Ok so I'm on ICQ and an Israeli added me, and soon I found out he only knows like 12 words in English.
I thought most Israeli's spoke english???
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Why would you think that? Sure, they take it in school, but how much French/Spanish/whatever you took in HS do you remember? Probably not fluent, neh?
Besides, you think apostrophes belong in plurals.
Wanna learn Hebrew? Let's begin: א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י
Those are the first 10 letters of the aleph beit. When you can identify all of those, come back and we'll continue.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
aleph beit gimmel dalet hey waw tsion het tet yod
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Actually, English is one of the three national languages of Israel. Note that I said one of three. I spent 5 1/2 weeks in Israel in July/August of 1999 and while many people in Israel spoke English many also spoke Hebrew and many spoke Arabic. Some people spoke 2 languages and some spoke all three. The street signs were in all three languages. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Who wants to learn a language so poor it can't afford a few measly vowels. Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Hebrew is a very logical language. Every single word in Hebrew (at least ancient Hebrew, I never learned modern) has a three letter root word. Anything other than the three word root is a prefix or a suffix and only slightly alters the meaning of the word, making it past or present, passive or agressive etc.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
I took a year of ancient Hebrew during college. I also took a semester of ancient Greek. Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
Hey, Storm Saxon, at least Hebrew PRONOUNCES the vowels. Polish and other Slavic languages HAVE the vowels in the written language, they just don't use them in the actual WORDS.
A lot of people I met in Israel speak perfect English. But then, whom would they have meet with the American convention visitor? There were also many who struggled with their English. But ... they managed to communicate well enough - better than I could do in Hebrew, any day!
But your Israeli correspondent may be, in fact, far more fluent than appears in print. When you're listening to somebody trying to talk to you in your own language, you actually help them along - making guesses, putting the syntax together properly so you can understand the meaning, suggesting what words they might mean, occasionally correcting words.
In writing, however, no such helps are available. I know - I speak Portuguese and Spanish badly enough, but much better than I write them. Because as I write, I'm getting no look of comprehension from the person I'm "speaking" to ... just the blank stare of the paper. I don't have my instincts about what "sounds" right, especially now, more than thirty years after I lived in Brazil, so I probably correct sentences that were right and make them wrong because of the anxiety of that blank page and my keen awareness of not being a native speaker.
Andi330 - is there really an "aggressive" voice in Hebrew? Please tell me you meant "progressive tense" or I'll really have to study Hebrew just to find out if they really do have a separate mood - Passive, Indicative, Subjunctive, Imperative, and ... Aggressive!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I was forced to learn french and never quite did, barely scraped together a pass mainly because I was uninterested in learning a language I'm forced to learn. However I DO want to learn Chinese and Russian, the Israeli person seems to love capslock Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
There sort of is, although it's not the same as what a "mood" or "tense" is in other languages. Hebrew has seven binyanim (literally, constructions). This is unusual enough that the word used to describe them in English is a fancy linguistics word that I can never remember. Google defines it as I did: construction. And perhaps "acting" is a better description than "aggressive"; but the two binyanim contain verbs that refer to someone/thing acting on/to others. (As opposed to the binyanim which are passive or reflexive.)
As far as vowels go, Hebrew has them. And every children's text shows them. As do the newspapers intended for people with limited Hebrew skills. But for most Hebrew speakers, actually showing the nikud (vowels, literally "dots") is superfluous. Much as putting accent marks for syllabification would be in English.
andi, you get a gold star. Although you made some interesting transliteration choices. A correction though. It's not quite "every single word in Hebrew" that has a three letter shoresh (root). The vast majority do; but there are rare 2- or 4- letter exceptions. Also, the same shoresh can mean VERY different things when conjugated in different binyanim. However, I would agree that Hebrew is one of the more logical and internally consistent languages. As one of my Hebrew teachers put it: "In Hebrew there are occasional yotzei min ha'clal (exceptions to the rule). In English, it's all yotzei min ha'clal!" Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
That's because English is not actually a language. It's several languages, all mooshed together like a bag of candies left in a hot car.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*laugh* Exactly. And I am so stealing that description!
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Sorry about the transliteration. My Hebrew teacher didn't allow us to use transliteration, either on our own or what was in the books. He felt that students became to dependent on the transliteration and then didn't actually learn to read the Hebrew. As you can see, I followed his instructions. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*laugh*
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
By the way, OSC, of course you were correct about the grammer. At one in the morning, when you are forcing yourself to stay awake to make the transition from a day shift where you had to be up and 5:30 to a night shift where you don't get home until midnight, sometimes thoughts don't come together properly.
