בחרושת ובאמנות, בחכמות ובמדעים. The task of Va‘ad ha-lashon is to make the Hebrew language available for use as spoken language in all domains of life — at home, in schools, in public life, in commerce, in industry and art, and in science.

The essential difference between the tasks of Va‘ad ha-lashon and those of the Academy is thus very plain: while the only task of Va‘ad ha-lashon was to direct, and even, in a way, to establish the foundations of the new-old language, the formulation of the law of the Academy clearly made an attempt to emphasize its totally new directive: the purely academic one of investiga- ting the language. Indeed, it is not merely coincidental that in the formulation of the law, as formally phrased by the Israeli Parliament, the study of the language — though explicitly emphasized — is presented only as a tool to direct the language. However, the wording in the statute articulated by the Aca- demy itself is different: the collection of the treasury of Hebrew, and its study, are presented as the first, independent, tasks of the institute, while the direction of the language is presented only as the third of its aims. In other words, the two first — the academic and cultural — tasks are not presented as tools to fulfill the third one, but as projects of value in their own right.

995711_REJ_2012/3-4_05_Florentin.indd5711_REJ_2012/3-4_05_Florentin.indd 388388 55/12/12/12/12 13:5213:52 THE REGULATION OF MODERN HEBREW 389

The title “Academy”

It is only now that we can understand — or at least begin to understand — why the founders of the new institute fought for the title “Academy” and why they insisted that the institute itself — and not the government — would determine its name. Did the founders of the new institute, all of them old members of the former Va‘ad ha-lashon, seek for their personal pres- tige? One may not rule out this possibility; after all we are dealing with human beings. However, such an assumption would seem in this case to be somewhat simplistic. We have to remember that most of the new members, if not all of them, were already well-known and distinguished professors in the only Israeli university at that time; others were renowned and esteemed writers and poets. Personal prestige, then, was not the issue. Moreover, the choice of the foreign word “Academy” was not a simple one. The word — not attested at all in classical Hebrew texts — provoked strenuous objections and pro- test, both by some of the members and by other prominent personalities such as the first Minister of the newly-formed state, David Ben Gurion.20 Ben Gurion, famously opposed to any infiltration of foreign words into Hebrew, and prominent scholars such as Joseph Klausner, attempted to reject the term “Academy.” “Midrash” had been proposed by Ben-Yehuda many years before. On the other hand, Îayyim NaÌman Bialik — consistent in his attitude in favor of foreign words — did not see any problem with the name “Academy.” On the contrary: to the best of my knowledge, it was he .(אקדמיה ללשון) ”who first made reference to an “Academy for Language After all, the supreme religious and political institute during the second temple period was the Sanhedrin. The fact that the name of this highly prestigious institute was of Greek origin (sunédrion) was, at least in the background of the dispute, an important . The fact that the newly instituted Academy consisted, and consists to this day, of precisely twenty- three members is not accidental. This, after all, was exactly the number of members of the so-called Small Sanhedrin.

20. Perhaps, in those olden times, Prime Ministers were made of quite different stuff from what we are used to nowadays. At any rate, Ze’ev Ben-Îayyim, the former President of the Academy and no doubt the most prominent personality among its members in the last genera- tions, told me once that in the midst of the heavy battles during the War of Independence, Ben Gurion called him and the late Professor Naftali Hertz Tur-Sinai. He wanted them to come from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv in order to discuss with him some details regarding the new proposed rules of using matres lectionis (scriptio plena) prepared then by Va‘ad ha-lashon.

995711_REJ_2012/3-4_05_Florentin.indd5711_REJ_2012/3-4_05_Florentin.indd 389389 55/12/12/12/12 13:5213:52 390 THE REGULATION OF MODERN HEBREW

Thus, in spite of the objections, the new institute finally received the name of “Academy”. With that disputable name the founders succeeded in reflecting both the prestigious status and the primary — academic — aims of the new institute.

