Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT sil.org]

Ian, it seems you are trying to squeeze yourself out of a tight spot 
by redefining the term "bilingualism" to exclude one of the recognised 
forms of bilingualism, I think it is called "passive bilingualism", in 
which one can understand a second language but not speak it. "That one 
can understand the content of a communication in another language 
without speaking that language" is not irrelevant, it is a form of 
bilngualism. Or maybe you are thinking of bilingualism as synonymous 
with dual native speaker ability. The latter is of course much less 
common, usually only found in children of mixed marriages. I suggest 
you read the literature on bilingualism (in the sociolonguistics 
section of your local library) before continuing on this subject.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re: Hebrew & Aramaic again
Author:  mc2499 AT mclink.it at internet
Date:    19/07/1999 10:53

<snip>

>> You are shifting the significance of bilingualism here.  Passive 
>> reception of the significance of a language does not reflect
>> bilingualism.
>
<snip>

It seems that the specific notion of passive reception is totally 
irrelevant here. That Spaniards I spoke to in Italian who (passively) 
understood what I said is irrelevant. That one can understand the content 
of a communication in another language without speaking that language is 
irrelevant.

<snip>