Not to mention the fact that, when asked to teach us grammer, my ninth grade English teacher responded,
quote:We don't teach grammer because it's boring.
Another fine example of the American public school system. And before anyone asks, yes I am an American, and I grew up in the Fairfax County Public School system.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
>_<
Please. Please. grammar
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Actually, I believe the real reason is that some people inferred from some of Noam Chomsky's beliefs that teaching grammar doesn't help you understand the language any better, so English programs across the country were hijacked by literary criticism people.
I didn't even know what a mood was until I was a sophomore in college, and then it was only because a Canadian friend of mine told me that she appreciated the fact that I used the subjunctive so well. I really hope that someday there's a backlash against the whole no-grammar philosophy of English and we go back to teaching kids how their language actually works.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
I take offense to that description of English. (Edited to clarify: The bag of candy thing.) English is as good a language as any other. You think it's not a language because it borrows from other languages? Fine. Show me one language that has no borrowings, and then we'll talk.
And by the way, English has plenty of rules. It's just that most people don't bother to learn them. I'm not sure what made educators in English-speaking nations abandon the teaching of them, but just because they're no longer taught doesn't mean they aren't there. And there are books out there that explain them, so even though English teachers no longer have any idea what they're talking about, it's still possible to learn them.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Excuse me. I know the rules of English grammar and usage pretty well. And was even taught them in HS (although I was probably the only one in my class who enjoyed learning grammar every Monday).
Many of English's rules are "more honored in the breach than the observance." And we're not just talking about a few borrowings; English was originally a blend of at least three different languages with very different rules and structures, and it shows it.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
I didn't mean to turn this into a sniping contest!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
*aims down the Mosin Nagant scope*
*BANG!*
bull's eye. Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orson Scott Card: Andi330 - is there really an "aggressive" voice in Hebrew? Please tell me you meant "progressive tense" or I'll really have to study Hebrew just to find out if they really do have a separate mood - Passive, Indicative, Subjunctive, Imperative, and ... Aggressive!
I think "aggressive" should have been "active", or possibly "causative".
quote:Originally posted by Andi330 : aleph beit gimmel dalet hey waw tsion het tet yod
Andi, "tsion" should be "zayin". It's the letter "tsadi" that sounds kind of like "ts". Although that's not even the real sound. It's really an emphatic "s", which is a sound we don't have in English.
quote:Originally posted by rivka: And perhaps "acting" is a better description than "aggressive"; but the two binyanim contain verbs that refer to someone/thing acting on/to others. (As opposed to the binyanim which are passive or reflexive.)
Pardon my pedantry, but the way I understand the binyanim (and I'd call a binyan a form, though construct works as well), they work like this:
Using l-m-d as a triliteral root and giving only third person masculine singular past tense, and keeping in mind that some of these words don't really exist, since not every root is used in every one of the binyanim:
Qal or Pa'al form (basic): Lamad - He learned.
Beinoni pa'ul form (stative - tenseless, used as an adjective only, often not counted as a binyan, and equally often mistakenly called "passive"): Lamud - Learned (as a lesson is learned; not as a person may be considered learned).
Hif'il form (causative of Qal form): Hilmid - He caused someone to learn.
Huf'al form (passive of Hif'il form): Hulmad - He was caused to learn.
Nif'al form (reflexive of Hif'il form, often erroniously taught as passive of Qal form): Nilmad - He caused himself to learn.
Pi'el form (causative of Beinoni pa'ul form): Limmed - He taught (i.e., caused X to be learned).
Pu'al form (passive of Pi'el form): Lummad - It was taught (the lesson, not a person).
Shaf'el form (causative of Pi'el form - rarely used): Shilmed - He caused someone to teach (though in Modern Hebrew, if such a word existed, it would probably be understood as meaning to "re-teach").
Hitpa'el form (reflexive of Pi'el form): Hitlammed - It caused itself to be learned.
quote:Originally posted by rivka: A correction though. It's not quite "every single word in Hebrew" that has a three letter shoresh (root). The vast majority do; but there are rare 2- or 4- letter exceptions.
