"Non-Academic" Original Languages?

Peter Kirk Peter_R_Kirk at hotmail.com
Fri Dec 20 19:16:14 EST 2002


Vincent, I suspect that you have seen only a selection of postings on
this subject. My friend Andy Warren's recent posting should correct any
continuing misunderstanding.

I would conclude from your posting that the traditional approach of
language learning 3-4 hours per week mixed with other studies is a
highly inefficient use of time in learning a language, independent of
the actual teaching methods. This accords with my observations of how
quickly different people learn modern languages. A small period of
immersion is much more efficient than the same number of hours spread
over many months.

And I agree with Clayton on his "language laws", and with Jane's
comments in reply.

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vincent Medina [mailto:vmedina at cbcag.edu]
> Sent: 20 December 2002 03:29
> To: Biblical Hebrew
> Subject: [b-hebrew] RE: "Non-Academic" Original Languages?
> 
> Peter:
> 
> I have to admit that I am not familiar with either Randall Buth or
John
> Dobson, but from the posts I have seen here it would appear that Buth,
at
> least, uses his "immersion course" to teach IH and not BH. I will
grant
> that someone who goes to a language "boot-camp" where actual immersion
can
> take place can learn inductively. The point I was attempting to make
was
> the impracticality of that for most seminary/college students. Many of
> them are taking language classes that meet 3 to 4 hours per week and
> taking a full load of other courses besides. In this setting, I still
> maintain that the analytical approach followed by traditional grammars
is
> more practical and effective. You obviously have had more exposure to
> other approaches. I look forward to leaning about them.
> 
> Vince
> 




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list