[B-Greek] Greek NT Audio

Louis Sorenson llsorenson at hotmail.com
Sun Oct 5 13:13:25 EDT 2008







Leonard,

Your arguments for using Erasmian pronunciation are pedagogically utilitarian.  While there are early gains in learning spelling, the long-term consequences are that such an approach short-changes the student who wants to go further. It puts on them a huge burden if they ever want to learn historical pronunciation and reap the benefits derived from reading the NT as it sounded.

The arguments for using Erasmian pronunciation have been based on three arguments: 1) you will learn spelling quicker and 2) there are more available audio resources for Erasmian pronunciation, and 3) it is the status quo -- it's what most people use.  The thrust of Leonard's argument is that if you study using the
conventional methods and may occasionally use audio materials, you SHOULD use the Erasmian system.  As long as you can keep the sounds for
the various vowels and diphthongs separate, the Erasmian pronunciation 
has greater value -- if you let the vowel sounds overlap, Erasmian
declines in value.

The argument is also based on the implied assumption that HOW one learns Greek is not important.  It assumes that to use spoken Greek, one must do an immersion (im-mer-she-own in spell-talk) approach, which most people cannot undertake. The Four approaches given by you (Leonard Jayawardena), are kind of a mixed bag; perhaps one should include the five elements in any mix-match situation:
A student learning by self-study or learning with the aid of a teacher-mentorThe inclusion of audio and visual materials in the curriculumThe inclusion of manipulation/creation elements: prose composition, spoken manipulation
The pedagogy used: conventional, living language, inductive, etc...The time frame of the initial year of study: immersion (e.g. 5 weeks), normal (e.g. 1 year)
I just cannot understand why those so bent on using concepts developed in the previous century would want their new students to learn a model of engineering based on historically  inaccurate assumptions.  or "Don't use LSJ, use Craemer's lexicon." The justification that Erasmian is 'better' and should be the standard is based primarily on the argument 'it sounds like it is spelled'.  

Oh yeah, and there are soooo many audio resources out there (most with INCORRECT accentuation).  and again - it is what is used in academia.  Such an argument posits that "Imperial Koine" audio resources (in a correct historical pronunciation) would take decades to develop.  There is a lack of  "Imperial Koine" audio resources, but that is an easy fix.  Does anyone think that a major corporation such as Rosetta stone would pick a version of Erasmian to produce a Koine Greek language version? I believe they would most likely choose Modern Greek. -- possibly Living Koine, but never the artificial Erasmian. 

The idogma that one SHOULD learn using Erasmian ranks up there with that great idea that "accents are not important and should not be studied".  Yes, make it easy on the student - don't teach them the accent stuff.  After all, Koine is a dead language and is not meant to be spoken. The result of such an approach is that you end up having everybody pronounce the word in their own way.  When you get a few students that want to go further, they find that they were short-changed.  The best part of audio (for vocabulary and reading) is that it helps one internalize the accents.  I have spent years unlearning mis-accented words. It's rather embarassing (when teaching a class) when I either write a word with the wrong accent or say it one way, only to find the accent is on a different syllable. My outcome was from a learning method that had no audio resources involved. 

I just don't get the argument - students can later learn what was the historical pronunciation.  This assumes that Papyri, inscriptions, variant readings, and all alternate spellings should only be taught in cleaned-up format.  Every piece of Greek should be scrubbed clean, spellings leveled, etc. So don't bother looking at inscriptions.  But learning a new language involves in one's mind trying to comprehend similarities.  If you never teach SOUND/SPELLING associations until third or fourth year Greek, your students will not be hard-wired to   be able to think that 'one word. e.g. UGIOU, could ever sound like UIOU. And you cannot 'change over a person's pronunciation' once it is embedded.  So tell your graduate students, "Yes, I know that's how we pronounced it beginning and intermediate Greek, but this is Graduate level Greek." I think that in the long term, those who get involved in collating manuscripts, and editing texts would lose out and miss possible correct or incorrect emendations and not be able to fill out lacuna because they are working in an aural vacuum.

