Stand-Alone Perfect and Imperfect examples with identical 'time' meanings

[kwrandolph]

Karl wrote :

The last native speaker of Biblical Hebrew died about 500 BC. Until the 20th century, no one spoke any form of Hebrew natively.

Karl, I note your comments with interest. I have no knowledge of Greek at all, and having tediously attempted to read Angel Saenz-Badillos's book History of the Hebrew language, withot much success, I am in no position to question people who write on this subject. I do however take an issue with your above comment, surely this is speculation?

chris watts

No it’s not speculation. There is evidence for it.

Part of the evidence is not Biblical. I’ve worked among immigrant populations. The immigrant generation usually speaks their native tongues well, and the majority language of the place where they live not so well, if at all. The next generation, which may include those who were brought as young children, speak the local language better than their parents’ languages, though they may be fluent in both. When they marry, they usually speak the local language in the house instead of their parents’ languages. The grandchildren of the immigrants speak only a smattering of their grandparents’ languages, if any at all. The Babylonian exile lasted 2.5–3 generations, long enough for the pattern to lead to the extinction of the immigrants’ languages.

Second clue, Daniel, who was a native speaker of Biblical Hebrew, yet wrote half his book in Aramaic.

Ezra, much later, wrote half his book in Aramaic.

In literary style, writings composed by those in a learned, second language, tend to have simpler literary style than native speakers. That is what we find in post-Babylonian exile writings.

When Ezra and Nehemiah complained that the children of mixed marriages were not learning Hebrew, that indicates that Hebrew was not the language spoken at home nor on the street. If Hebrew were the language spoken in the market and on the street, then it wouldn’t matter what language was spoken at home, the children would learn Hebrew. That the children were not learning Hebrew tells us that a different language (Aramaic) was spoken in the markets and streets, and also at home.

I have seen no evidence that Hebrew was spoken as a native tongue after that until the 20th century. Yes, there were people who learned Hebrew well enough so that they could speak it fluently, but that doesn’t change the fact that it was a learned, second language. Used in the same way as Latin was in medieval Europe.

Karl W. Randolph.

[kwrandolph]

I would question it also, as those who have spent time with the non-Biblical Qumran documents consider them Biblical in their language and grammar. That is, part of classical Hebrew (as opposed to later forms such as Mishnaic). If so, this extends this date way past 500 B.C. to at least the first century A.D. Indications from language used are that the authors spoke Hebrew natively. What about the Hebrew of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Daniel, Zechariah, Haggai, Malachi? Some of these were written after 500 B.C., surely. I see no evidence that they were written by non-native speakers. Those who have studied Mishnaic Hebrew posit that it was based on a spoken dialect of Hebrew. We have included in it discussions about Hebrew words and phrases used by non-scholars that the rabbis discussed. This would mean that the Hebrew of that period was not just a learned, scholarly second language.

Dewayne: My experience differs from yours. When I was exposed to DSS Hebrew, my reaction to it was that it is strange. I didn’t read very much of it. Further, when I read Waltke & O’Connor on DSS Hebrew, their description is of a language that has a significantly different grammar than what’s found in Tanakh.

Daniel was a native speaker, having learned Hebrew in Judea before being taken to Babylon.
Both Ezra and Nehemiah give indications that they were well educated, which would include knowing Hebrew well.
The writer of Esther was competent, but he did not know Hebrew that well.
I don’t have much information on Haggai, Zachariah and Malachi, except that their literary style was simpler than Jeremiah, or especially Isaiah.

With the exception of Daniel, I see no evidence that any of these writers were native speakers of Hebrew. I see no evidence that these writers did anything more than what medieval writers of Latin did when they wrote in Latin.

Karl W. Randolph.

[talmid56]

Daniel and Ezra's use of Aramaic: both were dealing with interaction with foreign courts and officials in those instances. The passages in Ezra are letters between the local Persian officials in Judah and the royal administration. Aramaic was used as a diplomatic language in Persia and its dealings with other countries in the region. This was also true when Babylon and Assyria dealt with foreign diplomats and correspondence. Daniel served under both Babylonian and Persian administrations, so he would of course use Aramaic in writing about matters that would concern them. Some of the Jews in his audience of readers would understand it also.