3. The optimal structure of

The collecting of language treasuries and the study of its structure

Now we approach the more essential question: why was it so important to establish an academy whose first and main aims were, and still are, to collect the treasuries of the language and to study and describe its structure?

Mif‘al ha-kinnus and the Academy

I believe that the reason is twofold. I have just mentioned Bialik, often referred to as the “national poet”. He was the most important cultural per- sonality of his time, and though primarily identified nowadays with his role as “national poet” he was also very involved in the broader real life of cultural activity. He was the president of Va‘ad ha-lashon, and he was the -mif‘al ha-kinnus — the enter מפעל הכינוס father of what is well known as prise of collecting and publishing all the canonic compositions ever written the book of legends”, and the“ ,ספר האגדה in Hebrew. Sefer ha-aggada publishing of medieval Jewish poetry were first steps in fulfilling this daring idea.21 This was a great act of extraordinary cultural importance and effect. One should not be mistaken: with all due respect, this editing and publishing of texts does not resemble, in any way, the collection of electronic texts that we all benefit from nowadays. No doubt, Bialik and his contemporaries knew more than a little about the history of Jewish texts and they well understood the immense educatio- nal and cultural effect of collecting and publishing them. After all, the Bible is a collection and canonizing of several different compositions, and so are the Mishna and , the principal texts in which the whole spirit of is embedded. This kinnus was thus a truly national enterprise which cannot be disconnected from the whole historical background of the revival

21. See his editions of Solomon Ibn Gabirol’s and Moses Ibn Ezra’s poems, published in Tel Aviv, 1927.

995711_REJ_2012/3-4_05_Florentin.indd5711_REJ_2012/3-4_05_Florentin.indd 390390 55/12/12/12/12 13:5213:52 THE REGULATION OF MODERN HEBREW 391

of the Jewish people as an independent entity. All the Jews scattered in the Diaspora are summoned to the Holy Land, and so are their canonic texts. It is, we see, in light of this background that the first aim of the Academy was ,לעשות לכינוסו ולחקירתו של אוצר הלשון העברית לכל תקופותיה ושכבותיה :phrased “to collect and investigate the whole treasury of the Hebrew language throu- ghout all its periods and layers.” To summarize briefly, the first reason for collecting the whole treasury of Hebrew was of cultural, social and political character. However, there was another motive, and this one was actually expressed in the law quoted above: “The task of the institute is to direct the development of the Hebrew language on the foundations of the study of the language, its layers and תפקיד המוסד הוא לכוון את התפתחות ,varieties,” and in the original language In other words: the collection .הלשון על יסוד חקר הלשון לתקופותיה ולענפיה — and study — of the language is not merely an aim per se, but also a tool, a foundation, upon which the development of Hebrew should be directed.

Why should the development of Hebrew be predicated upon the study of the language?

Now, one must ask, why should the development of Hebrew be predica- ted upon the study of the language, with a prominent emphasis on the study of its history and layers? Here too the answer is compound, because I believe that the justification for basing the regulation of Hebrew principally on its ancient layers is both ideological and practical.

Ideological considerations

Let us begin with the ideological consideration. Without asking ourselves what exactly the founders of the Academy had in mind regarding this issue, we have to try to evaluate “public opinion”, if that is something one can determine at all without conducting a serious survey. However, even in the absence of strict survey data one can safely venture to say that the most widespread attitude identifies “good” or “optimal” Hebrew with classical Hebrew. This quite common opinion is not self-evident on the face of it. After all, most of those educated and learned people who would like to see a close link between the contemporary official Hebrew and its ancient layers are not conservative in other aspects, if one may call this attitude “conservative”. They may show open ideas in every domain, and most of them may be totally secular, ignoring, and in many cases even disdaining, any traditional ritual.

