[B-Greek] Listening to Romans 5:1 (Greek NT Audio)
Randall Buth
randallbuth at gmail.com
Fri Oct 10 12:14:51 EDT 2008
These emails are getting long and it is important for some points of
'agree to disagree' to be pointed out where appropriate.
New discussion here is mostly on the connection between AUDIO PEDAGOGY
and pronunciation choices (numbers 3, 5, 6 in the summary). There is
also included some material and quotes from Caragounis for those who
have not benefitted from access to his book. For clarity I present a
summary.
Summary
I would advise a new student to consider both or either the KOINH
and/or Modern schemes because:
1. It is Greek.
2. It has historical fidelity
3. It does not diminish motivation through a 'known skewing' of the
system or probable rejection by Greeks.
4. It is quite easy for Western Europeans.
5. Spelling is not a detriment even for short, initial learning when
audio pedagogies are the main medium.
6. For teachers I would recommend KOINH as part of a commitment to
audio pedagogies, where 1 - 3 above can be achieved at no cost (or low
cost for those who would like to write in KOINH).
Erasmian pronunciation can be justified as an approach, but Erasmian
is properly a choice for
1. written pedagogies, where spelling plays the role of primary input,
2. where a connection with HELLAS is deemed unimportant,
3. where historical fidelity to KOINH is deemed unimportant,
4. if one's school demands it. (Yes, that, too, is a consideration,
though there is often more flexibility than assumed.)
end of summary
**NB**
I argue the pronunciation issue because I agree with Louis that
Erasmian tends to undermine audio pedagogies. It does not have to do
this theoretically, but it does, and it has. That is the BIG issue
that lies between the lines.**
now to the thread:
LouisS:
I feel the greatest danger your suggestion poses is that IT WILL SEND
STUDENTS IN THE WRONG DIRECTION. Those on the list that have studied
Greek for any number of years already have their basic pronunciation
system set. One of the replies from one on the list said that he had
no problem switching between Erasmian, modern, and Imperial Koine only
after several days (or hours)? Like many of us who have been exposed
to different systems, you learn to adapt. Dr. Buth, and also myself
have used Homeric, Erasmian and Modern pronunciations at given times
in our lives. But switching between pronunciations IS NOT EASY."
LeonardJ: I think the lister who said that he had no problem switching
between Erasmian, modern and Imperial Koine is probably correct. It
should NOT be too difficult to switch between the various
pronunciations when READING aloud to oneself at one's own pace. Of
course, to switch between different pronunciations when SPEAKING in
real time is a different ball game.
RandallB: Leonard's response misses the main point (all caps by
LOUIS). First of all, spelling is not a primary consideration or
medium in language acquisition. It is secondary, after a core of the
language is already internalized. Secondly, a person can read a
written text equally well in modern, KOINH, Erasmian, or truer-Attic
pronunciations. More below. Leonard was content with being able to
read a passage out loud.
But Louis was concerned about Erasmian sending students in the wrong
direction. What and Why?
(I will propose my own answer, of course. I do not claim to speak for Louis.)
First, suggesting that spelling is the most important, perhaps the
sole criterion in choosing a pronunciation, is probably only arguable
in a non-audio pedagogy. In an audio pedagogy spelling is expected to
be learned secondarily and teachers and theorists prefer that the
student first depends on the sound system of the language for
internalizing the learning. If the language is learned visually, the
sound system may never form in the proper place in the student's
brain. Secondly, non-audio pedagogies are significantly less efficient
in the short term (1-2 years; that may include most who sign up for
this list), and absolutely fail in the long term (5-15 years).
Furthermore, telling students that any sound system is OK, even if
historically inaccurate, subliminally says, "sound is unimportant,"
with corollaries that "audio pedagogies are a personal taste," and
"they do not expect students to strive for a fluent control of the
language in 'real time'." Theoretically Erasmians could change their
pedagogy to an audio mode, but then the incorrectness of the system
AND the non-acceptance by Greeks could still undermine motivation for
maintaining the system to the necessary level. We should not make a
mistake here: a lot of motivation is necessary to wade against a
massive tide in the opposite direction. (Or hasn't the reader noticed
what could be called the inertia of the field and the unending threads
on pedagogy over the past umpteen years? Some of us aren't giving up
on the field.)
I think a point of 'agree to disagree' emerges here. From SLA (Second
Language Acquisition studies) one may argue that audio/oral pedagogies
are more efficient than "primarily written", when correctly done. But
importantly for this conversation---audio pedagogies do not depend on
spelling for learning and internalizing the language. The core of the
language is internalized by sound, not spelling. (Erasmians do not
usually consider this. Spelling does not slow down the learner in an
audio pedagogy. I learned French by sound and had a secretary clean up
my written notes when I worked in Chad. My spelling was usually 'in
the ballpark'. Syntax and style were more critical.) Consequently,
spoken pedagogies are free to adopt a KOINH pronunciation, IF there
are some perceived or real benefits (like 'being Greek, 'historically
faithful, 'increased motivation'). On the other hand, "primarily
written" pedagogies may feel much safer in an Erasmian system, the
more artificially distinguished the better. This is certainly true for
those already in such systems.