As for the complaints about the children, that only indicates that some of the children did not speak Hebrew. It does not necessarily indicate that the whole Jewish population of Judah did not. The fact remains that Ezra and Nehemiah's messages addressed to Jews were written in Hebrew, not Aramaic. If their audience no longer spoke Hebrew, why not write these books totally in Aramaic? Yet they did not do so.

It should also be noted that several of the Apocrypha were originally written in Hebrew. Many of these were written before the Christian era, and long after 500 B.C. This is partly confirmed by finds at Qumran, and also by the case of Sirach (Ben Sira, Ecclesiasticus). Hebrew manuscripts both from Qumran and the Cairo Genizah have restored about two thirds of the Hebrew texts. The translator of the Greek version, which served as the basis for the Latin version and most others, explicitly states it was translated from Hebrew. The original dates to 150 B.C. and was put into Greek in 132 B.C. The translator was the author's grandson. See Bensira.org. I've been reading this in Hebrew, as well as Greek and Latin. It is good Biblical Hebrew, not Mishnaic or later Hebrew. Very similar to Proverbs. Such Wisdom Literature was produced for a popular audience, not scholars. It is another indication that people still spoke Hebrew natively past your 500 B.C. cutoff. Many of the other apocrypha are devotional in nature, or have edifying stories, similar to our Christian devotional literature and fiction today (or to stories like Ben Hur, The Robe, Quo Vadis, etc. for earlier generations). These works, like the ones in English, are not aimed at scholarly audiences, but popular ones. Why do this if those audiences could not read the Hebrew that was written? It doesn't hold up.

Clearly, from various evidences, Aramaic was being spoken by Jews in these later centuries also. But, I don't believe it can be shown that it was spoken exclusively as a native, everyday language by Jews. Many were bilingual, and then later, as Greek spread in those areas, trilingual. That is what the evidence shows.

[Chris Watts]

Karl wrote :

When Ezra and Nehemiah complained that the children of mixed marriages were not learning Hebrew, that indicates that Hebrew was not the language spoken at home nor on the street

Sorry Karl, I disagree with this assumption.

1. How many thousands stayed behind in Judah during the Babylonian exile, not all went into captivity, but a remnant were left behind and they would not have switched languages from Hebrew to Aramaic.

2. Does one really imagine that Nehemiah and Ezra were referring to the WHOLE of Judah when he made those comments about the children of the parents of mixed marriages, and note that he does not say, the parents, but the children, which is understandeable, but also only the children of MIXED marriages, so there remains quite a vast number outside of this category? There is no evidence to state that Hebrew ceased as a spoken language from 500 BC, we have only scant allusions to the absence amongst the returning Jews, but this can not be used as evidence to make the claim that Hebrew was no longer spoken. I have other reasons why there are Aramaic portions in scripture, and they have nothing to do with any deterioration of Hebrew.

3. Karl wrote :

With the exception of Daniel, I see no evidence that any of these writers were native speakers of Hebrew. I see no evidence that these writers did anything more than what medieval writers of Latin did when they wrote in Latin.

Karl, this is a bit of a leap. I really can not remember where this is said, but did not Ezra have to Translate from the Hebrew to aramaic when he read to them once? (I can not find this passage).

Chris watts

[Jason Hare]

I really can not remember where this is said, but did not Ezra have to Translate from the Hebrew to aramaic when he read to them once? (I can not find this passage).

I think you're thinking of this passage:

וַיֵּאָסְפ֤וּ כָל־הָעָם֙ כְּאִ֣ישׁ אֶחָ֔ד אֶל־הָ֣רְח֔וֹב אֲשֶׁ֖ר לִפְנֵ֣י שַֽׁעַר־הַמָּ֑יִם וַיֹּֽאמְרוּ֙ לְעֶזְרָ֣א הַסֹּפֵ֔ר לְהָבִ֗יא אֶת־סֵ֙פֶר֙ תּוֹרַ֣ת מֹשֶׁ֔ה אֲשֶׁר־צִוָּ֥ה יְהוָ֖ה אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃
וַיָּבִ֣יא עֶזְרָ֣א הַ֠כֹּהֵן אֶֽת־הַתּוֹרָ֞ה לִפְנֵ֤י הַקָּהָל֙ מֵאִ֣ישׁ וְעַד־אִשָּׁ֔ה וְכֹ֖ל מֵבִ֣ין לִשְׁמֹ֑עַ בְּי֥וֹם אֶחָ֖ד לַחֹ֥דֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִֽי׃
וַיִּקְרָא־בוֹ֩ לִפְנֵ֨י הָרְח֜וֹב אֲשֶׁ֣ר׀ לִפְנֵ֣י שַֽׁעַר־הַמַּ֗יִם מִן־הָאוֹר֙ עַד־מַחֲצִ֣ית הַיּ֔וֹם נֶ֛גֶד הָאֲנָשִׁ֥ים וְהַנָּשִׁ֖ים וְהַמְּבִינִ֑ים וְאָזְנֵ֥י כָל־הָעָ֖ם אֶל־סֵ֥פֶר הַתּוֹרָֽה׃

