Can modern Hebrew be considered a conlang?

[GothicSp]

The first and simple answer would be no, it isn't as simple as that though.

I read an article about an Israeli, Zuckermann, which has written a book about Hebrew, he claims that modern Hebrew is actually not a continuation of the old Biblical language but rather a creole with influences from all the languages which the people spoke who lived in other countries before coming to Israel. He gave examples like words which were used by zionists in a different way with removing the biblical definition and certain sentences in the Bible which are interpreted in the completely opposite way from what it means by modern Israelis.
This makes modern Hebrew according to him a made language, so a constructed language which would be better called "Israeli".

This made me think and I think that especially considering reviving languages we should also see that it's impossible to revive a language without it becoming artifical in some way. Of course a person with knowledge of modern Hebrew can also read the Bible, but vocabulary was necessarily to be created by lending from other languages or by using roots which makes it for a part constructed.

There are first language speakers so it has changed in a natural language in this way, but my question is, in how far is the Hebrew constructed in and before 1948 a conlang and can we call it like that looking at the definitions of a conlang?

What are your thoughts?

[tapuz]

I can't provide any scholarly opinion but I found this article interesting and on the matter:

http://forward.com/articles/4052/hebrew-vs-israeli/?

[GothicSp]

I can't provide any scholarly opinion but I found this article interesting and on the matter:

http://forward.com/articles/4052/hebrew-vs-israeli/?

The article looks a bit too much driven by a certain opinion, I have read comments by Israeli linguists about the subject which were quite informative for me, but the only thing I read in the article you give here is an opinion instead of interesting information.

Here the opinions of the linguists:

http://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/89/can-modern-hebrew-be-considered-an-indo-european-language

[IpseDixit]

Like tapuz, I too cannot give an academic opinion because I don't study linguistics. But anyway I have a thought which is this: who is this Zuckerman? Do you know his curriculum? I'm asking this because I have noticed that linguistics is probably the subject which is the most exposed to pseudo-scientific theories; indeed, for some reason, people who have no academic qualifications at all still feel allowed to speculate and give hoax theories about certain languages and sometimes their even get their work published!

The article looks a bit too much driven by a certain opinion

Yeah, this is another problem. Even if this theory were true, IMO, Israelis would never accept that... And I think this would bring about a very strong defence of Hebrew, more based on an ideological view rather than on a true scholarly judgement. But I might be wrong.

[Babelfish]

Well, we regard Modern Hebrew as a reconstructed language rather than "just" constructed. I've taken a look into the Wikipedia article about Conlangs, but it doesn't really give a clear definition, pretty much because there isn't one. It mentions Interlingua and Latina sine Flexione as additional examples of languages based on a natural language (Latin), but these do not claim to continue the original language but to simplify it, unlike Modern Hebrew.
Frankly, it feels like nitpicking to me now; let the scholars argue about hyper-accurate definitions, like they argue whether Pluto should be considered a planet or not. Modern Hebrew has effectively become a natural language after being spoken as a mother tongue for several generations.

[Thon]

Yes, Hebrew is a conlang -- and so is every other language.

[GothicSp]

Well, we regard Modern Hebrew as a reconstructed language rather than "just" constructed. I've taken a look into the Wikipedia article about Conlangs, but it doesn't really give a clear definition, pretty much because there isn't one. It mentions Interlingua and Latina sine Flexione as additional examples of languages based on a natural language (Latin), but these do not claim to continue the original language but to simplify it, unlike Modern Hebrew.
Frankly, it feels like nitpicking to me now; let the scholars argue about hyper-accurate definitions, like they argue whether Pluto should be considered a planet or not. Modern Hebrew has effectively become a natural language after being spoken as a mother tongue for several generations.

Yes, I completely agree with you that modern Hebrew has become a natural language. I just wonder because Hebrew morphology and vocabulary was used but a lot of new words were created by individuals rather than being created in a historical process and because the word order is mostly based on that of immigrants. Also I 'm having the same problem as you, it isn't clear to me what a conlang is, but modern Cornish, Manx and Hebrew were revived but can't escape from features being introduced in the language which didn't originally belong in it. Though, Latina sine Flexione really makes me think how Cornish or Manx or Hebrew are different from it, which were also modified from an original language.