So far, there can be agreement to disagree, especially when working
within differing pedagogies.
But what about leaving a door open for internalization of the
language? Here there is some disagreement and there has been a
confusion of issues.
It is in the change from a written to audio pedagogy where the issue
needs discussion. And for that, it is good for someone to have some
hands on experience with audio/oral based language teaching, Greek or
other. When written form is not the primary medium for
internalization, spelling loses the looming importance that Leonard is
assuming. It must be considered along with other potentially more
important factors. Spelling is learned primarily through reading, and
reading is not hindered at all by a KOINH PROFORA 'pronunciation',
since it is consistent in the direction of symbol-to-sound. One
significant point for consideration in changing to an audio system is
—'how does one want to end up?' Because as Louis, Leonard, and myself
ALL AGREE, it is not an easy task to switch pronunciation at the end
of the road for rapid communication. That is why the issue is
important for the beginning student and teacher. The first change that
must be made is a commitment to take the student out of a written
pedagogy mode. That is for efficiency's sake in a quick introduction
to the language, for intermediate level reading skills, and for
advanced level reading, in short, for language internalization and
speed of acquisition and learning.
A commitment to an audio pedagogy is the important watershed.
LeonardJ: Dr Buth, ... has so far submitted the best example he could
think of for the value of reading the NT in that pronunciation: Romans
5:1! …
RandallB: Like I said, I didn't want to write a monograph. And the
fact that several comments about the verse by "Erasmians" were
incorrect underlines even this one example. See Caragounis, pages
339-582, for a "monograph". Tony Pope noted Caragounis' work for
chapter 8 with 36 numbered examples and there are others in passing.
There are 17 pages on 1 Cor 13:3 alone, 547-564. I support Caragounis
conclusion, that καυθησωμαι KAYQHSWMAI is a future indicative, spelled
in a way acceptable to Byzantine Greeks. (Please read before
responding to this point, because Caragounis is more sophisticated
than simply pointing out the sound equivalence.) One might have
mentioned chapter 7, Rhetorical Effects, too.
Further on Rom 5:1: Erasmians don't always fully grasp the text/sound
situation even with the sound systems pointed out. They think within
an Erasmian framework, they often unconsciously trust it for some
historical reliability, and do not usually have a working grasp of
phonology (whether strucural, generative, natural, autosegmental or
optimality.)
Briefly, as an example from the thread, followed by a scholarly example:
> #1 Phonology changes faster than morphology.
RB: Not true. The five vowel system has been in place for over a
millenium, during which time Greek morphology has continued to change.
> #2. We don't KNOW, do we, how many NT readers and writers would have pronounced omega and omicron alike? Could not some of them have had fancy, affected classical accents?>
RB: Actually, this approach and rhetorical question is upside down. We
don't know if anyone used such an affected dialect in normal speech on
the street anywhere. (Does anyone speak Chaucerian English today on
the street? Certainly English professors understand it and can use
it.) We do know what the common pronunciation was (7 phonemic vowels)
and we do know that Paul and Luke did not artificially affect some
archaic Greek dialect. So "Yes", we can be reasonably certain that
Paul and Luke were using a 7-vowel system travelling around the
Mediterranean.
> #3 Would not ECWMEN and ECOMEN have been accented
> differently? And does not pronouncing both letters long make
> the accent rules impossible?
RB: Besides misunderstanding the accent rules (something more in
character with British Erasmian than US Erasmian), there were no
'long'--'short' distinctions in the first century. People need to
digest this, otherwise they may assume 'slight differences' in
pronunciation as is sometimes done in NT studies. Caragounis pointed
out in his book that Erasmians, even scholars writing commentaries
like Sanday and Hedlam or Cranfield, sometimes have a fuzzy idea of
what was happening, summarizing, p 542, "The rather hazy and
inaccurate awareness of what exactly was at work is easy to detect in
the remarks of commentators."
Basically, most Erasmians (or any Greek reader) do not think
"phonemically" when approaching the first century or NT. The nice
thing about KOINH PROFORA is that it is already phonemic and one does
not need to teach a student theoretical phonology in order for them to
more accurately understand what is happening. In fact, it is the lack
of phonological theory that usually leaves NT scholars talking about
lists of potential mistakes without seeing how discrete units had
reformed into a system. Like quantum physics, while etic sounds can
shift all over the board (perhaps related to "jello" at one point in
the thread), the "sound units" (phonemes) are a tight, closed system
that can be worked fairly easily out as system of discrete units. In
the case of 1st century KOINH that means 7 vowel-sound-units. That is,
we need seven "bags" for nailing this jello to a board. PS to Greek
students: this does not mean that we know how any one dialect of Greek
sounded. We cannot know the exact color of any vowel, only its
relative position in the system and in a physical mouth.
