> What I'm saying is that a transliteration system won't teach people how
> to speak,
> and anyway, if they speak how we tell them to, they won't speak at they
> did in Jesus' day,
> and if they did, they wouldn't be speaking like they did in Moses day.
> So is it worth it? Well, maybe, if they have believed their Hebrew
> textbooks.
I think it's worth having _a_ way of speaking, even if it's not
authentic, for communication purposes and to help learn the language and
terms. (I can remember hesed, even if it's pronounced with the wrong h,
but couldn't remember three random symbols and a handful of dots!)
> But wouldn't it be helpful to give them a transliteration system which
> enables them to use a Hebrew lexicon without knowing any Hebrew letters?
> We could produce a Hebrew Bible in transliteration, and a copy of
> Strong's lexicon in transliteration.
> The scanned copies of lexicons wouldn't be in transliteration of course,
> but the indexes to them could be.
This I hadn't thought of and is a good argument for a fuller scheme. I'm
still not sure it's wise to go for something which is similar to a
standard scheme but with subtle differences, as anyone who has access to
our material then happens upon (say) an IVP dictionary is liable to be
confused.
(Not my problem for data entry though - I'm intending to type direct in
Hebrew as it's easier to check that way.)
Colin
No comments:
Post a Comment