To the best of my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong), all 4 letter roots are imports from other languages like l'talfen, neologisms like l'machshev, or words in the overlooked shaf'el binyan like l'shachzer, where the root is still really 3 letters.
And 2 letter roots really have a weak consonent like vav or yud as the middle letter. No?
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Andi, "tsion" should be "zayin". It's the letter "tsadi" that sounds kind of like "ts". Although that's not even the real sound. It's really an emphatic "s", which is a sound we don't have in English.
As I posted earlier, I didn't learn transliteration when I took Ancient Hebrew in college. For anything. Even the alphabet. That's right, not even the alphabet. My Hebrew teacher believes that learning transliteration prevents students from learning to read the actual Hebraic language. As a result I didn't learn any of it. So again, I apologize for my poor transliteration of the alphabet. My Hebrew textbook is currently in a trunk along with my copy of the Brown Driver Briggs. Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Do I get points for once having translated the entire book of Ruth? It was my spring semester assignment, along with an analysis of one component of the book of Ruth, using personal translations (which of course, need to be accurate). I wrote my paper on the concept of Levirite Marriage, specifically if that were actually what took place between Ruth and Boaz or if he was simply her second husband etc. Posted by JaimeBenlevy (Member # 6222) on :
"aleph beit gimmel dalet hey waw tsion het tet yod "
Waw? I've never heard it pronounced that way, I think the proper pronunciation is vav.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
I do believe that I have explained all the problems in my transliteration twice already on this thread. Give me a break.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:Excuse me. I know the rules of English grammar and usage pretty well.
I didn't say you didn't. I'm just tired of being told my language is more illogical or nonsensical or stupid than other languages. And no, not all of those words were used in this thread. But I encounter them all the time, both from native and non-native speakers, and it's really become a sore point with me.
Native speakers of other languages get taught real grammar, so they know consciously what the rules of their languages are. English speakers in this era are, for some reason, not taught the rules. But you know every bit as well as I do that those rules are there, and that they are no more illogical than other languages.
quote:English was originally a blend of at least three different languages with very different rules and structures, and it shows it.
If the languages you are talking about are Angle, Saxon, and Jute, then I'll buy that. But any European language is like that if you go back far enough. Even Latin wasn't pure.
But if you mean Anglo-Saxon, Latin, and French, then I have to differ with you. Not disagree outright, but differ. Modern English is a direct descendant of Anglo-Saxon, and is therefore a West Germanic language. Its grammar is native, and not--despite the best efforts of "experts" of past generations--Latin-based. If it looks more like a Romance language than any of the other Germanic languages, that's only because speakers of Romance languages conquered its homeland and imposed a thundering lot of vocabulary on to it.
So English is a Germanic language with a lot of Latin/French superimposed. There's no point denying that, but what I vehemently deny is the charge that this makes English "not actually a language".
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Posted by Goo Boy (Member # 7752) on :
They don't tell us goys about the imperial tense.
-o-
quote:Native speakers of other languages get taught real grammar, so they know consciously what the rules of their languages are. English speakers in this era are, for some reason, not taught the rules. But you know every bit as well as I do that those rules are there, and that they are no more illogical than other languages.
I was with you up to a point, but, in fact, English grammar and syntax are generally less consistent and therefore less logical than those of other languages.
And I don't see any need to be defensive on this point. The upside is that English is, I think, the richest European language. It's a wonderful language for the storyteller or the poet or the writer.
-o-
You know, there are some English teachers who know and teach grammar.
Just sayin'.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
I'm sure there are. And good for them, and good for their students, who will get the benefit of a genuine education in grammar. But most teachers don't, which is why most native speakers don't have enough grounding in the subject to really understand it.
(Foreign speakers, by and large, do learn the rules of English grammar. They have to in order to study it, plus their education in their own language gives them the grounding to understand the grammatical concepts. But real grammatical instruction for native English speakers is, in this day and age, extremely rare. I learned more about English grammar in my high school German class than I ever learned from any English class. Just sayin'.)
[ September 01, 2005, 11:43 PM: Message edited by: Verily the Younger ]
Posted by Loial (Member # 5788) on :
quote: Ok so I'm on ICQ and an Israeli added me, and soon I found out he only knows like 12 words in English.
I thought most Israeli's spoke english???
1. Most Israelis speak English. We learn it for about 8-9 years at school and if you continue to University, you have to pass an English test with a high grade or be forced to take some more English courses. Of course, there are always bad pupils that haven't learned much in school. There are also immigrants who didn't go to Israeli school.