Finally, since most on the list will not have access to Caragounis,
let me quote one paragraph of his on the question of spelling and
pronunciation. I broadly agree with it (not in details of the 5 vowel
system), though as mentioned above, spelling drops out of the pedagogy
argument when the student is first introduced to the language through
an audio medium.
Caragounis, p. 392,
"Today the error of Erasmus has been perceived and lies at the basis
of the awareness that the Erasmian pronunciation does not represent
the ancient Greek pronunciation.168
((ft. 168: This recognition has led to a nonchalant attitude with
regard to the pronunciation of Greek by teachers of Greek. …))
This has led to a change of argument from scientific fidelity to
practicality. Pronouncing Greek in the Erasmian way is supposed to
save the student of Greek from the trouble of distinguishing between
the spelling of the different ι-sounds169,
((ft. 169 The complaint that Modern Greek has too many i-sounds, --
i.e., six [seven with ῃ] in all – is totally unfounded. The i-sounds
occurring in English have been computed to over twenty. A check of the
first 100 vowels occurring in Matthew ch. 2, John, Romans, Acts, and
Revelation gives the following average of i-sounds per 100 vowels:
Greek 19.2; English 32.4; German 19.6; French 13.6; Italian 20.2; and
Dutch 21.8.))
and this facilitarian argument has become the main argument for
persisting in a variety of pronunciations which are unnatural for
Greek. However, this argument is not entirely correct. In my
thirty-four years of experience in teaching the Greek New Testament to
Swedish students (as well as British, Belgian, Dutch, and others) –
the first twenty-four and one half years of which I pronounced it in
the Erasmian way! – I found that if my students were able to
distinguish H from I, they confused it with E. They also tended to
confuse X with K and Q with T. Moreover, the disregard of stress (the
accented syllable) by Erasmians not only produces an un-Greek sound,
but it also confuses different words spelled identically, whose
difference in meaning is indicated by their being accented on
different syllable.171 ((ft. 171 Caragounis provides a long list of
examples--RB)) In other words, it is not quite true that this un-Greek
pronunciation 'helps us to spell Greek correctly'!"
Since Caragounis has published a 732 page book with pronunciation as
one of his themes, along with the unbroken continuity of the Greek
language, it would be fair to add his reasons to the thread for using
a "Historical pronuncation", [i.e. a 5-vowel modern system—RB]
summarized from 394-396. [Personally, I would delete the word
'insuperable' and simply say that Erasmian has difficulties. Points 2
and 3 stand as written]:
1. Erasmian is beset by insuperable difficulties.
1a. no one learns pronunciation from a book.
1b. Erasmians should use different pronunciations for different
periods [Caragounis is responding to the "scientific" argument here.
This would apply to KOINH—RB]
1c. Four and one half centuries have failed to convince Erasmian
theorists themselves. [Caragounis quotes a page of theoretical and
practical admissions from Sidney Allen]
2. The Historical pronunciation [i.e. 5 vowel-sound-units of
modern—RB] is a sine qua non for textual criticism.
3. Pragmatically, the Historical Greek pronunciation will facilitate
scholarly contact with Hellas.
This last point may be more important than NT people realize. (Maybe
its because I like RETSINA. :-) Ignoring it has led to a
compartmentalization and separation of NT Greek from the whole
language of which it is a part. Throughout the last 12 years that I've
been using a KOINH pronunciation, I have been conscious of the need to
consider rapprochement with modern Greek. Fortunately, KOINH and
Modern are close enough that this can be justified and tolerated. Now
I have enough historicist blood in me to appreciate a reconstructed
ATTIC reading of the old poetry, both plays and EPIC. But I treat this
like Chaucer for English. And since my focus is Hellenistic/KOINH, I
have chosen a KOINH.
In sum:
I would advise a new student to consider both or either the KOINH
and/or Modern schemes because:
1. It is Greek.
2. It has historical fidelity
3. It does not diminish motivation through a 'known skewing' of the
system or certain rejection by Greeks.
4. It is quite easy for Western Europeans.
5. Spelling is not a detriment even for short, initial learning when
audio pedagogies are the main medium.
6. For teachers I would recommend KOINH as part of a commitment to
audio pedagogies, where 1 - 3 above can be achieved at no cost (or low
cost for those who would like to write in KOINH).
Erasmian can be justified as an approach, but Erasmian is properly a choice for
1. written pedagogies, where spelling plays the role of primary input,
2. where a connection with HELLAS is deemed UNimportant,
3. where historical fidelity to KOINH is deemed UNimportant,
4. if one's school demands it. (Yes, that, too, is a consideration,
though there is frequently more flexibility than assumed.)
(5. For Epic one would want a 'Restored Erasmian', not just any
beginning Erasmian.)
--
Randall Buth, PhD
www.biblicalulpan.org
randallbuth at gmail.com
Biblical Language Center
Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list