995711_REJ_2012/3-4_05_Florentin.indd5711_REJ_2012/3-4_05_Florentin.indd 391391 55/12/12/12/12 13:5213:52 392 THE REGULATION OF MODERN HEBREW

Yet, when it comes to the character of their national language they want it to be “classical”, though generally without knowing exactly what this really means. People are so worried and anxious about Hebrew and its future — not to say its fate — that they tend to see almost every disruption of the language or every penetration of foreign words as another sign, if not a proof, of the approaching end of Hebrew. This anxiety is of course unnecessary. The mere existence of a certain language has nothing to do with its structure, with its being “pure” and “clean” of foreign words or with any grammatical characteristic. As we all know, the existence of a language, its death and revival, are the direct outcome of political, social and cultural events which have nothing to do with the “strength” or the “purity” of the language itself. Hebrew ceased to be a spoken language one thousand and eight hundred years ago not because it was heavily influenced by Aramaic, Greek and Latin. The loss of independence, the destruction of the second temple, the failure of the Bar-Kokhba rebellion and finally the expulsion from EreÒ Yisra’el — all these non-linguistic events caused the death of Hebrew at that remote time in the past. It is only the national revival and the turning back to the homeland which made possible in the last decades of the nineteenth century the so- called “miracle” of the revival of Hebrew. Thus, if one is really worried about the fate of Hebrew, one should not be disturbed by that seeming chaos in the domain of numerals or by the overwhelming influence of bring me“ תביא פיצה בשלוש שקל .English and other foreign languages יאללה Pizza for three shekels” will not kill Hebrew; nor will the colloquial be seeing you.” The Iranian bomb represents a far greater danger to“ ,ביי its existence. , ִנ ֵקּ ִיתי את המטבח Still, well-educated people are worried. Phrases like “I cleaned the kitchen”, drive them to despair. “It’s terrible, I cannot bear is entirely “clean” will be ִנ ֵקּ ִיתי to hear it”, they complain. The fact that discussed below. No doubt more than a few people, both educated and not, even if they understand that the existence of Hebrew is quite stable and has nothing to do with its “corruption”, are still worried about its nature and character. Perhaps one can convince them that the condition of Hebrew, both as a written and as a spoken language, was never better. Only a robust, living and developing language can show such a rich variety as Modern Hebrew does, and only a wealthy language, as contemporary written Hebrew is, can produce thousands of compositions in all the important domains of science and art. Thus, purely objective criteria can provide great reassurance to most

995711_REJ_2012/3-4_05_Florentin.indd5711_REJ_2012/3-4_05_Florentin.indd 392392 55/12/12/12/12 13:5213:52 THE REGULATION OF MODERN HEBREW 393

of us regarding the state of contemporary Hebrew.22 Parenthetically, I allow myself to add this note to a nation whose speakers are so unhappy and pes- simistic regarding the “poor” condition of their mother tongue, in spite of its richness and flexibility and in spite of its being a tool for literature which contributes to a prestigious international reputation: this nation should be highly pleased and optimistic. Returning to the main issue, we might try to ask an average educated Israeli the following question: “Imagine an utopian world in which you yourself could shape at will the nature of contemporary official Hebrew. Would you prefer that this language keep a certain link to classical Hebrew”? One possible answer might be more or less as follows: “Well, I really don’t know exactly what classical Hebrew is and I don’t really understand what you mean by that — and still my answer is: Yes!” Let us agree, at least for the sake of discussion, that this answer does indeed reflect “public opinion”. Now, let us ask why this considerable num- ber of people insists on preserving that link. Have we, as teachers, succeeded in brainwashing them, feeding them the idea that all that is old is nice? Are they simply proud that their own language still exhibits some characteristics of the language in which the “Book of Books” is written? Are some of these people, in spite of what I have tried to demonstrate, simply lost cases of conservatives who cannot accept any innovation? Or perhaps their answer just reflects their literary preferences?