2. Maybe the Israeli you mentioned was 12 . In that case, 12 words is not bad (though not very impressive), since we only start to learn English at the age of 10-11.
3. Unlike some non-English speaking countries, we use sub-titles instead of dubbing in foreign films and tv shows. And since most foreign films and tv shows that get here are English speaking, we get to hear a lot of English on tv, which helps our English.
4. PS, did you know that ICQ was created by 4 Israelies ? I happened to know one of them. And I remember that when they wanted to record the voice notifications, they didn't want to record someone with an Israeli accent (which often doesn't sound very well), so they recorded a cousin of a friend of mine, who happened to live in the US.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by andi330: I do believe that I have explained all the problems in my transliteration twice already on this thread. Give me a break.
Actually, this time you're technically correct. Jaime doesn't realize it, but the correct pronunciation of that letter in Hebrew was absolutely waw. Among some groups of Jews, it still is. But when Ben Yehuda revived the language as a modern tongue, he used the German pronunciation of waw, which is vav. Like the German "wagen" is pronounced like the English "vagen".
Point: Andi330
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by andi330: Do I get points for once having translated the entire book of Ruth? It was my spring semester assignment, along with an analysis of one component of the book of Ruth, using personal translations (which of course, need to be accurate). I wrote my paper on the concept of Levirite Marriage, specifically if that were actually what took place between Ruth and Boaz or if he was simply her second husband etc.
Very cool! And yes, you do.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by andi330:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Andi, "tsion" should be "zayin". It's the letter "tsadi" that sounds kind of like "ts". Although that's not even the real sound. It's really an emphatic "s", which is a sound we don't have in English.
As I posted earlier, I didn't learn transliteration when I took Ancient Hebrew in college. For anything. Even the alphabet. That's right, not even the alphabet. My Hebrew teacher believes that learning transliteration prevents students from learning to read the actual Hebraic language. As a result I didn't learn any of it. So again, I apologize for my poor transliteration of the alphabet. My Hebrew textbook is currently in a trunk along with my copy of the Brown Driver Briggs.
I didn't mean to annoy you with the thing about zayin. I wasn't chiding you, or anything. Just making a correction to something I saw as a mistake. I hope you aren't angry about it.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Goo Boy: They don't tell us goys about the imperial tense.
The plural of goy is goyim. Just thought I'd mention it. And I don't know what an imperial tense is. There's a pseudo-tense in Hebrew called tsivui, which means "command", or "imperative". Is that what you meant?
Like teileich means "you will go", but leich (without the beginning part) means "go!"
Posted by JaimeBenlevy (Member # 6222) on :
quote:Actually, this time you're technically correct. Jaime doesn't realize it, but the correct pronunciation of that letter in Hebrew was absolutely waw. Among some groups of Jews, it still is. But when Ben Yehuda revived the language as a modern tongue, he used the German pronunciation of waw, which is vav. Like the German "wagen" is pronounced like the English "vagen".
Those Ashkenazim and their weird pronunciations of everything ... And what's this calling him Ben Yehuda? His name is definitely Yehudah HaNasi *picking pointless argument for being proven wrong* Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I actually sorta knew that and typed it that way at first. I changed it because I wasn't certain I was using it correctly, and so I figured simply going with the universally understood "goys" was safer. Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Let's get the Binyanim a little more simplified:
You've got seven. Check any dictionary, ask any academy person (and I have) - there are seven. Three active, three passive, one which is both. Beinony Pa'il and Beinony Pa'ul are both forms of Binyan Pa'al.
(I'm listing them in the parallels, "active - passive".)
Note that the Binyanim have specified meanings, but none of them are properly consistent - meaning that different roots will have different semantics in the same form. "Hitnashek" means "[he] kissed", "hitratza" means "[he was] pardoned".
Shaf'el is a Binyan for four-letter roots, so if you want to add that, remember Hitshaf'el as it's passive form. Chck Aramaic for verification (Rabbi Steinsaltz wrote it in his Gemarrah-guide).
quote: To the best of my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong), all 4 letter roots are imports from other languages like l'talfen, neologisms like l'machshev, or words in the overlooked shaf'el binyan like l'shachzer, where the root is still really 3 letters.
No. What about "hashmal" (and "barzel", but it's verbless) and all those xyxy (like pirper, gimgem, timtem)?
quote: And 2 letter roots really have a weak consonent like vav or yud as the middle letter. No?
