Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dean Young <Dean.Young AT CDA.CenterPartners.com>]

i use this program and have found it very useful. it's more for modern
hebrew than biblical but an incredible starting point. they have a free
trial version on the www.rosettastone.com  website.

dean

-----Original Message-----
From: james campbell [mailto:u16178 AT snet.net]
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 8:11 AM
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: [b-hebrew] Rosetta Stone


Has anyone on the list had experience with the Rosetta Stone program
produced by Fairfield Language Technologies?  This is a program for
modern hebrew, but I wonder if any students of biblical hebrew have
found it helpful?

James W. Campbell
North Haven, CT


_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>From peterkirk AT ozemail.com.au  Tue Jan 28 05:45:22 2003
Return-Path: <peterkirk AT ozemail.com.au>
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from smtp.prepaid.ozemail.com.au (smtp.prepaid.ozemail.com.au
        [203.102.166.32])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id 7EAF62007C
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>;
        Tue, 28 Jan 2003 05:45:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 42767 invoked from network); 28 Jan 2003 10:46:06 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO PeterKirkDell) (210.84.121.59)
  by smtp.prepaid.ozemail.com.au with SMTP; 28 Jan 2003 10:46:07 -0000
From: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT ozemail.com.au>
To: "'b-hebrew'" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: RE: [b-hebrew] Emendations, was: Deut 32:5 SHiCHeT
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 21:43:02 +1100
Message-ID: <001a01c2c6ba$096cb0d0$387954d2@PeterKirkDell>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
In-Reply-To: <3E3437CA AT 136.242.14.28>
Importance: Normal
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman-2.1/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman-2.1/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:45:22 -0000

Trevor, thanks for the clarification. I must agree that the person you
were quoting is being a bit inconsistent. But I still think he has a
point.

Your "Ich bin ein Berliner" example doesn't quite work because there is
an obvious emendation which should be made in a translation. But suppose
you were translating an modern English text into some other language and
came across the words "I am a jelly donut". What would you do? You might
conclude that the text you are translating is corrupt because the writer
could not possibly have meant that, perhaps there was a problem in the
scanning and OCR software. But there is no obvious emendation - at least
if you don't know about the German ambiguity and Kennedy's speech. So
what do you do? You could guess the author's intention from the context,
but that is too speculative. You could leave a gap in your translation,
but you can hardly do that if someone is paying you to translate the
text! Or you could translate the text as it stands, with the target
language equivalent of "jelly donut", but include a note that you think
there must be some kind of problem here. I don't see this last solution
as inconsistent and irresponsible, rather as a sensible way out of a
difficult situation.