The sense of history in Judaism

One may accept or reject any one of these explanations, but let us try to see this preference of the “public opinion” in a wider view. Try to think, to imagine, what is the sense of history of the Jewish people in general. Unfortunately, it seems that, not rarely, we fail to draw the right conclusions from our long and “interesting” history, yet we are aware of our past and in a way we have a deep sense of what can be called “historical succession.” One’s being Jewish is not identified by one’s deeds, but rather by one’s past — the religious identity of one’s mother. People spend a lot of time and money looking for their roots, in this country and mainly abroad. In other words, the national past is an essential, living component of the nation’s present and future. I don’t intend to suggest that people explain

22. Among those objective criteria one may mention: the number of speakers, their loca- tions, the number of written compositions, the number of translations (from the language and to it), the varieties of language etc.

995711_REJ_2012/3-4_05_Florentin.indd5711_REJ_2012/3-4_05_Florentin.indd 393393 55/12/12/12/12 13:5213:52 394 THE REGULATION OF MODERN HEBREW

their preference by that argument, but I do believe that it is an unconscious motive in their minds. To summarize: up to this point, I have tried to show the “ideological” justification for basing the regulation of Hebrew on its ancient layers. To elaborate: a connection between the official language and classical Hebrew fits the deep feelings and attitude of more than a few educated persons in Israel and reflects their eagerness to maintain, in several parts of their cultural life, a certain kind of “historical succession.”

Practical justifications

Now, what are the practical justifications for this preference? For that we must cast a glance toward contemporary Hebrew. Fortunately here we are absolved of the need for self-analysis because we can simply refer to the famous article of Ze’ev Ben-Îayyim, “Lashon ‘atiqa bi-mÒi’ut Ìadasha” [An Ancient Language in a New Reality].23 In that piece, required reading on every bibliographical list in the departments of Hebrew in Israeli univer- sities, the author pointed to the special nature of contemporary Hebrew. “Normal” languages are formed as layers upon layers, the newer language stratum placed on the more ancient, with the several layers in many aspects disconnected from each other. In contrast, contemporary Hebrew is built up through its historical layers being placed alongside each other, together forming a kind of mixed language. This is true regarding almost every aspect of the language.

The inclusive character of Modern Hebrew

I will begin with the style, or more precisely, with the components of the language. The revival of spoken Hebrew did not occur ex nihilo, but rather it was based on the literary language used at the time. Contrary to the more-or-less pure Biblical style of the Maskilim,24 a new style consisting of all layers of Hebrew began to be crystallized during the nineteenth century, especially by the writer Sholem Yankev Abramovitsh, known as Mendele

23. Published in Leshonenu La-‘am 4 (1953), and republished in The Struggle for a Language, p. 36-85. 24. See e.g. A. SÁENZ-BADILLOS, A History of the Hebrew Language, Cambridge, 1993, p. 267-269; M. AGMON-FRUCHTMAN and I. ALLON, “HaÌya’at ha-‘ivrit” [The revival of Hebrew], in Peraqim be-toldot ha-lashon ha-‘ivrit: ha-Ìativa ha-modernit [History of the Hebrew Lan- guage: The Modern Division], Tel-Aviv, 1994, p. 15-30.

995711_REJ_2012/3-4_05_Florentin.indd5711_REJ_2012/3-4_05_Florentin.indd 394394 55/12/12/12/12 13:5213:52 THE REGULATION OF MODERN HEBREW 395

Mokher Sefarim.25 It was Bialik who described and praised the new style, :”the version“ ,נוסח called in Hebrew He, Mendele, brought back to Hebrew all the estates taken from it by his friends the Maskilim, and gave us ‘the great and united Hebrew’. He summoned [to take part in the new style] the Bible, the Mishna, the Midrash, the book of prayers, the piyyu†im […] but not in disorder and mixture of styles, and not as an ad hoc act, but as one complete harmonic entity […]26

