Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>]

Randall Buth wrote:
>>
>> In the field of language teaching, often called
>> "Second Language Acquisition", many programs are taught
>> primarily 'in the language'. This is sometimes called
>> 'immersion', 'partial immersion' (if a small percentage of another
>> language is used), and 'communicative' language teaching.
>>
>> In the field of BH, most do not have a training that would
>> facilitate such teaching. Yet quite a few have shown interest over
>> the past years of moving in such a direction.
>
> By far that is the best way to learn a second language.

Glad there is some agreement. Actually, I'm glad for the
response, because it probably reflects the majority of BH
teachers today. The majority do not consider trying to
attain a fluent control of either modern or BH. That is their
lack, though it wasn't really their choice. Their training
demands set them up for what they attained.

> However, how can one have true immersion language learning,
> when we don’t
> even know what its pronunciation was?

This seems to suffer from an all-or-none fallacy. I was just
talking to someone yesterday who SPEAKS Latin. He even
uses a 'modern' pronunciation. He doesn't mind that it is not
exactly like Cicero (i.e. KIKERO to academics). What he has
noticed is that his reading and general feel is much better
than before he could speak, and that those who do not
speak Latin do not get into the language in the same way
and to the same depth. Maybe your mileage varies, but this
seemed pretty much on target. And I suspect that students
who could handle an oral Latin lecture 3-4 centuries ago
could read Latin literature much more comprehensively and
accurately and appreciatively than someone today who only
learns to painfully crank out compositions, if they even get
to that level.

As for BH pronunciation, we have several dialects to chose from.
We have Samaritan, two Masoretic ones (i.e. seven-vowel
Tiverian and the Sefardic/Kimchi five-vowel common transform),
and one can even play with linguistically researched
reconstructions should one wish.

> It is pretty obvious to any scholar
> that the pronunciation schema set up by the Masoretes does not preserve
> Biblical Hebrew pronunciation.
> The vowels were not written down,

Use Arabic for comparison. We can say 'yaktub' or even 'yiktib' and
communicate just fine. But we can't say '*yakataba'. A person must
be 'in the ballpark' in order to communicate. Now the outsider may
ask that since one vowel can change the meaning of a word, how
can one know if they are 'in the ball park'? For that, there is nothing
like using a language and finding out where the true weak points
are, where communication breaks down. or becomes ambiguous.
But a person cannot find that out by standing "outside" in another
language and saying that there are problems. Some problems
will evaporate, others will be perceived, but probably in a different
light.

> and the Masoretic system is sometimes
> wrong as far as meaning is concerned even within their schema,

It looks like you are confusing the language, the "system/schema", with
the interpretation and reading of particular verses. (Or maybe you
don't even believe that CvCCvC verb-patterns existed in BH?)

> and that is merely a record of vowels as it existed in the medieval
> period in a certain geographic region.
> There are even questions concerning some of the consonants and their
> pronunciations.

Again, start out by getting 'in the ballpark'.
A 'freeway' analogy may also help. To get from A to B it is ofter faster
even shorter, to go to a freeway/highway, travel to the vicinity of
point B, and then appoach B on surface streets. With a language,
a person can rapidly speak in a language and then 'zero in' on
specific details as appropriate. A modern English speaker can read
Shakespeare, but adjust for the minor vowel differences from
modern English, if and when necessary. (Shakespeare was 85-90%
of the way to modern English on a trajectory from Chaucerian
pronunciation. The same can even be done for Chaucer even with
its more complete mis-match with modern English. Almost every
Chaucerian vowel is 'off' from modern English, but we can
discuss that or ignore it as desired, for the most part. )

A Greek analogy also helps. I often hear from NT or Classicists
that 'we can't know what the ancient pronunciation was'. But
in fact, we can know quite a bit about what was or was not the
pronunciation at any one period. If someone were to say that
EI was not pronounced like I in the Common Era, they would
be wrong. We can know 'general picture'.


> Then the vocabulary is limited, sufficient for carrying its message, but not
> all inclusive, even for its period (pre-Babylonian Exile), let alone for
> other periods.
> So given these limitations, how can there be true immersion learning of
> Biblical Hebrew?

How can one do it?
By talking about 'dogs' but by not talking about 'cats'. Talking about what
is possible, rather than bemoaning that it is not a full language.
(If you want a fuller language, you will need to learn a fuller dialect. )
When we say 'qum' to a student, or 'qumi' they get up out of their
chair without stopping to 'parse'. ha-menuHa heHela, `atta. approx.
"The break (lit. rest) has begun, now."
harem et ha-eben ve-hashlek sham. im ha-`ets ha-maTTara ha-tukal
le-hakkotah? this is first week stuff.

Simple, and the results are better than working in English, as you
already acknowledged at the start. It someone wants to quibble about
something later. Fine. But one method works toward internalization,
the other leaves it forever, far 'outside'.

> Are those who think hey are preparing for immersion teaching only fooling
> themselves, and teaching things that are not accurate to their students?

Again, this starts to look like the 'all or none' fallacy. When someone
learns French as an adult they do not expect to sound like a
mother-tongue French person. But they will be able to read French much
better than if they never used the language for communication. French
departments do not throw up their hands and say that English students
will 'never get it'. They train specialists in literature, and demand a fluent
control of the language so that they will better process that literature.
Even when taught exclusively thru second-language users.
Using a language forces someone to notice all sorts of little things that
may be overlooked when reading only. And speaking allows the
brain-processing-speed to increase. Plus a person becomes more
intuitively aware of what was chosen or not chosen at any one point
of a communication, by themselves or by the incoming communication,
be it speech or written text.

So, if you prefer to not speak the language in any of its attested dialects,
to not use the language, e.g. to imagine that any root was available to
any BH speaker to 'conjugate and decline' any "application" as
someone might imagine, you are welcomed.
Just be aware that such a method does not lead to internalization or
thinking with/in a language. That is another way to fool oneself.
We even heard that very comment from a PhD in our workshop
this summer. S/he had never tried to speak a sentence before, and
became instantly aware of how weak the real control of the
language was. Found out they were 'climbing the wrong mountain'.
It was a lights-on kind of experience. Something that
I call using a language 'in both directions'. Our own output is not
data, of course, but it allows one to develop better, faster, more
comprehensive processing of incoming data. For some, even the
ten days made a difference, and they felt that they had raised their
language skills up a noticeable notch. But once starting down that
road, they quickly see that it is a long one, just like it is with any
language that is learned to a level of fluent second-language
usage.

So why do some teachers want to consider a communicative
approach?
It will widen the gate of success for a majority of students and
makes possible higher attainment for those for follow through.

Sounds pretty good to me.

And I've seen the same process in other languages, too.
I remember meeting an Austrian with a PhD in Arabic,
in an Arabic-speaking city, over three decades ago
where we were working on Arabic. He joked about his Arabic
knowledge, which was considerable. It was about to widen/deepern.
He could not really think in Arabic. But he was going to start
working more truly from within, even though a modern Arabic
dialect is probably even farther apart from full, classical Arabic
than modern Hebrew is from BH. Imagine that. And 'bravo' for
the brave Austrian.

yirbu kemohu. may there be more like him.

-- 
Randall Buth, PhD
www.biblicalulpan.org
randallbuth AT gmail.com
Biblical Language Center
Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life