Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Peter Kirk" <Peter_R_Kirk AT hotmail.com>]

Well, using an interlinear or a lexicon one is of course dependent on
the glosses selected by the interlinear or lexicon - but in learning
vocabulary by memorisation, especially of the crude kind common in
introductory grammars of a list of words with glosses to be learned in
each lesson, one is just as dependent on the glosses selected by the
author of the grammar. So what is the advantage of memorisation?

From my experience of learning both biblical and modern languages, I
would agree with Clayton that conscious memorisation of long lists of
words is not very helpful as well as being offputting. I would suggest
rather, for learners beyond the very beginning, reading through large
amounts of text, trying to understand most words from the context and
using a lexicon 9and perhaps a parsing guide) as little as possible.
That way one starts to learn and internalise, without a conscious
process of memorisation, how words are actually used in context in the
language.

I am recommending this approach for those wanting to learn the language
properly (though perhaps not "academically"), not only for those wanting
a taster. For I would agree with Trevor that almost anyone has the
ability to learn a new language, as long as it is taught appropriately.
What not everyone has is the ability to memorise long lists of words out
of context. Also not everyone has the motivation to try this. Sadly the
insistence, common in the rather elitist academic world, that the only
valid way to learn a language properly is through traditional grammar
books and memorisation, has put off many. I would suggest that, for
example, it has had serious negative effects on Bible translations done
over the years, as many Bible translators (both mother tongue
translators and expats) have failed to learn the biblical languages,
when they could have done so if suitably taught, and so have relied on
translating from English or other versions. Fortunately Bible
translations agencies have realised this problem and are promoting
learning biblical languages and accessible courses for this. For
example, SIL recently published John Dobson's "Learn Biblical Hebrew",
which is based on a reading approach and not full of lists of words and
paradigms to memorise.

But I would not recommend interlinears.

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Trevor Peterson [mailto:06PETERSON AT cua.edu]
> Sent: 18 December 2002 03:57
> To: Biblical Hebrew
> Subject: [b-hebrew] RE: "Non-Academic" Original Languages?
> 
> >===== Original Message From Clayton Javurek <javurek AT asu.edu> =====
> >What is the scary part of learning a new language?...it is all
> >that required memorization and recognition. Using an interlinear text
> >and an analytical lexicon minimizes the fear of all the memorization.
> 
> True. It also fosters dependence on the translators of the interlinear
to
> have
> selected the right gloss and the editors of the lexicon to have
analyzed
> the
> form correctly. I'm not sure how much this scenario gains a person
over
> using
> a good English translation and an in-depth commentary.
> >
> >So I say this emphatically: if you require significant amounts of
> >memorization, no matter how you present it, you will scare
> >off your students.
> 
> Some of them, yes.
> 
> >To attract students, you must significantly
> >reduce all the memorization required.
> 
> Probably so. But arguably they're not really learning the language if
> they're
> not memorizing vocabulary and forms. That's why I think this sort of
> course
> needs to be treated as something other than learning Greek or Hebrew.
It's
> learning some exegetical tricks that can place the student in a
precarious
> position. Instead of reading the explanation of a commentator,
students
> feel
> like they are interacting directly with the text, when they're really
> working
> with a bare-bones analysis by someone who's just as fallible as any
> commentator. As long as they understand what they're doing, I'm not
> entirely
> opposed to this, but there is significant danger that they will
> misunderstand.
> 
> Trevor Peterson
> CUA/Semitics
>