"Non-Academic" Original Languages?

Peter Kirk Peter_R_Kirk at hotmail.com
Wed Dec 18 19:56:14 EST 2002


Serge, do you have any evidence for your assertion that Randall Buth is
misleading his students? He may not be able to reconstruct biblical
Hebrew completely and unambiguously, and I think he admits to using some
modern vocabulary. But he is certainly not simply using contemporary
syntax, use of tenses etc, he is really trying to use the biblical
language.

Peter Kirk
peter.r.kirk at ntlworld.com
http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: S. L. [mailto:lyosovs at cityline.ru]
> Sent: 19 December 2002 08:02
> To: Biblical Hebrew
> Subject: [b-hebrew] RE: "Non-Academic" Original Languages?
> 
>   I understand that Randall Buth actually teaches contemporary Hebrew
(in
> spite of his claims to the contrary), but the vocabulary is restricted
> wherever possible to BH, `a$er rather than $e, no niknas etc. I doubt
that
> the students or teachers can reproduce in their conversations the
syntax
> of
> dialogues between David and Yonathan (I mean BH verbal "chains", not
> well-enough understood). I bet they use more or less modern syntax.  I
> agree
> this type of exercise  does help to read BH prose because frequent
words
> and
> verbal forms are memorised in this way rather easily, but  to this
> "Hebrew-without-tears" approach I would prefer to have my students
read
> through Sam-Kings . After all, it is not that difficult.
>   I prefer to have the students  taught real BH and/or  real
contemporary
> Israeli Hebrew and/or real Mishnaic Hebrew, but each thing genuine and
> taught by different methods (IH like Spanish, BH like Akkadian). I
studied
> IH at the Hebrew University ulpan in 1995-96 (the teaching was mostly
> excellent, "both wonderful and challenging"), but since then I must
have
> forgotten many things.
>   I believe analytical keys, morphologically tagged editions  etc. are
> just
> awful for beginners because, evidently,  learners  will never get the
joy
> of
> developing their own thoughts. It is pure imitation of having the real
> thing.
>    True, Huehnergard does have made-up things in the basic vocabulary
and
> grammar exercises of each lesson (incidentally, I once  made my
student
> do
> them, but I am not going to repeat this experience), and he was
criticised
> for it by the reviews.
>   I believe Ugaritic is best taught as an exercise in comparative
Semitics.
> It is not a "language", exactly as Mesha Inscription or Tell-Fahariyya
> inscription are no "languages"
>        Best,
>                 Serge Lyosov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as:
[peter.r.kirk at ntlworld.com]
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-hebrew-
> 149219L at franklin.oit.unc.edu
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew at franklin.oit.unc.edu.



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list