Thus, looking at this style — the style upon which the new-old spoken language was founded — is in a way like consulting an historical dictio- nary which exhibits a huge, entire spectrum of Hebrew words and styles. and Biblical ,אשר that”) is thus used alongside Biblical“) ש Rabbinic Every .מצינו we have found”) lives peacefully alongside Rabbinic“) מצאנו second-year student can adduce a long list of additional instances to illus- trate this well-organized linguistic merger. I mentioned earlier the five vowels Sephardic system and the seven vowels Tiberian system. What can be considered more mixed than pro- nouncing five vowels but using a written system — the niqqud — which represents seven vowels? For the benefit of those who think that the niqqud is no more than a written system which has no effect on pronunciation, I simply refer to the instance of the definite article. Take for example words ,[the rich”. This word was pronounced by the Masoretes [he‘åshir“ , ֶה ָע ִשׁיר like the qameÒ being pronounced as a back law vowel. In the old Hebrew dialect — the one consisting of 5 vowels, later called the “Sephardic” pronunciation (as mentioned before, because of its being used amongst some Sephardic communities, especially in medieval Spain) — the word was pronounced [ha¨ashir] since there was no distinction between qameÒ and pataÌ. Thus, the sequence of e-a vowels in this phonetic environment is only due to the encounter of the two different language traditions.27

25. See previous note. הוא השיב אליה (על העברית) את כל :H. N. BIALIK, Divrei sifrut, Tel Aviv, 1965, p. 125 .26 הנחלות, שלקחו מידה חבריו המשכילים, ונתן לנו את ״שפת עבר הגדולה והמאוחדת״. את המקרא ואת המשנה ואת המדרש ואת ה״סדור״ ואת הפיוטים ואת ״מורה נבוכים״ ואת ״חיי אדם״ – את כלם התיר לבוא בגבולה, אך לא כמבוא אספסוף ובליל לשונות, ולא כהוראת שעה, אלא כחטיבה שלמה והרמונית אחת, ובדרך של קבע. הוא מצא את הסינתזה העליונה ואת המזיגה האחרונה של תמציות כל הסגנונים ביחד. ללשון העברית היתה ָרוחה וגאולה. 27. For a detailed discussion about the pronunciation of the definite article in contemporary Hebrew, see Proceedings of the Academy of the Hebrew Language, vol. 44-46 (1996-1999), p. 33-34. Note that Z. Ben-Îayyim, the most prominent scholar of Hebrew at that time and the president of the Academy, was in favor of the simplification of that pronunciation, i.e. accepting — ha in all phonetic environments.

995711_REJ_2012/3-4_05_Florentin.indd5711_REJ_2012/3-4_05_Florentin.indd 395395 55/12/12/12/12 13:5213:52 396 THE REGULATION OF MODERN HEBREW

What I have tried to show is that both spoken and written contemporary Hebrew reflect — due to its mixed nature, or more precisely, due to its inclusive character — a rich variety of lexemes and grammatical features which represent all the layers and styles of Hebrew. And so, here we are again: this reality, the inclusive nature of Modern Hebrew, is what I earlier alluded to as the practical justification for basing the regulation of Hebrew on its ancient layers. In short, I believe we must all agree that language regulation can some- times be effective, and that the direction of Hebrew development should be based on its classical texts.

The historical dictionary and Mif‘al ha-kinnus

I will not deal fully here with the most important enterprise of the Aca- demy of the Hebrew Language; however, I cannot ignore it either. The Historical Dictionary of the Academy of the Hebrew Language is one of the tools, and for the time being the main one, through which one may have access to classical Hebrew texts. At present, a fully-analyzed concordance of all Hebrew texts composed up until the eleventh century is available for the general public. Needless to say, this huge project is an essential aspect of the kinnus, “the collection”, which I mentioned before.

The regulation of Modern Hebrew — what is possible?

