Biblical Hebrew Forum

["VC" <vadim_lv AT center-tv.net>]

Dear Karl,

What you are saying makes sense, but I don't find it hard to separate
between modern and ancient lexemes. Apparently, your modern English does not
prevent you from reading Shakespeare. But I would certainly agree that one
should study from ancient to modern, not vice versa - that is, if he has a
choice.


Sincerely,

Vadim Cherny

> I view the difference between modern and Biblical Hebrew to be greater
than the difference between ancient Hebrew and ancient Aramaic, which the
speakers of one could not understand the other.
>
> For me, personally, ignorance of modern Hebrew was not of choice, but
because I did not have the opportunity to study modern Hebrew. Now I view it
as an advantage. I studied Biblical Hebrew from an unpointed text. I read it
in a font from before the Galut Babel. I read it while analysing lexemes
from every occurrance found in Tanakh according to a recognized scholarly
concordance. My goal was to learn Biblical Hebrew the same way a native
speaker in the 8th century BC would have learned it.
>
> To give an example: I learned German while living in an area where the
local dialect spoken was a branch of Alamanisch (which, apparently, Rashi
spoke. I noticed Yiddisch is similar to Alamanisch.). Now, when I try to
speak German, I have an Alamanisch accent. However, it is corrupted by my
ancestral language of Norwegian. Germans, when they hear that, can't figure
out which part of Germany I'm from. The Alamanisch accent mixed with the
Norwegian accent mixed into my high German makes for quite a confusion.
>
> My ignorance of modern Hebrew is now an advantage, as my Biblical Hebrew
is uncontaminated by even Mishnaic Hebrew. So, for example, when I viewed
the "Josiah stone" forgery, I had a whole list of examples that sounded
strange long before I reached the use of BDQ as a verb that tipped off those
who know modern Hebrew that the stone might be a forgery. In fact, the BDQ
example was rather minor IMHO than the other examples.
>
> This is not the same as knowing modern French to understand medieval
French, rather it is more like knowing modern English to understand
Anglo-Saxon.
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "VC" <vadim_lv AT center-tv.net>
>
> > Since the difference between the ancient and modern Hebrew is relatively
> > minor, and could be covered in a month or so, which is not a major term
for
> > people devoting their life time to Hebrew studies, may I suggest that
this
> > negligence to the modern Hebrew has doctrinal roots?
> > In your example, Medieval French scholar relies on the publications of
> > French-speaking scientists, and so needs the modern French. But in the
> > Hebrew studies, opinions of the Jews are a curiosity at the most because
> > they do not understand the divine message, anyway. Believe it or not,
this
> > is the reply I once got from a reputable group of scholars working on
the
> > translation of Tanakh.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Vadim Cherny
> >
> > > Unfortunately, yes. I complain about it every chance I get ( and have
done
> > > so on this list). No scholar of Medieval French literature would dare
not
> > be
> > > able to read Modern French.
> > >
> > > Yigal
> --
> ___________________________________________________________
> Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
> http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>