All the roots originated in two letters. And what about the word "shav"? It has no "weak" vav or yod that I remember!
quote: I'm just tired of being told my language is more illogical or nonsensical or stupid than other languages.
But it is! I've learned Hebrew, Arabic and Latin grammar, all of which I believe I know rather well for the time I spent on them. None ven compares in complexity to English.
quote: There's a pseudo-tense in Hebrew called tsivui
Pseudo-tense?! Tzivui is not pseudo! Just because Israelis forget it exists does not mean it's pseudo! It's a perfectly fine tense, being just as complete as the future tense is - having being formed contemporaily! If anything, cancel the "present" out as a tense!
quote: And what's this calling him Ben Yehuda? His name is definitely Yehudah HaNasi *picking pointless argument for being proven wrong*
*Whacks Jaime.* (I finally get to whack someone.)
And I thought of teaching Hebrew in a good university one day...
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Wow. Grammar. Posted by JaimeBenlevy (Member # 6222) on :
*Whacks Jonathon back* *Runs away like a chicken*
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
*trips infront of Jaime getting into a big enough tangle that lasts just long enough for Jonathon to catch up
Posted by JaimeBenlevy (Member # 6222) on :
Arghhhh. You're right. My Tanach teacher was teaching us about both men in the same lesson and somehow I thought it was Hanasi who revived Hebrew. Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Let's get the Binyanim a little more simplified:
You've got seven. Check any dictionary, ask any academy person (and I have) - there are seven. Three active, three passive, one which is both. Beinony Pa'il and Beinony Pa'ul are both forms of Binyan Pa'al.
If you like. It's not very accurate, though. It's the commonly used explanation in Modern Hebrew, but it creates apparent anomalies where there are none. Like nichnas. Not a very passive verb there, but it works just fine as a causative reflexive.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Note that the Binyanim have specified meanings, but none of them are properly consistent - meaning that different roots will have different semantics in the same form. "Hitnashek" means "[he] kissed", "hitratza" means "[he was] pardoned".
They're a bit more consistent than they appear with the simplified schema you posted. Also, words that were coined in Modern Hebrew don't necessarily follow the original rules.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard:
quote: To the best of my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong), all 4 letter roots are imports from other languages like l'talfen, neologisms like l'machshev, or words in the overlooked shaf'el binyan like l'shachzer, where the root is still really 3 letters.
No. What about "hashmal" (and "barzel", but it's verbless) and all those xyxy (like pirper, gimgem, timtem)?
All of the xyxy roots are considered grammatically to be derived from xy. Except for those that were loan words to begin with. There are also a lot of xyy words that are really forms of xy.
Hashmal has no known antecedent in Hebrew. It appears once in the book of Ezekiel, and no one really knows what its original meaning was or what language it's from. Barzel... I don't know, actually. That's an interesting example. I'll have to look into it.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard:
quote: And 2 letter roots really have a weak consonent like vav or yud as the middle letter. No?
All the roots originated in two letters. And what about the word "shav"? It has no "weak" vav or yod that I remember!
Shav as in lashuv, or shav as in tefillat shav? With a vet or a vav?
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard:
quote: I'm just tired of being told my language is more illogical or nonsensical or stupid than other languages.
But it is! I've learned Hebrew, Arabic and Latin grammar, all of which I believe I know rather well for the time I spent on them. None ven compares in complexity to English.
<nod> I agree completely. What do the words "teach", "fight", "catch", "think", "wreak", "buy" and "seek" have in common?
I'm glad I grew up speaking English, because I don't know that I would have had the patience for it otherwise.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard:
quote: There's a pseudo-tense in Hebrew called tsivui
Pseudo-tense?! Tzivui is not pseudo!
It's pseudo in the sense that it isn't really a tense. It's... I don't know what the proper word is. A mood, maybe?
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Just because Israelis forget it exists does not mean it's pseudo! It's a perfectly fine tense, being just as complete as the future tense is - having being formed contemporaily! If anything, cancel the "present" out as a tense!
A case can be made for that.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard:
quote: And what's this calling him Ben Yehuda? His name is definitely Yehudah HaNasi *picking pointless argument for being proven wrong*
*Whacks Jaime.* (I finally get to whack someone.)
