06-16-2013, 02:45 PM
Shlama Akhi
I understand your point. Like I stated earlier, what's different in this case is that one language evolved from another in a different area, but from people who were descendants of the other language group. In that way, the relationship is much different than that between the Romance languages.
Of particular importance is the early generations. They must have spoken Aramaic, since they were Arameans. Then, their speech evolved to be something similar, but unique. Then, due to their exile back to their original Mesopotamia, their speech returned to the original. By the time of Christ, they spoke the same language as that of the original Hebrews.
None of these things are true with any Romance languages, or even with Tamil vs Malayalam.
Make sense?
+Shamasha
I understand your point. Like I stated earlier, what's different in this case is that one language evolved from another in a different area, but from people who were descendants of the other language group. In that way, the relationship is much different than that between the Romance languages.
Of particular importance is the early generations. They must have spoken Aramaic, since they were Arameans. Then, their speech evolved to be something similar, but unique. Then, due to their exile back to their original Mesopotamia, their speech returned to the original. By the time of Christ, they spoke the same language as that of the original Hebrews.
None of these things are true with any Romance languages, or even with Tamil vs Malayalam.
Make sense?
+Shamasha