To: "'Biblical Hebrew'" <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Subject: RE: "Non-Academic" Original Languages?
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 11:56:14 +1100
Serge, do you have any evidence for your assertion that Randall Buth is
misleading his students? He may not be able to reconstruct biblical
Hebrew completely and unambiguously, and I think he admits to using some
modern vocabulary. But he is certainly not simply using contemporary
syntax, use of tenses etc, he is really trying to use the biblical
language.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: S. L. [mailto:lyosovs AT cityline.ru]
> Sent: 19 December 2002 08:02
> To: Biblical Hebrew
> Subject: [b-hebrew] RE: "Non-Academic" Original Languages?
>
> I understand that Randall Buth actually teaches contemporary Hebrew
(in
> spite of his claims to the contrary), but the vocabulary is restricted
> wherever possible to BH, `a$er rather than $e, no niknas etc. I doubt
that
> the students or teachers can reproduce in their conversations the
syntax
> of
> dialogues between David and Yonathan (I mean BH verbal "chains", not
> well-enough understood). I bet they use more or less modern syntax. I
> agree
> this type of exercise does help to read BH prose because frequent
words
> and
> verbal forms are memorised in this way rather easily, but to this
> "Hebrew-without-tears" approach I would prefer to have my students
read
> through Sam-Kings . After all, it is not that difficult.
> I prefer to have the students taught real BH and/or real
contemporary
> Israeli Hebrew and/or real Mishnaic Hebrew, but each thing genuine and
> taught by different methods (IH like Spanish, BH like Akkadian). I
studied
> IH at the Hebrew University ulpan in 1995-96 (the teaching was mostly
> excellent, "both wonderful and challenging"), but since then I must
have
> forgotten many things.
> I believe analytical keys, morphologically tagged editions etc. are
> just
> awful for beginners because, evidently, learners will never get the
joy
> of
> developing their own thoughts. It is pure imitation of having the real
> thing.
> True, Huehnergard does have made-up things in the basic vocabulary
and
> grammar exercises of each lesson (incidentally, I once made my
student
> do
> them, but I am not going to repeat this experience), and he was
criticised
> for it by the reviews.
> I believe Ugaritic is best taught as an exercise in comparative
Semitics.
> It is not a "language", exactly as Mesha Inscription or Tell-Fahariyya
> inscription are no "languages"
> Best,
> Serge Lyosov
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as:
[peter.r.kirk AT ntlworld.com]
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-hebrew-
> 149219L AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.
RE: "Non-Academic" Original Languages?
, (continued)