All of the people gathered as one to the public square before the Water Gate. They asked Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses that Yahweh had commanded Israel. So Ezra the priest brought the law before the assembly for each man and woman to hear with understanding, on the first day of the seventh month. He read from it facing the public square before the Water Gate from dawn until noon that day, opposite the men, women, and those with understanding. The ears of all the people were attentive to the book of the law.

Nehemiah 8:1–3 from the Lexham Hebrew Bible (LHB) and Lexham English Bible (LEB) as in the Logos version.

I think the "to hear with understanding" is often interpreted to mean "to hear it as interpreted/translated."

[kwrandolph]

Karl wrote :

When Ezra and Nehemiah complained that the children of mixed marriages were not learning Hebrew, that indicates that Hebrew was not the language spoken at home nor on the street

Sorry Karl, I disagree with this assumption.

1. How many thousands stayed behind in Judah during the Babylonian exile, not all went into captivity, but a remnant were left behind and they would not have switched languages from Hebrew to Aramaic.

According to Jeremiah 43, there were none left in Judah. Those who weren’t taken into captivity with Nebuchadnezzar fled to Egypt, every last one of them. There were none left.

2. Does one really imagine that Nehemiah and Ezra were referring to the WHOLE of Judah when he made those comments about the children of the parents of mixed marriages, and note that he does not say, the parents, but the children, which is understandeable, but also only the children of MIXED marriages, so there remains quite a vast number outside of this category?

If Hebrew were the language of market and street, then there would be NO children who would not learn Hebrew. That there were some children not learning Hebrew means that Hebrew was not the language spoken on the street and in the market.

There is no evidence to state that Hebrew ceased as a spoken language from 500 BC, we have only scant allusions to the absence amongst the returning Jews, but this can not be used as evidence to make the claim that Hebrew was no longer spoken.

Latin is still a spoken language. How many of those who speak Latin learned it as their first language at their mother’s knee? Another way of saying that, how many of those who speak Latin learned it as their native language?

Notice, I never claimed that Hebrew ceased to be spoken, rather that it ceased to be a natively spoken language. You need to keep the distinction in mind.

I have other reasons why there are Aramaic portions in scripture, and they have nothing to do with any deterioration of Hebrew.

Are you confusing speaking Hebrew with native speaking of Hebrew? Those are two different things.

3. Karl wrote :

With the exception of Daniel, I see no evidence that any of these writers were native speakers of Hebrew. I see no evidence that these writers did anything more than what medieval writers of Latin did when they wrote in Latin.

Karl, this is a bit of a leap. I really can not remember where this is said, but did not Ezra have to Translate from the Hebrew to aramaic when he read to them once? (I can not find this passage).

Chris watts

The passage is in Nehemiah 8.

Daniel and Ezra's use of Aramaic: both were dealing with interaction with foreign courts and officials in those instances. The passages in Ezra are letters between the local Persian officials in Judah and the royal administration. Aramaic was used as a diplomatic language in Persia and its dealings with other countries in the region. This was also true when Babylon and Assyria dealt with foreign diplomats and correspondence. Daniel served under both Babylonian and Persian administrations, so he would of course use Aramaic in writing about matters that would concern them. Some of the Jews in his audience of readers would understand it also.

Daniel 7 is about a vision that he was given by God, not an interaction with any royal administration, yet it is written in Aramaic.

As for the complaints about the children, that only indicates that some of the children did not speak Hebrew. It does not necessarily indicate that the whole Jewish population of Judah did not. The fact remains that Ezra and Nehemiah's messages addressed to Jews were written in Hebrew, not Aramaic. If their audience no longer spoke Hebrew, why not write these books totally in Aramaic? Yet they did not do so.