And now we approach the most challenging problem with the regulation of Modern Hebrew. The regulations — any regulations — are, or should be, a compromise between the optimum and the possible. Let us start with the possible. Though not trivial, it is still much easier than defining the optimum. It is superfluous to say that wise, justified and even simple laws, the fulfillment of which is beyond the ability of the public, have no real value. אין גוזרין גזירה על :A famous instruction in the Babylonian Talmud says one should not make a rule that“ ,הצבור אלא אם כן רוב הצבור יכולין לעמוד בה the majority of the public cannot follow” (Bava batra 60b). This saying reflects in a nutshell the attitude of the Academy regarding the question of practicability. In this connection, let us explore just one simple example, and assume that we would prefer to maintain the pronunciation of the gutturals ‘ and Ìet and the emphatic consonants †et and qof. I think that nobody would deny the great benefit of our “desired” pronunciation, not only because it preserves the original consonants of Hebrew but more importantly

995711_REJ_2012/3-4_05_Florentin.indd5711_REJ_2012/3-4_05_Florentin.indd 396396 55/12/12/12/12 13:5213:52 THE REGULATION OF MODERN HEBREW 397

because it can solve an essential part of the problem of homophones in our language. However, the reality of language in Israel has already made its decision: large parts of the Israeli population actually cannot utter these consonants. The seemingly preferable regulation is thus out of the question, although one must point out that the Academy did not change the decision of the Va‘ad in favor of the oriental pronunciation, and up to the present the Academy, through its “language advisers”, makes great efforts to main- tain this desired pronunciation in the media, particularly in reading the news on the radio. Bear in mind that a prominent member of the Academy com- plained in a censorious and disputable lecture delivered some twenty years ago that the Academy was doing nothing to protect the so called “oriental pronunciation”28. He also urged the Academy to intervene in issues of syn- tax and use of language, though he himself admitted that regulation in these domains is very difficult since they bear on the arena of style, where regu- lation is not possible, and one might add: not desirable. I mentioned this argument just to underline the fact that people can disagree about what is “possible”. The conclusion is thus that the Academy takes into consideration its ability to enforce its regulations, and from this point of view one may say that the Academy, though not submitting itself to the force of the common language, tries to listen carefully to its slightest nuances. In any event, ,גיבוי we cannot adduce many cases such as the acceptance of the words ,taxation”, which contradict Hebrew “ ,מיסוי backup”, and“ roots that do not exist in classical ,.מ.ס.י and .ג.ב.י as they are derived from Hebrew.29

The regulation of Modern Hebrew — what is the optimum?

Only now, as I approach the end of my paper, can I say something about the “optimum”, that is, about what the standard of our official language should be. Before dealing with this issue, I have to emphasize yet again that in principle, the Academy does not usually interfere in questions of style

28. A. DOTAN, “The Academy, the Language and Life” (Hebrew), in J. BLAU (ed.), Evo- lution and Renewal — Trends in the Development of the Hebrew Language, Jerusalem, 1996, p. 193. to implement” which at first was not“ (י.שׂ.ם < שׂ.ו.ם root) ְל ַי ֵשׂם The same applies to .29 was preferred although it was not (ח.ו.ל root) להחיל accepted by the Academy. The classical was also accepted, probably not only because of its common use ְל ַי ֵשׂם ,in general use. Finally is already י.שׂ.ם among educated people. One should note that the fact that a secondary root and [Joseph] was put in a coffin” (Gen. 50:26) did not“ ,ַו ִיּ ֶישׂם ָבּ ָארוֹן ,attested in the Bible suffice to make it legitimate.

995711_REJ_2012/3-4_05_Florentin.indd5711_REJ_2012/3-4_05_Florentin.indd 397397 55/12/12/12/12 13:5213:52 398 THE REGULATION OF MODERN HEBREW

and syntax. No one will find in recent years any decision dealing with the articulation of the Hebrew vowels and consonants. Punctuation, morpho- logy, innovation of new words, and the complicated problems of spelling and transcription are thus the subjects whose standard has to be established. I will concentrate below in the issues of niqqud and morphology. “The question of all questions” is of course what should be the standard of itself was an ingenious melding נוסח Modern Hebrew grammar? Though the of all Hebrew layers, especially Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew, in the domain of grammar it was always the Biblical usage which was considered the obligatory norm.