It would be interesting to know where those in the academia are positioned on this issue. Anyone who is intellectually honest, would agree that a restored pronunciation would be preferable. But I'm sure there are those pragmatists out there, who in the plea for simplicity or status quo, would opt for the Erasmian pronunciation.  And if they could "start over", I wonder how many of those who currently know Koine Greek would vote for learning a pronunciation that was actually spoken by Paul, Luke, Aquila, etc..

LJ wrote:   The word "fluency" means "the ability to speak and/or write a particular language competently and with ease....But the purpose of Koine Greek, is to be able to read the NT, not to speak it.... Speaking and reading are different skills. 

If I were looking for a seminary or classics department to study under, pronunciation scheme would probably not be the issue. But I would hope that the professor(s) would be fluent in Koine. But what does fluent mean? Able to read fluently? Able to write fluently -- Greek composition has little place in any NT department, I am sure. Able to manipulate the language? A student says, "How would you say in Greek, "This is the best thing I have ever seen!"? Could the professor immediately give two or three different ways of translating the phrase?  I would put fluency more on this level. Reading fluency is so entrenched in the English translation format.  If  you can "spit out a translation of any given NT verse from the Greek", you  are fluent.  That is where a living language approach comes into play -- when you have to manipulate the language.  After years of reading, you eventually get enough phrases floating around your skull so that one may think they "are fluent" in composition -  but don't fool yourself. 

Just because no one today speaks Koine, does not mean that you can not learn quicker, solidify faster, increase vocabulary, etc. by actually speaking Koine.  Yes, most of the beginning Greek grammars out there treat Koine as a Katharevousa, a Greek which was meant to be written, not spoken. But all the old ones included writing exercises.  This has been lost, I believe, to a great degree, so in that many newer books, only short unrelated sentences are to be "composed in Greek". Composition of any form (written or spoken) is most likely .01% of a new students curriculum, when it should be at least 50%.  

Perhaps my reading skills are not the best. I verbalize my words when I read something in English (which is my native language).  This affects my reading speed. But I also verbalize Koine in my head when I read. So if I hear it in my head, I have to have a pronunciation system "I hear".  Most often, that is the accent/pronunciation I have heard my teachers used - correct or incorrect as it was taught to me.  Hearing a mix of  Erasmian version(s) along with  Living Koine is very frustrating. That is why I  read aloud when possible.

A common framework in regards to accents and pronunciations "sets a standard for pronunciation", ensuring that all learners
(and teachers) pronounce the word identically thus enhancing and
enabling communication. Either pronunciation scheme when used consistently could produce the desired outcome, but Erasmian is artificial, obfuscating, unnatural in sound. It becomes even more so as students try to move towards Wenham's model of spell-talk where every vocalic element is pronounced differently. The logical end is that the diphthong OU (omicron-upsilon) be pronounced ah-oo; it is not there yet, but give it time.  Or how about creating an artificial spelling to differentiate the indicative of LUW from the identical subjunctive form?   How many of the arguments on the previous posts' about Erasmian
pronunciation being really "a Koine spell-talk" would have held any
water (i.e. would have been a valid and compelling argument) before the
Great English vowel change? 

I assume that most of those who argue for continuing the Erasmian pronunciation system are either of the opinion a) that  Koine is a dead language and that pronunciation is seldom if ever an important part of pedagogy or b) a student of Greek who is frustrated by the spelling varations of words and would like some simple fix that would solve the problem.     

Louis Sorenson

P.S.  The similarity between Randall Buth's 'Imperial Koine" (Living Koine)
differs from Modern Greek only in the pronunciation of three vowels:
Eta,
Upsilon, and the diphthong Omicron-Iota.  These three itastic changes
came after or towards the end of the 2nd/3rd centuries A.D. So one can
easily see how similar Koine in the Roman imperial period is to that of
modern Greek, and understand how modern Greek speakers could "accept"
Dr. Buth's historic restoration. 


 
_________________________________________________________________
Want to do more with Windows Live? Learn “10 hidden secrets” from Jamie.
http://windowslive.com/connect/post/jamiethomson.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!550F681DAD532637!5295.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_domore_092008


More information about the B-Greek mailing list