It never fails. Every time I bring up the evidence that Hebrew ceased being a natively spoken language, people respond that Hebrew continued being spoken. There’s a reason I put “natively” there. There’s a difference between “speaking” and “natively speaking”.

Clearly, from various evidences, Aramaic was being spoken by Jews in these later centuries also. But, I don't believe it can be shown that it was spoken exclusively as a native, everyday language by Jews. Many were bilingual, and then later, as Greek spread in those areas, trilingual. That is what the evidence shows.

For every Jew, it was a religious as well as civic duty to learn Hebrew. The religious duty was of course temple worship.

The question I bring up is which language was the language spoken on the street and in the market? The language spoken on the street and in the market is the native language of that community, and usually of everyone in that community. Jews were scattered throughout many lands during and after the Babylonian exile, The natively spoken languages became the locally spoken languages of wherever Jews settled. And in Judea and Galilee, the evidence is that Aramaic was the natively spoken language.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Chris Watts]

Jason, thankyou.

Karl, while I find your reasoning convincing and tempting to believe based upon the strength of your argument, it seems rather a surface gloss accross a few pages, thoughts below the surface persuade me otherwise, there is still no concrete evidence that common street Hebrew was not spoken while grandmother was buying her chicken at the market and a pregnant mum was discussing her excitement that her first child would be born in Judah having just trekked a few thousand miles from the Euphrates. My reasoning is well attested evidence though not biblically founded and that is this: A community that has such super strong bonds to its identity and traditions does not lose its mother language, changes may occur yes, but its identity is bound up with its language. Its language is its cultural identity. Today there are a number of North American Indian tribes that have retained their native language and YET they are more assimilated and more culturally chained to an English speaking environment than the Jews were in an Aramaic environment. This was not the case with Judah, they were not assimilated until they became seriously dispersed after AD 135.

The example of Latin I find a poor recourse for evidence since the Romans were comprised of so many dfferent languages, so many legions were made up of foreign troops, Rome itself was multi-cultural, its provinces littered with hundreds of thousands of foreign speakers, foreign philosophies and foreign gods, religions and beliefs, I am not surprised Latin fell out of use as a common language. One identifined as a Roman by birth or with payment or priviledge. But Judah was NEVER ever like this at all, a Jew identified as a Jew in a way that a Latin speaker could never understand, Aramaic would have been spoken I have no doubt. But groups, individuals even whole segments of people would have spoken hebrew while grabbing a fig from the tree or washing their clothes in the river. A single verse from the scripture about a bunch of foreign speaking kids can not wipe out colloquial Hebrew Karl. And making references to aramaic in a few books of scripture can not destroy a language that had its very life and heart wrapped up in social closeness, identity and a strong sense of cultural longing and desire, not to mention singualrity of one God as opposed to the Latin plethora of confusion and the worship of whatever tickled your fancy after a glass of wine..The language of worship before Babylon was Hebrew, I know from personal experience that an insecure people who long for security and a feeling of belonging after trauma speak the language that brings them home, that makes them feel secure. That strengthens their sense of self and identity and bonding to a common purpose. Now not all would have been like this, many a jewish family chose to remain in their very wealthy surroundings when Persia and Media took control, but not a shred of evidence is even hinted at that colloquial hebrew was forgotten by an entire nation.

Karl, a scripture verse can be pivoted upon a pole like a beacon sometmes in the same way a newspaper article is set into the minds of a public. We think because we hear the news everyday that we understand the world and all its political dealings. We think we understand who is bad and who is good, we wrongly assune that we are wise and knowledgeable about world events. The problem with the news is the same problem some of us have with scripture, we think that a momentary glimpse into a single day of a single person writes an entire story and performs an entire life, whether of an individual or a community or a nation.

A single verse, a group of verses or even a chapter in no way can inform us of life in Israel amongst the thousands of men and women who never took the trip to Jerusalem to hear Ezra preach, or never took part in the building of the walls. We only get a tiny glimpse of life like being handed a bucket of pure white sand from a beach and making the claim that there were no pebbles on that beach.


