It seems odd that here speaking methods seem to have universal support
while in the wider world traditional methods still rule.
I thought it would be interesting to check whether we are really as unanimous as we seem to be
Scribo wrote:Depends on the type of language and your goal really. I've never heard anybody advocate for spoken Akkadian...
C. S. Bartholomew wrote:the subject has been discussed Ad nauseam on b-greek. Not that it isn't worth discussing but after listening to second language advocates for a decade and a half, it does get old. The topic has now probably surpassed verb aspect which was previously the undisputed winner of the over discussed topics award. Verb aspect was very 1990s, but it never seems to stop being talked about.
daivid wrote: I had a suspicion that reason that debates on the issue are so one sided is not because everyone agrees but because those who disagree find the topic uninspiring.
C. S. Bartholomew wrote:
Actually it would be great to have a language community who spoke the Greek of Aeschylus or Sophocles. But there doesn't seem to be two scholars that say the words the same way. When I was auditing Elizabeth Vandiver's excellent courses on Attic Tragedy I noticed her Greek had an accent. Something that people who grew up in the Pacific North West (PNW) notice because we don't have an accent[1]. The biggest shock listening to Elizabeth Vandiver was her rendering of CHI which sounded kind of like a rough aspiration with no hard sounds, just air. Phonology is not my strong suit. I stay away from it like I did calculus in college..
Scribo wrote:
I DO find it interesting how often this debate is confined to Greek though as per my own earlier (unfunny?![]()
) joke whereas, e.g, Indologists tend to force themselves to learn Sanskrit communicatively or else not be considered proficient and Latin seems to occupy a midway point.
pster wrote:Among people who improvise music (ie those who actually compose in real time) there is unanimity about the importance of singing every note you play on your instrument. You read that right. There is nobody who disagrees. Some folks admit they are lazy and don't do it as much as they should. Moreover, many rank it as the single most important thing. By singing the notes, one learns to hear them ahead of time in one's head.
pster wrote:Among people who improvise music (ie those who actually compose in real time) there is unanimity about the importance of singing every note you play on your instrument. You read that right. There is nobody who disagrees. Some folks admit they are lazy and don't do it as much as they should. Moreover, many rank it as the single most important thing. By singing the notes, one learns to hear them ahead of time in one's head. And keep in mind that is for people who (for the most part) don't actually utter the notes when it comes time to actually perform.
Anybody claiming that speaking methods are not the best for a language needs to explain why language is so different from music despite its possessing most of the properties of music, such as rhythm, pitch, similar phrase lengths, etc, and an overlapping history in poetry.
cristianovalois wrote: But pay heed: the Greek variant chosen by the author is the Koinè, though this does not detract from its utility, since anyone who knows Attic will point to the fact that the Koinè is a later universalized form of Attic, it is basically the same, take my word, the differences you can easily learn by yourself, such as pronunciation, which follows the rule that written Greek is litteral Attic and then suffers changes into the hellenistic variant.
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 102 guests