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-hebrew-
> bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Trevor Peterson
> Sent: 27 January 2003 23:39
> To: b-hebrew
> Subject: RE: [b-hebrew] Emendations, was: Deut 32:5 SHiCHeT
> 
> >===== Original Message From Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT ozemail.com.au>
=====
> >Trevor, I don't think I would agree with you here, speaking from the
> >viewpoint of a translator. Your analogy is misplaced: translators and
> >exegetes are not doctors charged with healing the text, but scholars
> >charged with understanding and translating what we have. We can
> >speculate that what we have is not exactly what was originally
written,
> >but in most cases that is speculation and any reconstruction of the
> >original is even more speculative. If we start to translate such
> >reconstructions, we start on a very slippery slope towards
translating
> >what some "doctor" thinks that the author ought to have written
rather
> >than the text we have in front of us.
> 
> I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say. Don't
feel
> bad
> about that--it's a very specific point that can easily be confused
with
> something else. I tried to be careful about how I stated it, but that
> doesn't
> always work on the first try. (That's the great thing about
dialog--it's a
> lot
> easier to get writer and reader on the same page than with a fixed
text
> from
> the past!) Let me begin with the fact of my earlier remarks--I did not
> propose
> an emendation in my reading of the text. My quibble was with the
argument
> that
> had been posted. As I said, I was not trying to advocate a particular
view
> of
> how often emendation should be performed or to pass judgment on
whether
> emendation was necessary in this passage. My point was that I thought
the
> argument was inconsistent. Why? Because he said it was probably a
corrupt
> text
> and then explained that he could make sense out of it as it stood and
> proceeded to do just that.
> 
> Let's look at the options:
> 1) The text is fine; deal with it as it stands. Many texts are like
this,
> and
> there's not much to argue about. Of course, we're only dealing with
text
> critical issues here.
> 2) The text is problematic, but it can be understood as it stands and
is
> probably not corrupt. Especially in poetry, I think we have to
consider
> this a
> viable option. We can't expect the language to stay within the bounds
of
> normal prose usage, and it's probably ultimately impossible to define
> strict
> enough rules to pass judgment on whether a passage is corrupt or just
> creative. There's going to be subjectivity in the text-critical
treatment
> of
> poetry. There's no question about that. But personally I like to start
by
> considering all the possible angles from which the text could be left
> alone.
> 3) The text is corrupt, and should probably read such-and-such. If I
find
> a
> misspelled word, or if two words are reversed for obvious reasons, or
some
> other problem explainable on relatively mechnical grounds, or anything
> else
> the particular critic wants to put in this category, it might be
fairly
> simple
> to see where the problem is and what should really be read.
> 4) The text is corrupt, but I have no idea how it should read.
Sometimes
> no
> sense can be made of a text whatsoever, and no likely emendations
present
> themselves. Now, in such a situation one might allow for the
possibility
> that
> it's not really a corrupt text, but we simply lack the philological
data
> to
> come up with a plausible reading. But I'm talking about a scenario
where
> the
> critic judges the text to be corrupt and has no idea what to do with
it.
> At
> this point, there's not much to be done. One option for the
translator,
> which
> I seem to remember seeing in several NRSV footnotes, is to choose the
> reading
> of an ancient version and translate that.
> 
> My point is that I think the argument that was posted is something
> different
> from any of these, and shouldn't be considered a valid option. To say
that
> the
> text is probably corrupt and then proceed to make sense of the text as
it
> stands is IMO grossly inconsistent. If the text is in fact corrupt, it
> shouldn't make sense as it stands. Or if it does, it should be
considered
> the
> wrong sense, since it is a sense that arises from a supposedly corrupt
> text.
> Let's try an example. Whether it's true or not (I've heard that it's
not),
> my
> high school German teacher explained to us that JFK's famous "ich bin
ein
> Berliner" was really a mistake, because "I am from Berlin" or "I am a
> resident
> of Berlin" should be "ich bin Berliner." To add "ein" (the indefinite
> article)
> makes Berliner an object--namely, a type of pastry--so that what he
really
> ended up saying was "I am a jelly donut." Now, as I say, I'm not
terribly
> concerned at this point with whether or not it was a real mistake.
Let's
> just
> assume for the sake of argument that it was. If a translator were
> producing
> subtitles for his speech and translated it as it stood, "I am a jelly
> donut,"
> the statement would be completely lost on an English-speaking
audience.
> Whereas a German reader or listener could pick up right away that he
meant
> one
> thing (and what that one thing was) and accidentally said another (and
> also
> know what that was), so that the joke and the intended meaning would
come
> through, an English reader would only be left wondering why he would
say
> such
> a ridiculous thing. The best course of action for the translator would
be
> to
> translate what he apparently meant, with a note to the effect that his
> grammar
> was not quite right, and if it were necessary to explain the joke, to
> provide
> a translation of what he actually said. But if he followed the
strategy of
> the
> argument I was responding to, he would say something like, JFK
probably
> didn't
> mean what he said, but we can make sense of it anyway as it stands: "I
am
> a
> jelly-donut." This isn't making sense of the statement--it's
translating
> an
> accident.
> 
> My point, then, is that I would have been fine with him saying that
the
> text
> was difficult but could be understood, or with him saying that the
text
> was
> corrupt and proposing an alternative, or with him saying that the text
was
> corrupt and saying he didn't know what to do with it. But if he really
> thinks
> the text is corrupt (or at least thinks it's likely), why make sense
of it
> as
> it stands? If he can make sense of it as it stands, how does he know
it's
> corrupt? What criteria is he using to make that determination?
Apparently
> he
> can't find anything tangible to emend, and apparently he thinks the
text
> makes
> sense. It seems to me that he's talking out of both sides of his
mouth.
> 
> Now, of course he could have said that he thought the text was corrupt
but
> that it had somehow been ascribed traditional meaning as it stands
> (something
> like your suggestion to appeal to traditional commentators). But he
didn't
> say
> that. Instead, he gave the impression that he was providing his own
> reading of
> a text that, in his judgment, probably shouldn't have had any meaning.
IMO,
> that is a problem.
> 
> Trevor Peterson
> CUA/Semitics
>