Biblical Hebrew Forum

[James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>]

Hi,

with regard to the differences and similarities and their effect on the
learner I'm not sure you are justified in making such a broad generalisation
Randall. There are different types of learners with different types of
pyschological qualities. There are a number of psychological qualities which
are conducive to learning a language and a number which present a barrier.
One of the fundamental qualities in the way the learner chooses to put focus
on similarities or differences and how the learner typically treats them.
Those who focus on similarities tend to learn quicker. Those who focus
negatively on the differences do not learn well. And so in this case it all
depends on the individual learner type and introspection based on our own
learner type is not always a good indicator for giving advice. That's why I
asked about learning experiences.

James Christian

2009/10/15 Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>

> >As Randall said this will be good for deep
> internalisation because you are communicating in Hebrew all the time. This
> will be good when you meet similarities but might be disadvantageous when
> their are differences in semantic meaning of terms as used presently and as
> they were once used. >
>
>
> I would redirect this last statement. The bigger disadvantage is not
> internalizing the language. Fluency in a shared dialect is good for the
> similarities and are even good for differences. Someone fluent in a
> language
> can rapidly compare other options for saying things and can rapidly survey
> attestations and usage from a wider group of sources. Even more
> importantly, from within a language a person can remember words and
> structures better than from outside a language and they can better remember
> the collocations of structures and words than if trying to piece them
> together
> through the grid of an outside language. In the long run, the person
> with a fluent control of the language will be much better off, they will
> cover
> more text, faster, and with better comparison  and comprehension while
> doing this.
>
> It is like English and Chaucer and Shakespeare. Fluency in modern English
> will give someone an opportunity to be better than they otherwise would
> have
> been. It does not guarantee freedom from mistakes, far from it, but the
> mistakes from remaining outside a language and doing everything from an
> artificial grid are even more serious.
> Fluency doesn't guarantee that the person will be a Shakespeare scholar
> at all, but it raises the person to a level of language processing that
> they
> otherwise could not have participated in. Personally, I think that graduate
> programs of Hebrew literature should require that students are fluent in
> Hebrew and capable of academic discussion in the language. That is a
> minority opinion in the 'academy' but is not among those who speak
> Hebrew. If implemented, it would 'raise the bar' in the field and future
> generations would not likely consider going back.
>
>
> >This is the kind of problem that exists with the
> relationship between modern Greek and koine Greek. I don't know about
> modern Hebrew because I don't speak it yet but I assume that a similar
> problem will exist.>
>
>
> It is good to get advice on these questions from people who control the
> parameters, in this case, who speak modern Greek and at least read
> ancient, and who speak modern Hebrew and read ancient. It is somewhat
> like students who ask about learning a language. They may get advice from
> everyone, often conflicting. I recommend that they especially value the
> language learning advice from those who have successfully learned the
> language. Even in disagreement there will be threads that link the advice
> from successful learners together.
> (PS: I agree with James' recommendation of immersion
> techniques, but in principle, if he hadn't recommended them, then you
> might need to ask advice from those who have successfully jumped the
> hurdle.)
>
> Also, those who control both Greek and Hebrew may question whether
> Greek and Hebrew are a helpful comparison. Modern Greek morphology
> and ancient Gk morphology are different. modern Hebrew morphology
> maps onto ancient/biblical morphology 100%. (Allowing, of course,
> for high register modern "matsiti" 'I found' to map onto mishnaic Hebrew,
> while standard modern "matsati" does fit biblical "matsati". If exceptions
> like
> this are disallowed, then you can use 99+% as the comparison figure.)
>
> braxot
> Randall
>
> --
> Randall Buth, PhD
> www.biblicalulpan.org
> randallbuth AT gmail.com
> Biblical Language Center
> Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>