Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Matthew Anstey" <ansteyfamily AT optusnet.com.au>]

Dear B-Haverim,

I would like to contribute to this discussion about secondary languages and
literature. It seems to me that the discussion highlights a rather
individualist approach to academic work. I would think that no one person
can learn all the requisite secondary languages, secondary literature, other
skills etc. and that academic study of BH progresses in conversation and
dialogue. Each of us brings various skills to the conversation. For example,
how many on this list can evaluate (let alone practice) Verheij's (or
Baayen's) statistical work on BH binyamin, or Coetzee's (or Benua's,
Bat-El's, Adam's, etc) work on BH phonology using Optimatily Theory, or
Follingstad's use of Fauconnier's Mental Space theory to study Hebrew
deictics, or DeCaen's, Holmstedt's, Dijk's, Naude's et al use of generative
grammar, etc? The list goes on. there is so much specialisation these days.

In other words, the hope that we all know modern, mishnaic, rabbinic Hebrew,
spanish, Dutch, German, Spanish, Italian, Russian (as in Aikhenveld's recent
BH grammar in Russian), and so forth, could just as well be replaced by a
string of philological or linguistic or literary or other skills. It is
unrealistic that study of BH requires all of these.

From a personal perspective, unfortunately circumstances have not allowed me
the opportunity to study most of the many languages mentioned in the recent
posts. Instead I hope to contribute to BH study from the perspective of
theoretical, functional and corpus linguistics.

Some may reply that certain skills are more basic than others. That Ivrit or
German or ... is more essential than others. But such a view is just as much
in need of justification as any other.

With regards,
Matthew Anstey
Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
Faculteit der Godgeleerdheid
Residence: Kambah, ACT, Australia
ansteyfamily AT optusnet.com.au
+61 (0)2 6296 4044