The in-homogeneity of the Bible

However, although Biblical grammar is one unit, and Hebrew morpho- logy is characterized by an impressive uniformity down through the gene- rations30, nevertheless the variety of grammatical forms, even in the Bible , ִנ ֵקּ ִיתי itself, is quite striking. See, for example, the above-mentioned . in the past tense ל״י I cleaned”, which represents the inflexion of“ Most well-educated people never use this so-called “low” form, but use the which they learned in school. The “low” form, being ִנ ִקּ ִיתי correct” form“ used mainly by uneducated speakers, carries a pronounced stigma. However, the two forms do exist in the Bible itself, and the preference for one way, was the outcome of the attitude towards simplification and unification , ִנ ִקּיתי of Modern Hebrew grammar as reflected in dictionaries and grammar books. According to its policy, the Academy cannot, and does not want to, forbid the use of any feature existing in Biblical Hebrew. Thus, the updated phra- the second radical — בניינים — sing of the regulation is: “In all other stems .” ִשׁ ִנּ ִיתי, ִשׁ ֵנּ ִיתי :for example ,צירי or חיריק of the root — is vocalized in

Other canonic texts

Indeed, the choice among such variations is the most complex and deli- cate responsibility of the Academy. It has only become more complicated in the last generation. I quote from Ben-Îayyim: In the days when Biblical Hebrew was considered in our society as the desired language standard, as it was in the days of the renewal of speaking, the Bible

30. See Z. BEN-ÎAYYIM, “The Historical Unity of the Hebrew Language and its Divi- sion into Periods” (Hebrew), in M. BAR-ASHER (ed.), Hebrew Studies 1, Jerusalem, 1985, p. 3-25.

995711_REJ_2012/3-4_05_Florentin.indd5711_REJ_2012/3-4_05_Florentin.indd 398398 55/12/12/12/12 13:5213:52 THE REGULATION OF MODERN HEBREW 399

was the only criterion (for normative decisions) … in those days the teachers had no difficulty in instructing what is allowed and what is forbidden. But when the scholars of Hebrew, among them members of the “committee of language” and the Academy of the Hebrew Language, began to dive in the sea of oral traditions, in old manuscripts and in books of prayers, and began to speak favorably about language phenomena which contradict the Biblical punc- tuation, but do exist in those sources, and started to introduce them to the public consciousness — they actually put obstacles in the way of a crystallization of contemporary Grammar.31

In other words, a certain current, or trend, of Israeli research — the study of oral traditions and post-Biblical and -Rabbinic compositions — has added a considerable body of language facts which have made quite difficult the crystallization, and I may add, the unification, of contempo- rary, normative grammar. However, we must admit that this attitude is a mere reflection of the inclusive nature of Modern Hebrew. In any case, the change in the norm is reflected in many decisions of the Academy, as we nest”, the decision“ ֵקן see in taking just one example: regarding the word as) ַקן- and also , ֵקן- is ֵקן says as follows: “the construct form of the word in the Bible). Thus, on the one hand, the more open we are to additional classical texts, and the more we allow the existence of different forms side by side, the further we find ourselves from being able to formulate a modern gram- mar which shows a reasonable measure of unity. On the other hand, howe- ver, this embarrassing variety is no less than “the essence of Hebrew” .(נשמת אפה של העברית לדורותיה)

Hebraists and linguists

The chief notions discussed here are those of ideology and norm. Ideas sprout in people’s brains and hearts, and people nurture and develop their ideas not only according to their basic beliefs and views, but rather also, and perhaps mainly, according to their abilities and limitations. Now, one may imagine quite another type of cadre of scholars manning the departments of Hebrew in our universities. Instead of mainly Hebraists, native scouters and

