Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>]

Vadim:

Believe it or not, I have trouble reading Shakespeare. The grammar is 
slightly different and there are hundreds of lexemes that have either dropped 
out of modern use (not so bad, just look up a dictionary) or changed their 
definitions (can be really bad, because one thinks he understands the text, 
but in reality he misunderstands it, often making the text incomprehensible 
in its context). Therefore, if the only reason for a non-English speaking 
student to study English is to read Shakespeare, would he be better off 
learning modern English first, then the differences between Shakespearean and 
modern English, or only Shakespearean English so that all his thought 
patterns as he studies Shakespeare are consistent with the English as it was 
used at that time?

And the differences between modern and Shakespearean English are far less 
than the differences between Biblical and modern Hebrew.

When I look at Hebrew, I expect certain patterns, I expect certain ways of 
writing, certain definitions and certain spellings, that are more similar to 
ancient Aramaic (as found in Daniel and Ezra), a language so different that 
people speaking one could not understand the other, than they are to modern 
Hebrew. The differences appear to me less like the differences between modern 
to Shakespearean English and more like the differences between modern English 
and Anglo-Saxon, or at least Chaucerian English.

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: "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.
-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm