Biblical Hebrew Forum

[c stirling bartholomew <cc.constantine AT worldnet.att.net>]

on 1/19/03 3:16 AM, Peter Kirk wrote:

> To put it simply, it is much easier (for English
> speakers) to learn Hebrew using transliteration than using Hebrew
> (rather, Aramaic square) script.

Must throw in my vote with George on this one. I consider transliterated
Hebrew an abomination. Learning the square script was a 1,000 times easier
than learning to read Hebrew transliterated. But if you are going to use the
secondary literature you must learn both. No way to avoid this. Was just
breathless with shock when I first open S. Gogel's grammar to discover there
was not a single letter of square script in the entire book.

Are there really Semitic language specialists who cannot read biblical
Hebrew script? Do these people really exists or is this just a myth
propagated by publishers who just don't want to bother with the typesetting
problems?

When I read in the front matter of some reference book the standard boiler
plate about transliterating Hebrew and Greek for the "non-specialist" I
always ask, show me someone who cannot read the script and I will show you
that they cannot read the transliteration. The script is the easiest part of
learning the language for languages with alphabets. Languages which are
pictographic or syllabic are a different story.

greetings, clay

--  
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

A grammar of epigraphic Hebrew / Sandra Landis Gogel 1998 English Books xx,
522 p. : map ; 24 cm. Atlanta, Ga. : Scholars Press