Heh.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote:
quote: Let's get the Binyanim a little more simplified:
You've got seven. Check any dictionary, ask any academy person (and I have) - there are seven. Three active, three passive, one which is both. Beinony Pa'il and Beinony Pa'ul are both forms of Binyan Pa'al.
If you like. It's not very accurate, though. It's the commonly used explanation in Modern Hebrew, but it creates apparent anomalies where there are none. Like nichnas. Not a very passive verb there, but it works just fine as a causative reflexive.
Well, technically they're not exactly "verbs", but only part of the Beinony form which is called that because it's neither a verb nor a noun (like "shomer"). As for nichnas, it's like talking about the difference between [/i]nishmar[/i] and shamur, where both are - in fact - passive forms of "shomer" but are a loittl different. We haven't gone through the details of the complete properties of each binyan (like the reflexive bit in the case of nichnas, though it's quite different from hitkanes).
quote: They're a bit more consistent than they appear with the simplified schema you posted. Also, words that were coined in Modern Hebrew don't necessarily follow the original rules.
Sure, they are remarkably consistent, in fact (with the exception as to what verb appears in what binyanim). I was giving a clear-cut example of a difference, but it as not using modern words... They are both Biblical.
As for the word hashmal, I can try and trace it's meaning today in Da'at Mikra (I simply don't have that volume at home, but at school the whole set is present).
quote:Shav as in lashuv, or shav as in tefillat shav? With a vet or a vav?
With a vet rafa, שָׁב.
quote: It's pseudo in the sense that it isn't really a tense. It's... I don't know what the proper word is. A mood, maybe?
It's a tense no less existent than the future tense. And we all know that that one is a proper one. People underestimate its value, sure, but it is as grammatically and structurally a tense as any others ("hove" taken out of account).
Jonathan
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
So*, I've read (I think it was in James Michener's The Source) that you can get any three Jews together and get five opinions. Would this thread then be evidence that that statement is correct?
(Before you villify me for being religionist/culturalist/racist, the same can be said for any three Canadians . . . Or Mennonites . . . Or . . .)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yes. Except for five opinions, I think you only need two Jews.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
It's two Jews and three opinions. So three and five should be right.
It's true, though; read any profound Halacha book (or the Gemarrah, for that matter).
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
And right there, we have two and three. Thank you, rivka and JH for confirming that. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*twinkles*
*bows*
Hey, JH, think we should should take this on the road? Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
where would you get those books in english? I don't know why but I have this sort've fascination with Jewish culture that I can't explain in words.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
The Gemarrah will never be the same not in the original Vilna publication, but that's the best you'll get. They're damn expensive, though.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
kk thanks.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
The Gemarrah will never be the same not in the original Vilna publication, but that's the best you'll get. They're damn expensive, though.
Just be wary of Artscroll books. They're okay for beginners, but they oversimplify a lot, and they tend to ignore alternate opinions in favor of one monolithic view that may not always reflect any kind of Orthodox Jewish consensus.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
See, the only thing of ArtScroll's that I possess is their cheapest Hebrew-only prayer-book, which cost me 5 times as much as another one from a different publication (that's also far better, and the book - though smaller - is hardcover).
I wouldn't know about their commentary. I specifically got something without it (or translation, for that matter).
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: See, the only thing of ArtScroll's that I possess is their cheapest Hebrew-only prayer-book, which cost me 5 times as much as another one from a different publication (that's also far better, and the book - though smaller - is hardcover).
I wouldn't know about their commentary. I specifically got something without it (or translation, for that matter).
I like Rinat Yisrael better.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Or Koren...
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Or Koren...
Their font makes my eyes hurt after a while. But it's nice to have a whole chumash with a siddur in back. Less to lug around.
I wonder how many people who read your post thought Koren was related to Quran? <grin>
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
*raises hand*
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
*Laughs*, yeah - forgot about that!
Though it makes your eyes hurt, it's still the highest-quality font around.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: *Laughs*, yeah - forgot about that!
Though it makes your eyes hurt, it's still the highest-quality font around.
