Hebrew proven to be the “original language” by a deaf person?

Jun 13, 2012 by

A curious article at the Jewish Deaf Multimedia website claims that Hebrew (Ancient or Biblical Hebrew, that is, which is not the same as Modern Hebrew) has been proven to be the “original language”, that is “the first language to ever exist”. This idea goes back to the mystical Kabbala teachings explicated in The Zohar, attributed to Rabbi Shimon Bar Yohai, also known by the acronym Rashbi, an important legal scholar, also reputed as a worker of miracles. According to the Kabbala, Hebrew is the building blocks from which life is created and people were divinely created to be native Hebrew-speakers.

This idea has been later picked up by many authors, theologians and scientists alike. One of the latter was a seventeenth century Belgian scholar Francis Mercury van Helmont. In his book Alphabeti veri naturalis hebraici brevissima delineatio (or in other words, The Alphabet of NatureIn this book, van Helmont described “how the sounds of Hebrew were the most suited for a human speaker”. He also went on to claim that “the Hebrew alphabet was essentially a ‘pronouncation guide’ for the full range of human speech; each position that the tongue could take in the mouth to make a sound was represented by a Hebrew letter”. As a reader of this blog would know, the latter claim is simply untrue. There are plenty of speech sounds found in various human languages but not in Hebrew (Biblical or otherwise): clicks, implosives, ejectives, doubly-articulated consonants, front rounded vowels, to name just a few classes.

But it is also interesting to see how van Helmont went about proving his thesis. He instructed a deaf person on how to form the sounds encoded by the letters of the Hebrew alphabet with his tongue. From the rapid success of this experiment, just three weeks, van Helmont concluded that Hebrew was the most natural language for speaking. To me, all this experiment is proving is that Hebrew, as mentioned above, is rather poor on “exotic” sounds which may be difficult for some to pronounce. I am also curious to see how long it would have taken van Helmont to teach the same deaf person to pronounce sounds of some other language, say Zulu or Kabardian, both of which are on the richer side when it comes to consonant inventories.

All in all, however, it must be pointed out that using knowledge from articulatory phonetics may be quite useful in teaching the deaf to articulate speech sounds, which they cannot hear. Whether teaching the deaf an oral or a sign language is the more preferrable strategy is another question entirely. The readers are invited to express their thoughts on the matter.

 



Like this post? Please pass it on:


Previous Post
«
| Next Post
»

Related Posts

Subscribe For Updates

We would love to have you back on Languages Of The World in the future. If you would like to receive updates of our newest posts, feel free to do so using any of your favorite methods below:

      

  • Alfia Wallace

    I thought about claims like this when reading through the Armenian/IE/Caucasus thread.  There are plenty of ideologues who have a stake in promoting this sort of linguistic propaganda.  Over the years different people have tried to convince me that the following languages were all the “original” language from which all others flowed:  Hebrew, Sanskrit, Avestan, Lithuanian, oh.. and of course Armenian.  :^}

  • Tohuva

    Herodotus had this all figured out ages ago – humanity’s original language was Phrygian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_language#Historical_experiments

  • http://profiles.google.com/johnwcowan John Cowan
    • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

      Thanks for the link, John!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=644516731 Dan Parvaz

    I hope someone told speakers of Proto-Semitic that Hebrew was the Original (Adamic?) language. I know the Jewish Deaf Multimedia folks, and they of course believe that the sounds of the Torah existed at the creation of the cosmos (4004, BCE!), and this this confirms it — the presence of a Deaf person supposedly makes it better. 

    I asked JDMM which version of the sounds of Hebrew we were talking about, since the phonology of Hebrew has clearly changed over its long history (we don’t even need to reconstruct that — artifacts in the orthography are sufficient evidence); they have yet to respond.

    And of course know the sounds of a language is not the same as knowing the language. If that were so, just about every Jew in the US would be fluent in Hebrew.Besides, Based on that argument, wouldn’t the “original language” be some kind of Polynesian, with their small segmental inventories?

    • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

      Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Dan!

      And I like your point about Polynesian. There’s also a couple of languages in Papua New Guinea and Afica that have few sounds, like Polynesian.

  • Alpacino_pl

    Nice thanks for sharing. Tercüme || Tercüme Büroları

  • tadilatsirketi

    thenks for informations… 
    ev tadilatıev tadilat işleri

  • http://www.simultanetercume.org/simultane-tercume/ simultane tercüme

    thanks for sharing…

    ev tadilatı

  • SoylentGreen

    Bullshit

  • Ivan Derzhanski

    I’ve come across the opposite argument: that Proto-World (if such a thing existed at all) must have had clicks, because those are much harder for languages to acquire than to dispense with. Ditto perhaps for some other classes of sounds. Bad news for Hebrew, if that be true.

    My grandfather once surprised me (and my father, who was also present) with the assertion that `with Bulgarian one can pronounce any [speech] sound’. This turned out to be trivially true: all sounds that weren’t part of the Bulgarian sound system came through his ears as their nearest Bulgarian approximations, so what he couldn’t pronounce he couldn’t hear either. (And he spoke German fluently, but he’d never bothered with its proper pronunciation, as was typical in the early 20th century.)