The true demise of that colloquial hebrew did not come until well after AD 135, this is when I believe it would have been assaulted by despair and hopelessness, when thousands were sent into slavery and the final doom of all Israel, its belief in restoration vanished from the pages and from the hearts.

Edit: Maybe I should refer you to Nehemiah 13:24. No doubt you know this verse, of course you do. Now surely one would assume that this corroborates your reasoning? Yes I could see how one might use this as an argument in your favour. However I see it differently, that the incredible resoluteness of Nehemiah and others to preserve national identity, to preserve language and to ensure that Judah returns not just to God, but to what was in danger of being lost, not what had already dissappeared.

Chris watts

[Chris Watts]

Karl wrote :

The Babylonian exile lasted 2.5–3 generations, long enough for the pattern to lead to the extinction of the immigrants’ languages.

I agree, I also have experience with this but in a family situation. However, the difference, and it is a very noteworthy difference, is that many immigrants and migrations seek to adopt the country they live in, obviously for work, but also because they are glad to leave their mother country behind for many diverse reasons. The Jews of Judah were NOT glad to leave their country, they, on the whole, were not interested in assimilation, although no doubt many did, but the Babylonian exile can not be compared to any immigrantion of modern times. They are emotionally and culturally totally different experiences. No doubt the brutish treatment by Babylonian authorities, generally, would strengthen ones resolve to maintain ones own identity and language. Like you, I have made suppositions here, but these are intelligent suppositions based on the Psychology of being up-rooted involuntarily from the land of your birth and the very psychology of human experience, both emotionally and culturally.

The thrust of my argument is not to refute any aquisition of aquiring Aramaic or bi-ligual status amongst many jews, nor is to refute the fact that the colloquial Hebrew market/street language was not retained by many. My argument is that it is impossible to dogmatically say that the last Hebrew speaker died out around 500 BC and that Street/market Hebrew was no longer used in conversation after this.


Karl wrote :

According to Jeremiah 43, there were none left in Judah. Those who weren’t taken into captivity with Nebuchadnezzar fled to Egypt, every last one of them. There were none left

Jer 44:28 consoles me that many returned back to Judah. But having said this, there was always a remnant left in the land, always, no matter how small. Even after 135AD there remained Jews in the land. How else would we have the Palestinian pointer system if it did not originate from the dialect of the land? On top of this Saenz-Badillos comments casually that there is evidence that a vernacular form of Hebrew was still spoken in the south post exillic times and this led to the form of Rabbinic Hebrew. Now I am no scholar here, just quoting him.

Chris watts

[kwrandolph]

Jason, thankyou.

Karl, while I find your reasoning convincing and tempting to believe based upon the strength of your argument, it seems rather a surface gloss accross a few pages, thoughts below the surface persuade me otherwise, there is still no concrete evidence that common street Hebrew was not spoken while grandmother was buying her chicken at the market and a pregnant mum was discussing her excitement that her first child would be born in Judah having just trekked a few thousand miles from the Euphrates.

Chris: there was one time I would have agreed with you. I later realized that my belief that Hebrew had continued to be natively spoken was mere wishful thinking, that none of the evidence that I’ve seen requires native speaking, that a learned second language can also explain the same phenomena.

My reasoning is well attested evidence though not biblically founded and that is this: A community that has such super strong bonds to its identity and traditions does not lose its mother language, changes may occur yes, but its identity is bound up with its language. Its language is its cultural identity. Today there are a number of North American Indian tribes that have retained their native language and YET they are more assimilated and more culturally chained to an English speaking environment than the Jews were in an Aramaic environment. This was not the case with Judah, they were not assimilated until they became seriously dispersed after AD 135.

The indications that I’ve read is that Jews were not culturally isolated into ghettos during the Babylonian and Persian eras. This was mentioned in the Book of Esther. When Paul was on his missionary journeys, almost every major city he entered had a synagog or at least a place where Jews gathered to worship. Jews were seriously dispersed before 135 AD.

A single verse from the scripture about a bunch of foreign speaking kids can not wipe out colloquial Hebrew Karl.

This was a serious event mentioned by both Ezra and Nehemiah, because…

The language of worship before Babylon was Hebrew,

And it continues to be the language of worship. Have you ever visited a synagog and heard the cantor chant the Torah and Haftorah readings for the day? Or how about the sung blessings for the bread and wine? Hebrew continues to be used. Similar to the Latin mass in the Roman Catholic church.