בימים ששלט בחברתנו המופת של לשון המקרא, :See The Struggle for a Language, p. 138 .31 כמו בימי חידוש הדיבור, היה המקרא פוסק בכול… באותם הימים היה קל יותר למורים להורות מה מותר ומה אסור. אך משצללו חוקרי העברית, ומהם חברים בוועד הלשון ובאקדמיה, בים המסורות שבעל פה, בכתבי היד ובסידורי תפילות, והתחילו לסנגר על דרכים שאינן מתיישבות עם ניקוד המקרא, אבל מצויות באותם המקורות, והתחילו להחדירן בתודעת הציבור, ערערו מוסכמות ראשונים והכבידו לא מעט על .עיצובו של הדקדוק בימינו

995711_REJ_2012/3-4_05_Florentin.indd5711_REJ_2012/3-4_05_Florentin.indd 399399 55/12/12/12/12 13:5213:52 400 THE REGULATION OF MODERN HEBREW

path-finders in the labyrinth of old Hebrew and Aramaic texts, we might have skilled theoretical linguists who could, as some of them do now, study and analyze Hebrew structure, especially Modern Hebrew, with great success. I do not argue whether this scenario is desirable or not; I merely hazard a guess that had this been the case, the profile of the Academy’s membership would likely have been completely different. Let us go further, and imagine that these distinguished scholars were to determine the norms of Modern Hebrew. Would they, and could they, almost totally devoid of any access to classical Hebrew texts, crystallize a set of preferences and norms of the kind presented in this paper? Indeed, non-Hebrew linguists who prefer to ignore all old Hebrew layers -Canaa ,כנענים bear a resemblance to the famous movement ironically called nites.32 They tried to reject any manifestation of which had no ironclad link to the old culture of pre-Judaism in the . I personally do not ascribe to their ideology; however, my beliefs and lite- rary taste have, unfortunately, no importance. The important point is that the “invisible hand” rejected it, as it previously rejected any attempt to create a monotonous Hebrew.33 However, this comparison does not do justice to those idealist Canaanites. Those heretics, if I may use a pejorative and immoderate appellation, chose to ignore essential parts of Jewish culture. Yet, they were far from ignorant.

The decisions of the Academy and the normative grammar of Modern Hebrew

Leshonenu La-‘am, “A Popular Journal for the Hebrew Language”, published by the Academy, devoted one of its last issues to “Academy Decisions: Grammar”.34 This highly significant booklet may give more than a slight notion of the way of the Academy is directing the develop- ment of Modern Hebrew. Yet, this collection of decisions is far from being the desired, normative, modern grammar of Hebrew, which should be written — as stressed by Ben-Îayyim — only after a careful selection of sources.35 That grammar will be the fulfillment of the second task of

32. This ideological movement was founded in EreÒ Yisra’el, in 1937, by a small group of intellectuals hoping to revive the old Middle East civilization, disconnecting it from the Jewish past in the diaspora. 33. See n. 24 above on the Hebrew of the Maskilim. 34. 55 (2005-6), p. 8-114. 35. The Struggle for a Language, p. 138; M. Z. KADARI, “The Necessity of Survey of the Contemporary Literary Hebrew” (Hebrew), in J. BLAU (ed.), Evolution and Renewal, p. 127- 147.

995711_REJ_2012/3-4_05_Florentin.indd5711_REJ_2012/3-4_05_Florentin.indd 400400 55/12/12/12/12 13:5213:52 THE REGULATION OF MODERN HEBREW 401

the Academy, cited before: “the study of the structure of the Hebrew language, its history and development”. This important and complex matter is however beyond the scope of my present paper. With what, then, shall we end? I prefer to conclude with the metaphor mentioned several times in this paper: Our “invisible hand” will continue to toss the dice; we will supply them.

Moshe FLORENTIN [email protected]

995711_REJ_2012/3-4_05_Florentin.indd5711_REJ_2012/3-4_05_Florentin.indd 401401 55/12/12/12/12 13:5213:52