Language in Time of Revolution.

The title is merely one of the many puzzling things about this book. Why not "A Language in a Time of Revolutions" given that the entire book is devoted to the re-vernacularization of Hebrew. Or, why not "Languages in Times of Revolution," if it is meant to have much wider relevance? As it stands, the title clearly implies neither one nor the other. Indeed this usage of neither indefinite articles nor plurals seems to me ungrammatical and smacks of intrusion from some other language. (Could it be from the "construct state" of Hebrew grammar?)

However, if this title is meant to imply a theory that might have validity for other minor languages in times of severe dislocation, expectations are likely to be disappointed since no such theory is presented and no cases other than that of Hebrew in Palestine/Israel are seriously considered. "Revolution" is to be taken metaphorically rather than literally. Indeed Harshav never adopts a comparative, empirical stance, although his theoretical pronouncements are stated in quite general, universalizing terms.

The book could have made a significant contribution, and one fully in accord with the title's metaphor, had the author moved from general comparative case studies to a newer and better illumination of the Hebrew case. After all, there have been efforts to re-vernacularize other tongues no longer spoken, for example Latin and Sanskirt, Geez and Manx. Why did they fail where the Hebrew effort succeeded? Or, if we are to derive perspective on …