<shrug> I'm not sure what the objective criteria are for a font being high quality, but I far prefer the one used in the Rinat. I think it's called Frank Ruehl.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
It's either Frank Ruehl or Times New Roman. The criterion from Koren's point on a good font is one that can cover all the Siddur/Machzor will ever need. And Guttman Keren (their font) is excellent because it fits letters, Niqqud and cantillation easily. It's FAR easier and better to read than Rinat Yisrael's typeface for Biblical passages.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: It's either Frank Ruehl or Times New Roman. The criterion from Koren's point on a good font is one that can cover all the Siddur/Machzor will ever need. And Guttman Keren (their font) is excellent because it fits letters, Niqqud and cantillation easily. It's FAR easier and better to read than Rinat Yisrael's typeface for Biblical passages.
It does do better with trope. That's true.
Posted by Loial (Member # 5788) on :
Hmm, this thread has completely evolved beyond its original topic (which in itself wasn't something I would have expected to find in this forum). Not that I'm complaining, it had some interesting moments, and brought back some vague memories from my final grammar exam on 10th grade .
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
I have that exam in another few months. Any advice besides listening vigilantly, which I do?
Posted by lonelywalker (Member # 7815) on :
As Scot in Israel, I've never been totally unable to communicate with an Israeli. Most Israelis (native Hebrew and native Arabic speakers) that I encounter do speak very good English. However, the people I encounter do tend to be university students, and you have to be able to speak a reasonably high level of English in order to get into university.
However, that said, I still encounter fluent English speakers in the least expected places.
It also helps that I speak rudimentary Hebrew, and that charades can be employed (not the case on ICQ).
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
You can always talk to me in English, and I'm barely part of any university. I was a part - briefly - two years ago, but not really now.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: I have that exam in another few months. Any advice besides listening vigilantly, which I do?
What test was that, again?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Still no answer to my quiz question:
quote:What do the words "teach", "fight", "catch", "think", "wreak", "buy" and "seek" have in common?
C'mon, you language fans.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
they're all action verbs?
Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
I tried reading this thread. Got halfway through it and wanted to kill myself. Grammar Nazis! Its ok guys. As long as the other guy gets the jist of what you mean you can usually figure out the rest. Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: they're all action verbs?
Hint: Put them in past tense.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
They are all infinitives.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Bah, I don't think I was ever taught english grammar, like WTF is an infinitive? We hear about in french class all the f*****g time yet we never understand it.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:What do the words "teach", "fight", "catch", "think", "wreak", "buy" and "seek" have in common?
The past tense of teach is taught The past tense of fight is fought The past tense of catch is caught The past tense of think is thought The past tense of wreak is wrought The past tense of buy is bought The past tense of seek is sought
I'll say it again: if I hadn't grown up speaking English, I can't imagine I'd have had the patience to learn something so wonky.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Bah, I don't think I was ever taught english grammar, like WTF is an infinitive? We hear about in french class all the f*****g time yet we never understand it.
To go. To walk. To speak. To boldly go where no man has gone before.
When you hear people going on about split infinitives (one of the two big crimes against pedantic grammarians), what they mean is what I did above. They'd say it should be "to go boldly". Splitting an infinitive means putting anything between "to" and the verb it's attached to.
The New Oxford Dictionary of English says, quite sanely, that splitting infinitives is absolutely fine, so long as you're making yourself understood.
Another bugaboo (the other crime against pedants) is ending a sentence with a preposition. You're not supposed to say "Where are you going to". You're supposed to say, "To where are you going".
I read somewhere about the a**hole clause, which says that you can fix any sentence that ends in a preposition by adding a comma and the word "a**hole". So if you ask someone "Where are you going to?" and they bust you about ending the sentence with a preposition, you simply re-ask it as "Where are you going to, a**hole?"
Needless to say, the New Oxford Dictionary of English blows this silly rule off as well.
Posted by Loial (Member # 5788) on :
quote:I have that exam in another few months. Any advice besides listening vigilantly, which I do?
Are you talking about בחינת בגרות בלשון ? Because that's what I was refering to. And I have no advice. I forgot everything Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
Google defines it as I did: construction. And perhaps "acting" is a better description than "aggressive"; but the two binyanim contain verbs that refer to someone/thing acting on/to others. (As opposed to the binyanim which are passive or reflexive.)![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
That's right, not even the alphabet. My Hebrew teacher believes that learning transliteration prevents students from learning to read the actual Hebraic language. As a result I didn't learn any of it. So again, I apologize for my poor transliteration of the alphabet. My Hebrew textbook is currently in a trunk along with my copy of the Brown Driver Briggs. ![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. In that case, 12 words is not bad (though not very impressive), since we only start to learn English at the age of 10-11. ![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
... ![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)