Talk:Knaanic language

message: The article needs to tell: WHAT ARE ALL THE JUDEO-SLAVIC LANGUAGES?
Obviously, the article mentions Judeo-Czech, but that just leaves people wondering what the others are.
Nothing like this existed. 
I'm finally getting around to signing the above post.
Gringo300 08:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If people want to know, they can do google searches for Judeo-slavic languages, which turns up numerous results.  It would behoove those who ask such questions, at least as much so as the purported "searchers", to conduct such searches, and to contribute to the article constructively, rather than attempting to detract therefrom by means of insipid questions. Tomer TALK 12:33, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
I was thinking the purpose of Wikipedia was to give people information. Sure, people can do searches elsewhere... for just about ANYTHING on Wikipedia. Yet Wikipedia does exist. Therefore Wikipedia needs to tell about the OTHER Judeo-Slavic languages.
Gringo300 21:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: needed expansion of article

message: Could someone please add any reference, to any articles, books, original texts (if they exist)?
:Numerous sources are made immediately available upon a simple google.com search for "knaanic".  When time permits, I'll see what I can do about adding such references to the article.  In the meantime, perhaps you could do so yourself, rather than asking trolling questions of this nature.Tomer TALK 12:33, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
::First of all, I think alot of readers would be thankful if you would not label legitimate questions as 'trolling', this is simply rude. Now, if one takes the time to follow such links, it is visiable that most of them are either:
* WP mirrors
* oneliners stating 'Yiddish might have been affected by Knaanic' (or the more extreem Wexler approach)
* A transliteration of the Lord's Prayer in Czech into the hebrew alphabet, in Ethnologue and it's mirrors (hardly authentic Knaanic text)
Automatic assumption of ignorance or lazyness is by far more 'trollish' than a request for bibliography.
:I see that someone else was thinking the exact same thing I was... Gringo300 21:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly there's been a breakdown in communication.  Saying that questions are trolling is a very different thing from saying someone's questions are trollish.  Please review what I wrote.  Tomer TALK 01:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  reference? 

message: This etymology is wrong and on purpose misleading. It refers to Kanaan as son of Ham. Because it was used by Radanites trading in Slavic slaves. As Kanaan is curesd to be slave of other Noah sons - Sem, Japhet so the people enslaved become Kanaan. Look up in Babylonian Talmud and Ham curse, plus 11th century identification of Slavs as Kanaanites by Nathan ben Yehiel from Rome and Simon ben Icchack of Troyes. Real Jews would never ever never identify themselves as Kanaanites. That is rediculous assumption. And a Lie.
The origin of the name is well researched by a Jewish historian Matatiahu Mieses in his 1908 publication - "Origins of the word Ham"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.146.123.11 (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, although I don't have a source in front of me that I can cite to back it up.  This is based on what I've read elsewhere previously... The same, in fact, is also probsibly true of Sfaradh, and possibly even of Ashkenaz.  Tomertalk 02:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to not have a strong guess on the etymological connection. I do. I'm guessing the name was given by others, as a referent to the people from Canaan who spoke the language. Dvd Avins 02:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I wasn't suggesting putting my guess in the article; I was primarily responding to your previous statement on this page, influenced by your exact choice of words in the article. I don't think there's an NOR requirement for talk pages. As for the merits, what you say argues against my guess but not overwhelmingly, IMO. For my guess to be true, the name would have had to originate with the Gentile locals and later been adopted by the speakers. I've read of names of langages working like that, where the speaking group takes on the name assigned them by outsiders. If the Jews perceived that they were speaking Czech (or whatever the local language was called at the time) but Czech speakers perceived differences that warrented a distinct name, it would not be unreasonable for the jews to adopt the neam that was already being bandied about. Especially if the pronunciation (including local suffixes and/or prefixes) made the word distinct in the Jews ears from a word that would imply descent from Qna'an. Dvd Avins 10:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct: neither NPOV nor NOR apply to talk pages.  That said, I don't know what discussion between the two of us as to the possible origin of the name can accomplish, other than to establish that neither of us is an expert in the field.  To repeat myself earlier tho, a central weakness of your theory is that the Jews would not have called themselves exiles of Qna`an, nor would that territory likely have been referred to as such by Slavs.  Everything you're saying is "interesting", but as far as the article goes, little more than "idle speculation". That said, I'll try to dig up the sources I've read previously, which support the text I added to the article.  Tomertalk 07:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology of name 