… but not a shred of evidence is even hinted at that colloquial hebrew was forgotten by an entire nation.

There is evidence that native speaking of Hebrew ceased. There’s no evidence that the language was forgotten, a claim that I never made, but there’s also no evidence that Hebrew was the language spoken in the market nor on the street. In fact, the evidence from Ezra and Nehemiah was that Hebrew was not used on the street nor in the market during their time. I have seen no evidence that it was revived as a natively spoken language at a later date.

The true demise of that colloquial hebrew did not come until well after AD 135, this is when I believe it would have been assaulted by despair and hopelessness, when thousands were sent into slavery and the final doom of all Israel, its belief in restoration vanished from the pages and from the hearts.

Tiberian Hebrew, the basis of the Masoretic points, is a type of colloquial Hebrew. It came long after 135 AD.

My conclusions are not carved into stone, rather based on the evidence I’ve seen so far. But if you have evidence I haven’t seen before, I’m willing to reconsider.

Karl wrote :

The Babylonian exile lasted 2.5–3 generations, long enough for the pattern to lead to the extinction of the immigrants’ languages.

My argument is that it is impossible to dogmatically say that the last Hebrew speaker died out around 500 BC and that Street/market Hebrew was no longer used in conversation after this.

I don’t say that dogmatically, rather that the evidence suggests it. But the evidence is that street/market was already out of use before the time of Ezra and Nehemiah.

Karl wrote :

According to Jeremiah 43, there were none left in Judah. Those who weren’t taken into captivity with Nebuchadnezzar fled to Egypt, every last one of them. There were none left

Jer 44:28 consoles me that many returned back to Judah.

That verse says only a few, not many.

But having said this, there was always a remnant left in the land, always, no matter how small.

Not according to Jeremiah.

Even after 135AD there remained Jews in the land. How else would we have the Palestinian pointer system if it did not originate from the dialect of the land?

That was a different event, with different results.

On top of this Saenz-Badillos comments casually that there is evidence that a vernacular form of Hebrew was still spoken in the south post exillic times and this led to the form of Rabbinic Hebrew. Now I am no scholar here, just quoting him.

Chris watts

So he’s the source of wishful thinking? Notice, he says “spoken”, not “natively spoken”. Remember, there’s a difference between those two terms.

Karl W. Randolph.

[talmid56]

Karl, I don't recall which post it was, but I believe you mentioned a simpler style in the later OT books as pointing to non-native use of Hebrew by the authors. Part of the issue may be how "native" is defined. A bilingual who learns two languages well as a child can be considered a native in both. This is so even if only one of the languages is spoken at home. And, depending on skill and motivation, a non-native speaker can function as a native for most purposes. All modesty aside for a moment, I am such a person when speaking and understanding Spanish. I am a native American English speaker. I grew up in a monolingual English-speaking home. I took my first Spanish course my junior year of high school. But, by dint of hard work and a certain amount of aptitude for language learning, I learned so well I became very fluent in all the skills (including reading and composition) in a little over two years. I have had conversations with Latinos from all over the Spanish-speaking world, from all sorts of backgrounds. Many times I have had them ask me which (Spanish-speaking) country I was from. They were always surprised to learn my native language was English, not Spanish. Such a skill level is called "near-native". I continue to function at such a level with Spanish daily after 50 years. When talking or reading Spanish, I think in the language. I don't have to mentally translate a thing, nor am I tempted to. That is functioning as a native in the language for all practical purposes.

As for the simpler language as an indicator of being non-native, that doesn't hold up. To use a couple of examples from Greek, the New Testament authors Mark and John wrote fairly simple Greek, both in style and vocabulary, compared to non-Jewish writers of their time. Yet both were from Galilee, an area with a large Gentile population. Most of the Gentiles there would have spoken Greek. In such an area, it would be normal for Jewish people to learn to speak both Aramaic, which was very common among Jews in Israel, and Hellenistic Greek. It would in fact be common for this to happen in childhood. (And, as I believe they were also Hebrew speakers, they would have learned that also growing up. And not just for synagogue either.)

I don't know of anyone who believes Mark and John didn't speak Greek natively just because they wrote in a simpler style. And if they do believe such, I would suggest they're wrong.