message: What is it? (origin, author, age, authenticity...)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.83.176.178 (talk) 10:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: I think the only serious reference concerning the so-called "leshon kenaan" (לשון כנען)  or   Jewish Czech   (צ'כית יהודית) is this article written in Czech:
Šedinová, Jiřina: Literatura a jazyk Židů v Českých zemích, in EUROLITTERARIA & EUROLINGUA 2005, Technická univerzita v Liberci, Liberec 2005
Its author, Jiřina Šedinová, is one of the best known Czech specialists in Hebrew and in Jewish culture of Bohemia and Moravia ("Czechia"). In her article she mentions the existence of several thousands glosses in medieval Czech called "leshon kenaan" in Hebrew. These glosses appear in  Jewish religious texts, e. g. in Or zarua by Yitzhak ben Moshe or Arugat ha-bosem by  Abraham ben Azriel. There are no differences between the language of these glosses and medieval Czech spoken by the gentiles.
"Leshon kenaan" did exist but it is just a Hebrew expression for medieval Czech and other West Slavic languages (Polish and Sorbian). If there was a distinct Jewish language based on Czech or any other West Slavic language, its existence has never been proved. 
The inscriptions on the coins we can see in this article are written in Polish (but with Hebrew script). I repeat - there is no evidence of any distinct medieval Jewish language based on any West Slavic language.--Henriku (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A really serious reference 

message: The illustration presents a "brackteate"'- a medal! It was a well known way of giving someone a distinction, and of course if the king wanted to give an award to a prominent Jew, it would be marked in letters that the members of Jewish community understood. The idea that Polish king would struck coins with Hebrew letters is patently absurd,  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.127.74 (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a coin! 

message: The coin tells us all. Jews ruled over Polish lands. (they were Jewish kings)
: It's generally acknowledged that there were a handful of families within the Polish nobility that had some degree of Jewish origins. However, that isn't the context for the minting of those coins. I feel I should also remind you that talk pages are  not a forum for discussing personal theories, or a subject that is unrelated to the editing of an article. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 06:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jews ruled over Poland

message: I modified the wording on Wexler's acceptance, as I thought it was WP:UNDUE as far as the phrasing. It is, of course, certainly worthwhile to mention his theory though. Just to not give an abundance weight to it, especially with the article not really being of sufficient length for a section where it might be appropriate. While the phrasing does reflect the current reality of Yiddish linguistics, and historical linguistics in general, I do realise that there are a few scholars who have noted that some of his approaches and even some aspects of his ideas are novel and worth discussing, even if his conclusions are incorrect. Therefore, I'm not at all opposed to a more qualified modification of the phrasing one way or another, even if it might qualify as borderline WP:FRINGE. Feel free and be bold if you think it's unbalanced, but take care. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 06:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wexler 

message: Page 646 of David L. Gold’s Studies in Etymology and Etiology (with Emphasis on Germanic, Jewish, Romance, and Slavic Languages) contains full bibliographical references to two article on Knaanic by Max Weinreich, which should be cited here: https://books.google.com/books?id=l015C5vm1XkC&q=basic+relationships#v=snippet&q=basic%20relationships&f=false
If that URL does not lead directly to them, put the words “basic relationships” in the search box of Gold’s book on line (https://books.google.com/books/about/Studies_in_Etymology_and_Etiology.html?id=l015C5vm1XkC) and you will be taken to that page S. Valkemirer (talk) 01:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Max Weinreich's two articles on Knaanic